Abstract

Purpose: Contemporary adult readers' advisory aims to adhere to (what I term) a pure preference satisfaction model in which librarians provide nonjudgmental book recommendations that satisfy their patrons' aesthetic tastes rather than improve upon them. The purpose of this paper is to determine whether readers' advisors really ought to treat all such tastes as essentially benign, even when doing so may conflict with core commitments to diversity and social responsibility. Design/methodology/approach: This paper utilizes a thought experiment to interrogate our intuitions regarding the practice of recommending recreational materials featuring marginalized protagonists. The author also draws on theoretical insights from feminist aesthetician A.W. Eaton's innovative work on taste in bodies to formulate argumentation addressing the ethical dilemma presented here. Findings: Our reading tastes can, in fact, be oppressive, working to maintain unjust power relations that are often thought to be the product merely of bad beliefs. On the view advanced here, oppressive tastes function as real obstacles to collective self-governance because they systematically distort our judgments of the credibility, empathic accessibility, and fundamental worth of our fellow democratic citizens. Librarians' obligation to protect and promote democracy, therefore, provides practitioners with a crucial justification for recommending diverse books to all readers, even (and perhaps especially) those who actively disprefer them. Originality/value: The paper illustrates how contemporary work in analytic (and specifically feminist) aesthetics can furnish LIS scholars with the intellectual resources to resolve political problems in the library. The author's analysis also lays the groundwork for further consideration of alternative ideals for readers' advisory that will capitalize on the service's educative and emancipatory potential.