The Power of One on One

Front matter

Shopfront Research Series A monographic series published by UTS ePRESS

The Power of One on One

Human Libraries and the challenges of antiracism work

Contents

Introduction Chapter One Chapter Two Chapter Three Chapter Four Chapter Five Conclusion

Bibliography

Background to the research

Introduction

BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH

This monograph is the first comprehensive and independent analysis of Human Libraries (formerly Living Libraries) in Australia. ‘Human Libraries’ refers to an innovative social inclusion community initiative developed in Europe that is increasingly being adopted by public libraries across Australia, and some community groups and government agencies. The report provides an overview of Human Library practices and identifies key challenges for policymakers and practitioners. It also contributes to scholarly debates

on anti-racism work and on the benefits and limits of cross-cultural contact or dialogue within that work.

‘Human Libraries Australia’ is a national strategy for connecting and strengthening local communities through one-on-one conversation between Living Books (generally people facing prejudice within a community) and Readers (members of the general public). ‘Human Libraries Australia’ is funded by the Department of Immigration

and Citizenship and actively supported by the Australian Library and Information Association. In this monograph we document the aims, history and key practices of Human Libraries in Australia, and provide discussion points for people involved. The emergence and development of Human Libraries is analysed with reference to ‘contact theory’ and the aim of addressing prejudice. We also analyse the politics and ethics of comfort and safety negotiated in cross-cultural storytelling.

Despite the increasing popularity of the Human Library strategy, to date there has been relatively little scholarly research on Human Libraries in Australia. Important academic research has been published by a number of scholars themselves closely involved with specific Living Library projects (Garbutt 2008, Kudo et al 2011). A number of insightful reflections by Living Library practitioners have been published, and Human Libraries Australia collects and makes available evaluations of particular projects. The research presented here takes a step back to analyse not only the practicalities of organising

and promoting Human Libraries, but also to reflect on the underlying aims and assumptions. We identify key challenges including the dilemmas raised by the ‘library’ metaphor, debates over community ownership of the project and the complex process of managing safety, risk and discomfort in the Human Library project. We also draw on the established literature on cross-cultural dialogue and ‘contact’ in order to assess the aims and the impact of Human Libraries. While our research finds a strong ‘buzz’ and widespread enthusiasm for the Human Libraries project, we also suggest a need for critical reflection on key questions about the strategy and its implementation.

Note on terminology:

Throughout this report we refer to both ‘Living Libraries’ and the more current term ‘Human Libraries’. In Australia those involved in ‘Living Libraries’ adopted the new terminology ‘Human Libraries’ for the initiative in late 2010. This followed the renaming of the international ‘Living Libraries’ organisation to ‘Human Libraries’ as a result of a legal challenge to the organisation’s right to use the original name under international copyright legislation (see Chapter One). In this report we have chosen to refer also to ‘Living Libraries’, as this was the preferred name used by practitioners and participants while we were conducting our research.

Methodology

This monograph is based on research conducted by Tanja Dreher and Jemima Mowbray and focused on two case studies of well-established, regular Living Libraries in Lismore (the first Living Library in Australia) and Auburn (a culturally diverse area in Western Sydney). Our research employed a range of qualitative research methods, including interviews, participant observations, vox pops, analysis of media coverage and relevant policy, online searching and engagement with scholarly literature. The research was funded by an Early Career Researcher Grant awarded by the University of Technology, Sydney, and took place in 2009-2010. A list of interviewees and events observed is included as an Appendix.

Interviews with organisers and participants in Living Libraries were recorded and transcribed for analysis. The transcripts were shared with interviewees for their feedback and approval. Interviews were semi-structured and open-ended, lasting between 90 minutes and two hours. A total of 15 interviews were recorded with Living Library organisers and with volunteer Living Books in both Lismore and Auburn. During the research process we also engaged in numerous informal conversations with people involved with the Living Libraries studied, recording our notes and observations in

a research diary. We also conducted a small number (8) of ‘vox pop’ interviews with Readers at Auburn Living Library. These short interviews were conducted directly after a ‘reading’ and were also recorded and transcribed.

Participant observation involved attending regular events, launches, meetings and other activities associated with Living Libraries in Sydney and Lismore during 2009-2010. Members of the research team attended Living Library sessions at Ryde and Lismore, as well as several sessions at Auburn Living Library. We also attended the launch of Ryde Living Library, a celebration event for volunteers at Auburn Living Library, the Living Library held at the University of Technology Sydney, and a ‘travelling’ session during which Auburn Living Library visited the NSW country town of Oberon. At Ryde, Lismore and Auburn Living Libraries we also took on the role of Readers, borrowing Living Books in order to experience the Living Library process first-hand. Our observations of each event were recorded in a research diary for later analysis.

During 2009 and 2010 we maintained an ongoing relationship with organisers at Auburn Living Library which involved regular communications, a number of informal meetings and consultations, and a collaborative presentation to the Local Government Association of Australia annual conference in June 2010. This relationship enabled regular discussion and feedback on the research.

Background research into the history and development of Living Libraries was also conducted, focusing on the history of the strategy, the development of the first Living Library in Australia and the subsequent spread of the model. As there is very little scholarly research that analyses Human Libraries, this background research was conducted primarily via conventional internet searching, and relied heavily on materials available via the international Living Libraries (now Human Libraries) website, and the Australian Living Libraries website (now Human Libraries Australia).

Research Framework

This research analyses Human Libraries as an innovative new antiracism strategy.

The first Living Libraries began as community-led responses to local experiences of racism in the context of wider politics of fear and prejudice during the ‘war on terror’ both internationally - at the Roskilde Music Festival in Denmark, and in Australia -- at Lismore in northern NSW. While the aims and activities of Living Libraries have diversified as the concept has been widely applied, our research focuses on the original aims of addressing prejudice and racism. We analyse the achievements and limitations of Human Libraries as an antiracism strategy, and reflect on the pros and cons of the shifting aims of Living Library projects.

The framework for analysis was developed with reference to the scholarly literature on antiracism strategies, and on the possibilities and limitations of contact theory and storytelling techniques in particular. Here we focus on critiques of existing antiracism strategies in order to identify the key challenges for innovation.

Theoretical threads: contact and storytelling

A number of seemingly common-sense values underpin the operation of Living Libraries, including the belief that contact between groups and individuals will reduce prejudice and stereotyping, and a belief that social conflict or fear of difference can be addressed through techniques of storytelling, dialogue or conversation. These assumptions are often taken for granted in the organisation of Living Libraries, but also in a wide range of community relations strategies such as cultural awareness workshops, interfaith dialogues and reconciliation circles. In a survey of contemporary antiracism strategies in Australia, Pedersen, Walker and Wise (2005) found that individual and interpersonal strategies were most common, with many based on the assumed value of contact and/ or conversation across differences. Despite the popularity of these strategies, there

is conflicting evidence as to their effectiveness. While it may seem self-evident that dialogue and intergroup mixing will lesson prejudice and build trust, there is evidence within the scholarly research to suggest that this is not always the case. Indeed, critics of the politics of intercultural dialogue and cross-cultural contact argue that the very prevalence of these strategies can in fact divert attention and energies from more challenging and structural approaches to shifting inequality.

As discussed by Rob Garbutt (2008), contact theory or the ‘contact hypothesis’ is one

of the ‘theoretical threads’ woven into the aims and organisation of Living Libraries as first developed in Australia and internationally. Kazuhiro Kudo and his colleagues also used intergroup contact theory in order to analyse the Dokkyo Human Library that they organised within their own university in Tokyo (2011). Contact theory was pioneered in the USA during the 1950s by Gordon Allport who argued that intergroup contact could reduce prejudice if four key conditions were met:

. Equal group status within the situation . Common goals

. Intergroup cooperation

The support of authorities, law or custom

These criteria were supported by early post-World War II studies which showed that

‘whites with the most contact with blacks during their military service often experienced a reduction in their prejudices’ (Niele 2008: 413) and the rapid acceptance of black

players on formerly all-white teams following the integration, or de-segregation, of

professional baseball in the US. The hypothesis has been the subject of considerable research since, with variable results.

Thomas Pettigrew (1998) has surveyed the scholarly ‘contact’ research and identified a number of key problems:

Instead of optimal contact reducing prejudice, it may be that prejudiced people simply avoid contact with outgroups. Pederson and Barlow (2008) also remind us that participants in prejudice reduction workshops typically self-select, and people who

are unwilling to have their attitudes challenged are unlikely to engage. Where short-term attitudinal change has been achieved, participants have usually self-selected, demonstrating a pre-existing openness to change (Rodenborg and Huynh: 34, Case 2007, Pederson and Barlow 2008).

The hypothesis does not explain how or why change happens Individual change effects cannot be generalised:

— The changes do not necessarily generalise across situations. For example, white attitudes towards black soldiers improved due to WWII contact, but whites continued to favour racially segregated stores (Pettigrew 1998: 74).

— The changes do not necessarily generalise from an individual member of an outgroup to the entire outgroup. There is very little evidence that positive effects from getting to know an outgroup member (interpersonal effects) could affect attitudes about the outgroup (intergroup effects) (Pettigrew 1998: 75) Hill and Augoustinos (2001: 246) also find a problem of ‘typicality’ in antiracism interventions, as ‘positive’ role models’ from outgroups are not recognised as typical of the group.

— Changed perceptions of one outgroup do not necessarily generalise to perceptions of other outgroups not involved in the contact. For example, an interfaith dialogue might shift perceptions of Muslim Australians but would not necessarily change attitudes towards Indigenous Australians.

Researchers keep developing further criteria for optimal contact, rendering the theory less and less workable

— The StepOne website explains that Allport’s original four criteria are not enough, they must be underpinned by learning about outgroups that corrects negative views; positively reinforced behaviour modification that leads to attitude changes; generating affective ties such as friendship; and ingroup reappraisal of their existing norms and customs to be more inclusive of out-group worldviews (Pettigrew 1998 in StepOne online).

Pettigrew’s overview of ‘contact’ research thus finds that the evidence to support the assumption that contact will reduce prejudice is actually limited. If contact does change attitudes, this occurs in very specific contexts and produces changes which are largely limited to the individual. A range of studies confirm the limited effectiveness of intergroup or interpersonal contact with little evidence that short-term changes

in attitude are maintained over time (Pederson, Walker and Wise 2005, Hill and Augoustinos 2001).

Despite the widespread, ‘common-sense’ assumption that intergroup contact can challenge racism and stereotyping, the research actually suggests that any change in attitudes is unlikely to generalise beyond the individual, nor does the change in attitude necessarily lead to changes in behaviour.

Communicative contact

Central to both the operation and the appeal of Living Libraries is the focus on storytelling and one-on-one communication. The value of storytelling and personal experience for prejudice reduction is also highlighted by researchers who find that opportunities to discuss issues can be effective, whereas presentations and lectures are not (Pederson, Walker and Wise 2005: 25). Successful antiracism interventions need to involve the audience and provide opportunities for frank and open discussions (ibid: 27). Srivastava and Francis find that antiracism workshops typically involve a combination of the ‘contact hypothesis’ and the ‘personal-is -political’ strategy deployed by new social movements and popular education (2008: 282). This combination -- and the belief in personal experience as a basis for broader social change underlying it -- is evident in

the emphasis on storytelling typical of Living Libraries (Garbutt 2008). Living Libraries, and indeed many antiracism strategies which focus on interpersonal encounter, are based on a belief in communicative contact, or a combination of contact theory and ‘the connections that have been made between conversation and successful cosmopolitan societies’ (Garbutt 2008: 270). The emphasis on communicative contact stands in contrast to strategies which aim to foster contact between different groups via a shared activity, such as projects which bring diverse young people together through motor mechanic skills workshops, for example (see VicHealth 2003), or strategies to encourage participation of diverse communities in volunteering activities. Such ‘contact’ projects focus on common goals and shared interests, in contrast to the emphasis on dialogue and storytelling typical of communicative contact fostered by Living Libraries.

There are a number of scholarly critiques of the emphasis on dialogue and storytelling in antiracism strategies (see Boler 1997, 2003, Jones 1991, 2001, Ho 2006, Dreher

2007). These critiques argue that storytelling or conversation often focuses on a desire for knowledge or reassurance among the relatively privileged instead of addressing deeper structures of discrimination or inequality. In particular, critics highlight the ‘differences in relations of power between “tellers” and “listeners” (Srivastava and Francis 2006: 276) in anti-oppression storytelling and intercultural dialogue which means that the experience can be deeply painful for those asked to recount experiences of marginalisation and discrimination. In analysing antiracism and antihomophobia workshops in Canada, Srivastava and Francis write, the strategies ‘have exacted a heavy toll on the tellers, reinforced the exclusionary notions of identity that underlie a racist culture, and had only a limited effect in fostering organisational change’ (2006: 275).

Emerging research on ‘listening’ provides a theoretical thread to broaden the analysis of Living Libraries (Garbutt 2008: 275) and address some of the concerns at the dilemmas of ‘storytelling’ for addressing racism. Previous research by Tanja Dreher into antiracism strategies after September 11, 2001, found a need for institutions and individuals beyond communities targeted by racism to ‘develop an ethics of listening and a commitment to hearing uncomfortable truths’ (2007: 35), what Alison Jones has previously described

as developing ‘ears that can hear’ (1999). Crucially, this emphasis on ‘listening’ in strategies of dialogue and storytelling shifts attention and responsibility from those in marginalised positions (Garbutt 2008: 275) and on to those in more privileged positions (Dreher 2009, 2010). For this reason our research sought to analyse the dynamics and politics of ‘listening’ in Living Libraries, in order to determine the extent to which this innovative strategy did indeed facilitate a shift in the relations of responsibility, safety and risk that characterise much communicative contact.

The existing scholarly research thus identifies a number of challenges to the ‘theoretical threads’ underpinning Living Library strategies, identified here as the ‘contact hypothesis’ and a focus on ‘storytelling’ which combine in a belief in the effectiveness of communicative contact for challenging prejudice. While these strategies are widespread, there is also a concern that the impacts may in fact be limited and, some argue, may divert attention from more far-reaching strategies. This report analyses the development of Human Libraries in Australia through the framework of ‘communicative contact’, discussing the extent to which Living Library projects do serve to combat prejudice, to what extent the criticisms of contact theory and/or storytelling approaches might apply to Human Libraries, and whether a more explicit focus on ‘listening’ or the role of ‘readers’ might indeed address some of these critiques.

Living Libraries thus offered a unique and important case study to address the following questions in our research:

. How do Living Libraries work?

. To what extent do Living Libraries avoid some of the scholarly critiques of more conventional strategies to address racism and reduce prejudice?

. To what extent might those scholarly criticisms hold in the case of Living Libraries? . What is the contribution of Living Libraries to contemporary antiracism work?

The monograph begins in Chapter One with an overview of the Living Library concept, its history and applications. Chapter Two examines the diverse aims of Human Library projects in Australia as the concept has been taken up in a range of settings and by a range of communities and organisations. In Chapter Three we focus on the organisation of Human Libraries, including difficult questions about the selection and training

of ‘Living Books’. Chapter Four discusses the ways in which the comfort and safety of participants are managed in Living Libraries so as to create a unique space in which Readers and Living Books are enabled to take risks and move ‘out of their comfort zones’

within an overall structure designed to ensure safety. The final Chapter Five examines the impact of Human Libraries in relation to the established literature on ‘contact theory’ and cross-cultural dialogue. The existing scholarship suggests a need to be cautious

and realistic in evaluating the impact of the Human Library strategy as a means to address prejudice or racism. The Conclusion highlights the key discussion questions for policymakers and practitioners that have emerged from this research.

Chapter One ‘THERE’S A REAL BUZZ’: WHAT ARE HUMAN LIBRARIES?

It’s an opportunity for you to share with someone who is curious or has questions but wouldn’t ever feel able to ask you. Or they don’t know you and so therefore can’t ask. And it’s an opportunity for you to actually just share who you are in the service of understanding. In the hope that by meeting someone, through a conversation - it’s about relationship building across lives of difference. (Shauna MacIntyre, Organiser, Lismore Living Library)

The Australian Human Libraries’ network website informs visitors that a Human Library is an innovative, community-based initiative, which aims to bring people together in one-to-one conversation, to encourage understanding, challenge negative stereotypes and reduce prejudice. (Human Libraries Australia n.d. A)

Originally developed overseas, the Living Library concept has emerged over the past few years in Australia as a popular strategy for challenging prejudice and promoting ‘social inclusion’. A wide range of organisers including local and state public libraries and health services, universities, and community activists and organisations have adopted the idea.

At a Human Library event individuals are asked to act as a Living Book and enter

into conversation with a Reader -- presumed to be an ordinary member of the general public. Living Books are, in general, selected on the basis that they represent a group which frequently faces prejudice or discrimination within the community. The informal conversation between Book and Reader takes place in a safe, comfortable space, and within a limited period of time. Readers and Living Books are free to ask questions of each other, and share as much or as little as they like about themselves. Librarians (or organisers) are on hand to facilitate each Reading. They handle the logistics behind interactions, booking a time for the Reading and introducing Book to Reader. They also act as unobtrusive yet active observers of the encounter -- ensuring that both Book and Reader are comfortable during their interaction. At every Human Library event there are a range of Living Books available for borrowing, representing a diverse range of cultural backgrounds, ages, genders, occupations, and life experiences.

To explain the concept of the Human Library to those who have never heard of it, organisers draw on people’s familiarity with regular libraries. In promotional materials, media reportage, and at the events themselves, the Human Library is offered up as

a ‘twist’ on the traditional concept of a library. It is just like a regular library, but ‘the books are people’, ‘you borrow a person, not a book!’ The metaphor of the ‘library’ is playfully engaged by organisers to translate to the wider public the project’s more serious aims of challenging stereotypes and building social cohesion. Almost every Human Library, for example, employs the familiar maxim ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’ as its tagline. Continuing the metaphor, Living Books are asked to write themselves a blurb and suggested title for the event catalogue.

Organisers stress that the Living Library concept is one that is concrete, simple and affordable. The Human Library website’s description of the concept emphasises: ‘it is a ‘keep it simple’, ‘no-nonsense’ contribution to social cohesion in multicultural societies’

(Human Library.Org n.d. A). Simplicity refers not only to the relatively straightforward logistics required to realise the concept, but also to the fact that the main principle underlying the concept is also simple -- that is, that personal contact has the power

to challenge prejudices and address discrimination. Human Libraries aim to create a transformative space of dialogue and interaction and offer an opportunity to bring together people who might never otherwise come into contact (Human Library.Org n.d. A). In providing a clear, formal structure for personal -- and potentially intimate -- conversations they hope to facilitate the broaching of ‘taboo’ or uncomfortable topics that people might not otherwise have the courage to raise and discuss. The main idea behind the concept is that personal contact helps individuals ‘breakdown barriers, see the human in the ‘other’, and realise that a stereotype never does justice to a person’ (Living Libraries Australia Resources Kit n.d., p.3).

Beginnings

International

The very first Living Library was held at a music festival in 2000, organised by a peerled Danish youth organisation, ‘Stop the Violence’. ‘Stop the Violence’ was established

in 1993 in Copenhagen to address issues of racism in the context of the widespread perception in Denmark that racist violence, especially among young people, was increasing (The Stop the Violence Movement in Denmark n.d.). Initially started by a group of 5 friends in direct response to the violent stabbing of a mutual friend, the group quickly expanded. By 1995 membership had grown to around 7,000 members across the country, and within another few years stood at 30,000 (The Stop the Violence Movement in Denmark n.d.). Their anti-violence and antiracism activism involved organising music concerts, delivering public lectures, running youth peer-group sessions in high schools, and producing materials to be distributed through schools.

The Living Library project was an extension of this activism. ‘Stop the Violence’ came

up with the idea when invited by the Roskilde music festival organisers in 2000 to run activities at the festival. The Living Library idea aimed to involve young people in a way that would literally bring them face to face with their prejudices. Or as Roni Abergel, one of the original organisers, explained: ‘Instead of talking about it, [you] simply meet it.’ (Abergel et al. 2005, p.9)

At this first event there were some 75 Living Books available to be read by a potential Readership in the thousands. As with later events, the first-ever Living Library included a dedicated space for the library (built by the organisers themselves for the event), a catalogue of Books for people to choose from, and librarians (organisers) facilitating borrowing and ensuring the safety and comfort of Books and Readers. There was even a Dictionary (a translator) who accompanied Books to assist with interpretation. The response of festival-goers was overwhelmingly enthusiastic:

It was two hours into the festival before the first reader entered the Library; however once the readers started coming, the rush did not stop for four days, and the most popular Books were constantly out. (Abergel et al. 2005, p.17)

Following on from the success of the very first Living Library, another event was held the next year at the Sziget music festival in Hungary. Impressed by the concept and

the success of these two early events, the Nordic Ministers Council invited organisers

to hold a Living Library at the Council’s ‘Youth Summit’ in Norway in 2002. Since

then the Living Library concept has continued to develop and expand its reach. By

2010 Living Libraries were being held as one-off events or on a regular basis in over 31 countries (Human Library.Org n.d. B). The Human Libraries organisation website (http:// humanlibrary.org) lists over 120 staged Living Libraries events between 2000 and the beginning of 2009 (Human Library.Org 2009).

Left: The very first Living Library held at the Roskilde Music Festival in 2000. Source: www.humanlibrary.org Right: Book and Reader meet for a friendly, informal ‘reading’, Roskilde Festival 2000. Source: www.humanlibrary.org

Australia

Publicity around the early international Living Libraries helped bring the concept to the attention of community activists as well as public librarians in Australia. An article

in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2005 reporting on a Living Library in the Netherlands was followed in 2006 by an interview segment with Books and Readers from the Malmo Living Library, Sweden on Andrew Denton’s Enough Rope, which aired on ABC TV. The Denton interview is now frequently cited by the various organisers of Living Library projects in Australia as being their introduction to the concept.

The first Living Library event in Australia was held in Lismore. Sabina Baltruweit was a key activist involved in organising the Library after being inspired by the 2005 article in The Sydney Morning Herald. Organising initially through her own personal networks she set up a community committee to get the project off the ground. When approached, Lismore Council offered to provide institutional support -- the Council Community Development Officer began organising alongside, a venue was provided (the local library), and a small amount of financial resources were committed to the project.

Lismore’s first Living Library event was held in November 2006. Planned as a one-off event, the response from both Living Books and Readers was so positive that organisers decided to run the Living Library regularly. Lismore Living Library became the first Living Library in the world to be established on a permanent basis (Human Library.Org n.d. C). The Library continues to host monthly Reading sessions. The original community advisory committee was involved in the organising of the Lismore Living Library until March 2008 when the committee officially handed the project on to the Lismore City Library to manage (Living Libraries Australia Resources Kit, n.d., p.4).

Living Libraries To Human Libraries

In October 2010, the name of the national project was changed from Living Libraries Australia to Human Libraries Australia in response to a name change by the international organisation. The name change at the international organisation was prompted by contact from a US-based company selling educational resources under the registered name, Living Libraries. The US company informed Living Library organisers in Denmark that they were contravening copyright and should stop using the name (Sword 2011). As most Living Library organisations internationally are community-based, they did not have the resources to mount a legal battle or to pay the US company for the

use of the name. Living Library organisers in Australia have followed suit, despite some disappointment as ‘Human Library doesn’t quite have the same ring to it’ (Sword 2011).

Formalising and institutionalising the concept

In Denmark and in Australia the Living Library started as a small-scale project that was driven by local community activists. In both instances, however, following on from the early success of the events, the Living Library concept received significant institutional support. This came in the form of formal endorsement, provision of non-financial resources, and funding from public bodies and organisations.

HUMAN LIBRARY,ORG

Welcome to the officis! Human Ubrary website

What is Haman Libraries Australia

Connecting Commuarcties conversation by cnoversstion

Left: Human Libraries Australia website. Source: www.humanlibrary.org Right: International Human Libraries Organisation website. Source: www.humanilibrary.org

International context

Following on from the success of the first Living Library events in Europe, the Council

of Europe formally endorsed the concept in 2003. The Council of Europe’s European Youth Centre in Budapest (EYCB) adopted the methodology as part of their human rights education program at the Centre, and were host to three of the four Living Libraries that took place at the Sziget Festival (a very popular music festival) in Hungary from 2001 -- 2004 (Human Library.Org n.d. D). ‘Living Libraries’ were included as

a ‘primary instrument’ within The Council of Europe’s 2006 -- 7 Youth Campaign for Diversity, Human Rights and Participation: the ‘All Different -- All Equal’ campaign.

This involved the training of European youth activists in how to organise and run a Living Library within antiracism campaigning. Funds were provided by the Council

for hosting local projects to a number of youth organisations across Europe (Living Library Study Visit 2006, European Youth Foundation 2007). The European Commissions Directorate General for Freedom, Security and Justice also recommended the Living Libraries as a methodology to local policy makers and practitioners in their 2007 Handbook on Integration.

Ronni Abergel, one of the original Danish organisers, cites the support from the Nordic Ministers Council and the youth directorate of the Council of Europe as crucial in the development and spread of the concept. Without their support, he writes, ‘this idea might never have had the chance to reach a global audience’ (Human Library.Org n.d. C).

Funding received from the Nordic Council of Ministers’ Youth Committee supported

the early work of the international Human Library organisation network (previously

the Living Library organisation) and the development and launch of their website. In addition to the website, the international Human Library organisation now also runs an active Twitter account (@TheHumanLibrary), launched in December of 2008.

As the Living Library has developed and received broad institutional support and funding, the organisation and networking behind the concept, if not the concept itself, has become increasingly formalised. The Human Library website now asks all potential organisers to contact the international organisation: