Sign in or 
Location: Question Formation and Analysis 5
Discussion: Preservation vs. Conservation
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 2 posts
Megfish |
Preservation vs. Conservation
Mar 10 2008, 1:44 PM EDT
A quick dictionary check reveals that preserve is defined as “to protect from injury or peril”, while conserve is defined as “to protect from loss or depletion” (American Heritage Dictionary). Baker is careful to draw attention to the difference between library conservator and library preservationist, yet outside of this context the definitions of these terms seem to be interchangeable. Baker writes, “Conservation is preservation, but not all preservation is conservation,” and her repeatedly emphasizes this throughout the following chapters (108). Is this another example of “mere rhetoric” that serves Baker’s obvious motives, or is it something else? Do you find this valuable? |
aspatriarca |
1. RE: Preservation vs. Conservation
Mar 12 2008, 11:53 AM EDT
This question first relates the subtle differences in the dictionary definitions of preserve and conserve, which establishes an additional authority aside from that of Baker. By moving towards Baker's more disparate views of the library conservation and preservation, and then towards a wider context for these words, the author of the question is able to challenge Baker's interpretation of the words - or, at least, show that Baker is not considering (or is discarding) alternative meanings of the words. The second part of this question repeats the contrast Baker sees between conservation and preservation, and his desire to have his readers agree with the same distinction. The question asks us to recognize a meaning of rhetoric, or "mere rhetoric," and where that reference comes from. It also requires us to know Baker's "obvious motives" or agree with what those motives might be. The final section opens up the question to other possibilities; however, everything leading up to this section seems to have pointed us in the direction of saying it is "mere rhetoric." Overall, the question seems to expect one answer, although it allows for the slight possibility of others. It comes from a perspective that is cynical about, although not entirely dismissive of, Baker's purpose in the book. Do you find this valuable? |
