What are the grounds for normative book recommendations

It is not uncommon when bibliophiles gather in conversation for there to be made normative statements to the effect that we need more of X represented (gender, role models, race, religion, age, etc.). It is not that I oppose or support any particular one of the desires for greater representation. Rather, the question is philosophical – on what grounds is that stated opinion more meritorious than the cumulative judgment of the book buying public? If there is a wisdom of crowds, and in an environment of near limitless publishers (50,000), near limitless new titles (25-35,000 per year), and very low barriers to publishing (self-publishing, on-demand printing and e-books), to what extent can a singular opinion be deemed in some way superior to the collective judgment?

I understand it from the individual perspective. There are plenty of books (by theme, or values, or genre or style) that I would like to see more of, and certainly innumerable books in which I have no interest and from which I might wish to shield my children. But that’s the personal IS. On what basis can I extrapolate from my personal IS to a collective OUGHT?

Thinking through some of the implications of Jacobs’ article (see prior post) and various bibliophilic discussions where normative recommendations are frequent, it seems to me as if there are three overlapping but often potentially conflicting objectives that parents (librarians, teachers, critics) have for children’s books that would lead to such expressed prescriptive desires (we need more of X.. .). The three goals and their corresponding motivations are:

1) We want children’s books to reflect reality as it is. We want our children to be prepared for what they will actually encounter so that they know how to navigate that reality.

2) We want children’s books to reflect reality as we believe it ought to be. We want our children to have a picture of what the good life is, however we define that and regardless of current circumstances.

3) We want children’s books to reflect reality as it could be. We want our children to know the full range of choices they can make rather than to be restricted by the choices that were made in the past or are made by others.

None of these goals speak to A) causation (what is the causative relationship between X and Y; is it unrelated, correlated, covariant, probabilistically causative, predictive, or determinative?), B) risk assessment (what is the numerical probability of X leading to Y), or C) trade-off choices (if you pursue X you can’t also do Y) which are very real world issues that at some point have to be dealt with, though not necessarily in books.

It seems to me that all three of these goals are perfectly reasonable but not fully compatible with one another in all circumstances at all times. If we focus on the way things could be, we under represent the way things are. If we focus on the way things are, we risk limiting the understanding of the way things could be or the way things ought to be. In addition, strife is likely to arise when there is a definitional difference between parents and others in regards to what OUGHT TO BE and what COULD BE, and indeed, not uncommonly, what IS.

Over the course of a childhood reading life, all three goals (IS, OUGHT, COULD BE) will be served with greater or lesser attention in different orders at different times depending on circumstance and proclivity. It is not possible to say which goals should be served in which order and in what fashion without knowing individual details and context.

In addition to the complexity of book goals, there are three variables that make it impossible to know a priori which books are pertinent to a particular child: 1) How does the child/parent interpret the book and its messages/stereotypes (two adults can have entirely different perspectives on the effect of a particular book)?, 2) What is the context and the nature of the child’s needs?, and 3) What are the life goals and choices that are deemed appropriate and desirable? Given that we live in a heterogeneous society, variable three is particularly problematic.

We know from the marketplace, where books are actually purchased and read, what the cumulative public answer is to these competing goals and variables. We can't tell whether those decisions are optimal because we lack knowledge. All that we know is that those books purchased were seen to be the solution to some unknown mix of the goals and variables.

However, between the unknowable three variables (interpretation, context, and life goal setting), and the three competing reading objectives (reality, aspiration, options), it is impossible in advance to say whether we need more or less of any specific aspect of a book. It is a knowledge problem that cannot be solved – we simply cannot know. If we cannot know what is needed, then we have no objective grounds on which to recommend that more or less of any particular type of book ought to be available. What to do?