There is a growing need for low-intensity public meeting places where people can and must encounter, coexist with, and tolerate differing opinions and worldviews. Libraries are such places — and this is precisely what makes them essential for sustaining a pluralistic democracy.
The article by Ágnes Barátné Hajdu, Péter Kiszl and Katalin Bella (ELTE Institute of Library and Information Science) revisits the theory of public libraries as low-intensive meeting places, first proposed by Audunson (2005), in light of recent global and technological transformations. Low-intensive meeting places are defined as spaces where individuals encounter and must accept values and perspectives different from their own, thereby fostering tolerance and democratic dialogue. In contrast, high-intensive meeting places involve people pursuing shared interests or identities. Public libraries, serving all social groups and offering access to diverse viewpoints, have long been seen as vital low-intensive meeting places essential for sustaining the public sphere and democracy.
Since 2005, several developments have reshaped the conditions for libraries’ public role. First, geopolitical crises, such as war in Europe, have heightened social tension. Second, digitization and media fragmentation have replaced traditional, professionally moderated media – newspapers, radio, television – with social platforms driven by algorithms and commercial interests. This shift fosters filter bubbles and echo chambers, isolating users from differing opinions, undermining deliberation, and spreading fake news. Third, libraries’ historical neutrality has been questioned, with calls for “post-neutrality” urging them to support marginalized voices and political causes. The article cautions, however, that abandoning neutrality risks fragmenting libraries into “subaltern publics,” weakening their function as inclusive, pluralistic spaces.
Drawing on Habermas’s concept of the public sphere, the authors argue that digitization blurs the line between informed citizenship and consumerism. Traditional media once provided editorial oversight, professional ethics, and shared public agendas – features largely absent from algorithm-driven platforms. Declining newspaper readership, particularly among youth, exacerbates this problem. Libraries can help mitigate it by facilitating collective reading, discussions, and programs that expose participants to multiple perspectives, thus renewing the cognitive social contract – respectful discourse, commitment to truth, and openness to questioning established ideas.
The article explores library initiatives that mediate across levels of the public sphere – local, regional, and national – such as community reading programs (“One City, One Book”) and discussion forums (“My Country Talks”), which strengthen democratic communication. It concludes that the concept of low-intensive meeting places is not outdated but urgently relevant. Libraries must integrate their enlightenment mission – promoting reading, critical thinking, and media literacy – with their meeting place function to counter misinformation, polarization, and civic disengagement. Research should refine this model, emphasizing how libraries can balance inclusivity, neutrality, and active engagement to sustain a deliberative and democratic public sphere.