Tactility and silence are essential conditions of meaningful learning. The blog post, “In a Silent Search: Reflection on Umberto Eco’s Library of the World”, by Maryam Abusamak, is a film analysis of the documentary, Umberto Eco: A Library of the World (2022), directed by Davide Ferrario. In this blog post, Abusamak summarizes the core themes of the documentary; she demonstrates how the library of the famous philosopher, Umberto Eco, acts as a meaningful tool of knowledge production. She proves that in an information-saturated world, this biographical film demonstrates the importance of learning slowly and selectively. To extend her analysis, I propose that this film also exemplifies the cruciality of knowing through being, a concept explained in Tim Ingold’s book, Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art, and Architecture. Through connecting Abusamak’s analysis to Ingold’s framework, I aim to show the importance of learning independently and critically through slow-paced and tactile methods; this message is especially important in a world where mis- and disinformation is instantaneously available through simple clicks.
Both Eco and Ingold illustrate inanimate objects as living beings. Interacting with these beings achieves meaningful knowledge production. I place emphasis on the word “with”, as Ingold repeatedly encourages the reader to not think “of” but “with” objects (8). Abusamak perceives Eco’s library, as presented in the documentary, as a “living organism” that “binds matter, meaning, and mediation”. In each book, “matter and meaning are inseparable”, demonstrating Ingold’s view that knowledge is made “in correspondence” with a material rather than extracted “from” it (94, 8). To Ingold, objects are alive due to their everchanging state; a building is never fully completed, as it will experience reconstructions, mold removal, and repainting over time (48), and a statue changes continuously, as it is chiseled by its artist and eventually “worn down by rain” (22). Abusamak’s interpretation of Eco’s library exemplifies this concept metaphorically and physically. She describes his library as a “living system of technical memory”, as well as “living matter” made of “ink” and “paper” (Abusamak). As a result, the individual who peruses this library acts as a maker of knowledge among a collection of living beings. Therefore, Eco’s library exemplifies Ingold’s view by acting as a “world of active materials” in which the maker is a “participant” (Ingold 21).
Furthermore, Eco’s library exemplifies Ingold’s view that tactile mediums enable nonconformist learning. Within her blog post, Abusamak claims the library exemplifies Stiegler’s concept of “epiphylogenesis”–the recording of human evolution through “tools, marks and traces we create” (qtd. in Abusamak). These physical traces externalize memories which survive “across generations” (Abusamak). While Eco favours tactile media consumption, Ingold favours tactile media-making; he believes handwriting, handdrawing, “weaving, lacemaking and embroidery” portray “the stories of the world” (112). He states that human knowledge production should replicate the “ongoing movement of” handdrawn and handwritten lines (Ingold 140). Furthermore, he does not praise “straight-line people” who run from point “A to B” (Ingold 140), but instead promotes “pack-donkey people” who “wander” and learn through “self-discovery” (140, 141). Rather than pursuing a linear path leading from “idea” to “action”, he embraces learning through instinct and curiosity (Ingold 140). This idea is upheld by Eco’s library, which “resists the linear order and embraces the chaos of curiosity” (Abusamak). Altogether, Eco’s library promotes knowing through being; its collection of non-chronological memories embraces the whimsical, unconventional learning promoted by Ingold.
Lastly, Eco’s library and Ingold’s theory express skepticism towards virtual learning. According to Eco, “clicking a button” brings about a “bibliography of 10,000 titles” that is “worthless” due to its sheer ubiquity; however, if one discovered three library books, they “would read them… and learn something” (qtd. in Abusamak). Ingold agrees with this statement; he believes modern consumers abandon learning as soon as they “[fill] [their] bags” with information (5). Like Eco, he condemns the mindless clicks produced by our fingers. He states that when ubiquitous information “is at our fingertips” it is simultaneously “out of our hands” (122). Additionally, he promotes Heidegger’s views of the “hand” as a symbol of sentience; when it writes with pen, “it tells” (Ingold 122). Therefore, he argues traditional penmen produce emotional “gesture and inscription”, while modern typists do not “feel” their “letters” (Ingold 122, 123). He shows that in order to generate true making, we must engage the entire human hand, rather than press buttons that enable machinic processes. To Ingold and Eco, technological advancement, sensitive to the touch of our fingertips, has decimated emotionally-engaged learning and impactful media consumption.
In a distracting, information-saturated world, Eco and Ingold emphasize the importance of learning through instinctual, nonconformist, and tactile means. Rather than gathering ubiquitous information through a mindless press of a button, individuals must attentively engage with physical materials to produce meaningful knowledge. As Abusamak states, Eco’s philosophy “challenges the illusion that more information equals more knowledge”; instead he attributes intellect to thinking slowly and selectively. According to Abusamak, Eco’s library relates to our curriculum through its transformation of media theory into “something we can see and feel”; her physical description of Eco’s library and its ability to evoke curiosity demonstrates the importance of slow, tactile learning. As a result, Eco’s library is an example of a tool that enacts Ingold’s concept of “knowing” occurring “at the heart of being” (6). Instead of instantaneously summoning innumerous sources of digestible information, we can engage directly with a physical environment, such as that of a library, to independently conceive truth.
Works Cited
Abusamak, Maryam. In a Silent Search: Reflection on Umberto Eco’s Library of the World, UBC Blogs, 9 Oct 2025, https://blogs.ubc.ca/mdia300/archives/394 .
Ingold, Tim. Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203559055.
Image Taken by Emily Shin (Page 83 of George Orwell’s 1984)
Post Written by Emily Shin
Hii Emily,
This was such a great post, drawing connections between Eco and Ingold’s mutual fascination with inanimate objects as more than what we take them for granted for, or in your words as ‘living beings’ was such a though-provoking take. The part where you expanded on Eco and Ingold’s skepticism towards the modern concept of digital learning resonated with me deeply, I have been noticing substantial impact from the amount of digital information consumption and virtual learning methods myself. At this point, it feels overwhelming to even sit down and read one book from start to finish, since I’m so used to skimming over thousands of short and brief summaries instead. This era of the digital world definitely has its merits, predominantly in terms of convenience, but regarding in-depth absorption of knowledge, and learning ‘with’ the material, instead of simply extracting stripped-down versions of the essential information is definitely something we have to actively incorporate back into our lives in order to live meaningfully.
This is so beautifully written and articulated, Emily!! : ) Thank you so much for engaging with what I wrote. I could see how much time you spent drawing out conceptual connections between Eco’s philosophy and Ingold’s ideas about knowing through being, and it made your post such a pleasure to read.
One line that I really loved was when you wrote that “ Eco’s library promotes knowing through being.” That phrasing was honestly stunning. It captures the exact embodied, intuitive and relational mode of learning that both Eco and Ingold advocate for. I loved how you took that concept and wove it back into the larger framework of tactile knowledge production. It showed such a strong grasp of both the documentary and the theoretical text. ; )
I especially loved your reading of Ingold’s “pack-donkey people” in relation to Eco’s resistance to linearity. That wandering, instinctive form of learning is exactly what I felt while watching the documentary, but I couldn’t fully articulate it. You brought that out so clearly! Your point about both Eco and Ingold pushing back against the fingertip-based, instantaneous consumption of information also adds a really important layer to the discussion. This is to say, especially in a media environment where too much information and noise often get mistaken for knowledge.
And when you emphasized tactility and embodied learning, it reminded me of Alison Landsberg’s concept of prosthetic memory. She argues that memory (and by extension, knowledge) gets formed through physical, affective encounters with media. The way you described Eco’s library as a space where meaning is produced with materials feels like such a clear example of that.
Thank you as well for treating my blog as a meaningful starting point. It’s always interesting (and honestly very humbling) to see how someone else interprets and builds on ideas you tried to express. Your post also helped me think more critically about the physicality of learning and the role of the hand in knowledge-making. There’s just so much to write about that!
Really appreciate your post, absolutely loved it. Thank you for wiring it, Emily!!
P.S. I have to say, I loved your choice of the 1984 excerpt as the cover image! I absolutely love that book, and I actually have that exact quote highlighted in my copy too. It complemented your writing and argument so well. ; )