User:Δεριζαματζορπρομπλεμιναυστραλια/Graduatreadings/radicalcatalogue

Emili drabinski- teaching the radical catalogue

here http://www.emilydrabinski.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/drabinski_radcat.pdf

Classification in the Library

Classification is at the heart of the work of a library. A library is arguably nothing more - or less - than a set of materials classified according to some set of standard principles.

All classifications, including those in libraries, function according to a set of three ideals described by Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star in their critical study of classification: they apply a system of classificatory principles to a given set of objects; an object can reside in one and only one category; and all objects are accounted for in the classification.'

Classifications consist of two separate parts. First, the classification includes a system of categories that allow for the arrangement of knowledge objects by subject to allow for browsing. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) consists of ten decimal divisions ( 1 0 0 s , 2 0 0 s , etc.), each containing ten narrower divisions (110s, 120s, etc.). The Library of Congress classification (LC) has 21 general subject divisions, further divided by narrower intellectual divisions.

A second aspect of cataloging is a controlled vocabulary. A controlled vocabulary is a thesaurus of terms applied to knowledge objects by cataloging librarians and used by library patrons to access materials in Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs).

the hierarchical classification and the controlled vocabulary together contain all knowledge objects in a given system. Every object in a library will be placed in a subject division and assigned controlled terms; nothing lies outside of the system. Library classifications in the ideal are ambitious, totalizing projects: they seek to contain not only the present sum of human knowledge, but also to encompass any new knowledge generated in the future.

Thesaurus Problems

Schol a r s and a c t i v i s t s hav e point ed out two c ent r a l probl ems wi th l ibr a r y classifications. Sanford Berman and Hope Olson

In 1969, Sanford Berman published a letter in L i b r a r y J o u r n a l calling attention to the chauvinistic headings in the Library of Congress subject heading list.' He went on to publish a broad attack on LC headings in 1971's P r e j u d i c e s a n d An t i p a t h i e s . His work took issue with what he called "the realm of headings that deal with people and cultures," arguing that "the LC list can only `satisfy' parochial, jingoistic Europeans and North Americans, white-hued, at least nominally Christian (and preferably Protestant) in faith, comfortably situated in the middle- and higher-income brackets, largely domiciled in suburbia, fundamentally loyal to the Established Order, and heavily imbued with the transcendent, incomparable glory of Western civilization."

Berman's writings, as well as his activist work as a cataloger with the Hennepin County Library, has inspired a generation of radical librarians to work for change in cataloging systems.

The language used in the classifications is also a reflection of broader social structures. The thesaurus acts as a meta-text, a symbolic representation of values, power relations, and cultural identities in a given place and time. For example, LC lacks a controlled term for conflicts related to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. So, users seeking information about Israeli incursions into Palestinian territories will find works classed under a general heading for ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICTS. This denies the specificity of Israeli attacks on Palestinian

Further, ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT is listed as a cross-reference for ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICTS, suggesting that in LC, Arabs are the originators of regional dispute

Berman did not take issue with the fundamentals of library classifications. The goal of library classifications - to bring human knowledge together under a single unifying, universalizing structure and language - was central to Berman's point. Berman wrote in his 1971 Introduction, "Knowledge and scholarship are, after all, universal. And a subjectscheme should, ideally, manage to encompass all the facets of what has been printed and subsequently collected in libraries to the satisfaction of the worldwide reading community."' Thus, Berman's political claim was in some ways a limited one: The primary problem with Library of Congress classification is a lack of correct language. Structural critiques of classifications, however, suggest that Berman's pragmatist, yet reformist, stance is fundamentally limited

structural Problems

A second aspect of critical intervention has to do with the structural limitations of library classifications. Hope Olson outlines two central challenges to the structure of classifications. First, the classifications are hierarchical, and prescribe a universalizing structure of "first terms" that masquerade as neutral when they are, in fact, culturally informed and reflective of social power. For example, Olson discusses the status of WOMEN as a narrower term in relation to FEMALE. "In the case of `Women,' the broader term `Females' puts this heading into a biological context that divides all species by sex. Narrower terms are lower in the hierarchy. In the case of `Women,' `Abused women,' 'Abusive women,' `Aged women,' and so on are lower in the hierarchy..." . In order to provide a context for the knowledge objects in a library, classifications seek to define hierarchies, not only in broader and narrower terms, but also through the use of related and "see also" references that create a web enfolding everything in the knowledge universe into a single, hierarchical net

Hierarchies centralize power in the "first term," be it in a dictator in a fascist government, the father in a patriarchal family, or the quarterback in a football team. Less visible is the way that hierarchies privilege only a single aspect of a given object. For example, a man who is a football quarterback may also be a father, a brother, and stamp collector, but for the purpose of the hierarchy that embeds him on the football field, he is only a quarterback. The other relevant parts of his person -his ability to stay in the pocket, scramble, throw the long ball, and so on -are derivative of his "first term," his quarterback-ness. The other parts of his person - his presidency of a local philatelist society, perhaps - become irrelevant. Hope Olson calls this the hierarchy of SAMENESS ' We divide first by one facet, then by another and another and so on in a prescribed citation order. The result is a hierarchical arrangement that gathers effectively by the first facet following the idea that we gather what is the same and separate what is different. "

A final structural problem with classifications is their permanency. Even the most flexible classification requires that a knowledge object be placed into a given category "for good." Once a book is placed in a category, even a new category, it usually stays there. Catalogers do revise headings, but the vagaries of cataloging under capitalism generally reward the production of new records. What happens, then, to emerging knowledges that are necessarily in motion?

Library classifications are necessary. Indeed, we can hardly begin to make sense of knowledge without them. Classifications order objects in material space-they place books in an order on shelves -and grant intellectual access to collections by collating books according to some logic. And yet they are problematic. Library classifications use the hegemonic language of the powerful: they reflect, produce, and reproduce hierarchies; they order sameness and difference and prevent the full representation of minority literatures; they arrest the linguistic transformation in emerging fields of knowledge and identity pr odu c t ion . The s e a r e l a r g e p r ob l e ms , a nd so l u t ion s ha v e t ended t owa rd two approaches: attacking the language problem, and attacking the structural problem.

Sandy Berman is perhaps our most famous cataloging activist. Since 1971, his work on transforming subject headings both at the local level (in Hennepin County) and at the Library of Congress has yielded positive linguistic change (LC 's elimination of the 202 I I l . I N N O V A T I V E P R A C T I C E S obviously racist heading YELLOW PERIL in 1989, for example), and has called attention to the hegemonic nature of classification. Yet his work sustains and upholds the value of LC. As Berman struggles to change the thesaurus, he leaves the structural problems untouched. This failure is important. Berman's approach suggests there is some "right" language that could be universally understood and applied. The politics of language are rarely so tidy, and language is virtually always contested.

What about these structural problems? If classifications are necessary, how can we resist the structural aspects that we don't like: the hierarchical ordering of samenesses, their lack of flexibility? Some librarians, including Olson, have focused on the generation of local classifications. Rather than pouring energy into improving a single, universalized classification like LC, Olson and other librarians focused on creating user-centered classifications for particular collections. Examples include the Art and Architecture Thesaurus, which uses a faceted classification scheme to classify art objects for art researchers, and the use of folksonomies in digital environments, both discussed elsewhere in this volume

A second approach to these structural limitations might be to apply technologies to reduce our reliance on structured classifications. A combination of free-text searching and strong relevance algorithms might allow users to retrieve relevant search results without the need for an underlying classification. Anyone who has waded through thousands of JSTOR results in search of a relevant document can tell you we're not there yet. Olson discusses her project of mapping a local thesaurus onto DDC as a second technological solution, combining a localized feminist thesaurus with a standard organizational structure to highlight sexism in DDC and make feminist research easier

Teaching the Radical Catalog

Neither changing the language nor changing the structure can eliminate the fundamental limitations of classification systems.

Classifications are inherently static - at leastat any given moment in time - and inherently universalizing - at least in relation to a given field of knowledge objects. If these characteristics are indeed fundamental, we might incorporate radical pedagogies into our work as teachers to transform users' relationships to these systems

1970, Paulo Freire P e d a g o g y o f t h e O p p r e s s e d .