Difficult Subjects

Addressing Problematic Legacies in Librarianship

Courtesy of Iryna Kazlova/Getty Images

Of babies and bathwater

Years ago, a children’s librarian shared an anecdote about teaching the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) to preschool children. What made the concept of library classification resonate for the children was when she explained that no matter which library they visited, the books about dogs would always have the same DDC numbers. The youngsters loved knowing that if they could find books about dogs in one library, they could replicate that process anywhere.

Did that anecdote warm your heart? Did you murmur “Awww” as you imagined cherubic children in their little voices asking a friendly children’s librarian for books about cuddly puppies? Well, shame on you! There is nothing remotely adorable about the DDC. It is a tool of hegemony developed by a racist, sexist, cis white male. The DDC not only perpetuates the framing of the world through a white supremacist and patriarchal lens; it also ignores Dewey the man’s disgraceful individual acts. Introducing Dewey to children through a Trojan Puppy is precisely the sort of brainwashing that inoculates them against confronting Dewey’s hateful legacy as they mature into adult library users and/or staff. These are our options: use the DDC in libraries and revere the creator and his system; or explicitly acknowledge his abhorrent behavior and reject his system, as well as any positive or neutral mentions of the man.

Really? Must these be our options: use the DDC and like it, or hate the DDC and dismantle it? Worship Dewey or revile him? And just as importantly, we should ask ourselves: is the DDC (or LOC) a uniquely biased system, or do these issues tend to be found in classification systems more broadly, and what can we make of that?

Sign o’ the times

There is a rich body of literature on the role of library classification systems in normalizing unequal power relations, where certain subjects are normal and others are…well, the other. The distinguished Hope Olson comes to mind, as well as the work of legendary cataloger Sandy Berman, both of whom have devoted their careers to highlighting the ways in which classification systems shape our society as much as reflect it. The emergence of ALA round tables and task forces such as the Social Responsibilities Round Table, the Feminist Task Force, the Black Caucus of the American Library Association, and the Gay Liberation Task Force, among several others in the 1960s and 1970s demonstrated the urgency and appetite for revisionist histories and interpretations. Among other things, library users and workers wanted to right what was wrong with description conventions.

Let us take homosexuality as an example. Steve Wolf’s 1972 essay “Sex and the Single Cataloger” inveighed against the ways homosexuality was described by DDC and LOC: criminal, perverted, and disordered behavior. Although not a library worker herself, pioneering gay rights activist Barbara Gittings deliberately got involved with the American Library Association in the 1970s because she saw libraries as important vehicles for humanizing how the world views and understands homosexuals (including how homosexuals view and understand themselves). Crucially, the DDC has not remained static. The classes, divisions, and sections have undergone revisions and are regularly updated. Yet there are still considerable limitations. An obvious example would be the 200s class, Religion. The divisions are predominately devoted to Christianity, with only the final division, the 290s, available for “Other”.

Therefore, it is fair and necessary that the DDC has come under scrutiny. A growing number of librarians have advised ditching Dewey or abandoning the DDC in favor of more “intuitive” and modern alternatives. Some libraries have advocated copying the private sector and implementing BISAC codes or genrefication, while others have designed something homegrown. Some offer more radical approaches, such as incorporating critical race theory into cataloging. Some may use DDC and like it, while others continue to use it while bemoaning its shortcomings. Which is the best way forward?

First, let us pause to consider the value and utility of standardization. Individual libraries or library systems adopting unique classification systems are almost certainly going to afford some flexibility not permitted by DDC. Yet I can also see a Tower of Babel. What are the long-term implications for an ever-increasing number of libraries adopting localized systems? But for the sake of an argument, let’s say we abolish DDC and replace it with something else. Leaving aside the technical requirements (no small feat), what of the philosophical: is there another single system on which a majority could agree?

Another tack here: is DDC uniquely problematic? Some may immediately note that the Library of Congress has similar flaws. Both promulgate a limited worldview, reflecting perspectives that have been deemed inadequate at best and harmful at worst. I do not dispute that these systems have limitations. This piece is not in praise of DDC or LOC. However, I do think it helpful to consider additional global examples. When I have taught master’s students, I like to use an example from contemporary libraries in China. In the Chinese Library Classification, the first main category includes Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, and Deng Xiaoping theory. Classification systems reflect what is more common, or what is believed to be the correct way of ordering things. Yet what we think of as neutral, normal, or natural is contingent on so many factors. And attitudes change. One could imagine that a new DDC in 2022 could be unacceptable in 2072. And maybe that’s the way it should be. Or maybe, there is value in continuity, even with imperfect systems.

He who should not be naming

What of Dewey himself? Melvil Dewey was born December 10, 1851 and died December 26, 1931. Born before the Civil War and now dead for nearly a century, he remains one of the most recognizable librarians to the American lay public, though Archie McPhee never memorialized him as an action figure. He had an incalculable influence on education, standards, and policy for libraries. In addition to inventing the DDC, he also established the first library school and was a co-founder of the American Library Association. From a distance, he can be appreciated for an impressive list of achievements.

But the closer you get to Dewey, the more one’s esteem for him dissipates. His sexist, racist attitudes were well-documented in his time. Accounts of his lecherous behavior and blatant anti-Semitism earned him a negative personal reputation and formal professional consequences. In his definitive 1996 biography of Dewey, library historian Wayne Wiegand observes that Dewey enjoyed a positive legacy because his “disciples cultivated his image for generations; his detractors generally said nothing.” How to contend with Dewey’s legacy is of ongoing concern well into the twenty-first century. In 2019, American Library Association Council passed a resolution to rename the Melvil Dewey Medal and remove his association with the award (as of 2020 it is the ALA Medal of Excellence).

Even before Wiegand’s treatment of Dewey, revisionist histories of librarianship had taken Dewey to task. For example, feminist interpretations from the 1970s onward have emphasized women’s early contributions to librarianship as more than being Dewey’s protégées, demonstrating how at various points the profession grew not because of but in spite of Dewey. Having said that, more recent critiques have argued that early librarianship wasn’t exactly a Dewey problem — it was and still is a white woman problem.

In any case, critical interpretations of Dewey are also important because they show how these debates over legacy are not new (yes, this is a theme in my writing for this Substack). I am wary of viewing all people of the past as ignorant of our present wisdom, when the past is always more nuanced than that. While those who lived in the distant past may be ignorant relative to the present day, I also think contemporaries are not always aware of the full breadth and contentiousness of the historical record. Thus, while contemporary condemnations of Dewey may feel like a major correction of an historical oversight, I don’t know that that’s accurate. We know Dewey was championed and reviled in his lifetime. Can librarians acknowledge the contributions of Melvil Dewey while condemning his many flaws, or can we only celebrate the accomplishments of those whom we would also venerate?

Past imperfect

Libraries and librarianship have changed lives, on balance for the better. However, we can also point to instances to where librarianship has perpetuated unequal access, disenfranchised users, and promoted bias in the name of neutrality. There are many examples of this in the modern profession’s 150 year history, and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. Those who would argue for the necessity of an ethic of neutrality in librarianship must acknowledge where claims of neutrality were, upon examination, the opposite.

At the same time, I cannot imagine there is any current LIS history course, conference, or publication offering a Whiggish view of the profession’s origins or an unblemished view of Dewey. As it should be. Likewise, contemporary discussions of cataloging and classification frequently address the power of naming. The current issue of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly is a special issue on “Empowering Representations.” We have complicated systems created and maintained by imperfect (and in certain cases, reprehensible) people, but doing so does not preclude acknowledging these limitations and improving upon them. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, though what we consider “good” may also be subject to debate.

Is it hopeless for nineteenth-century systems to serve the needs of today’s library? Should we endeavor for our classification systems to describe the world as it is, or how it should be? And who decides? As usual when I drop in here, my writing generates more questions than answers. I can tell you one thing for certain though: wherever a library uses the DDC, you will find the dog books under 636.7.

---

To promote viewpoint diversity, Heterodoxy in the Stacks invites constructive dissent and disagreement in the form of guest posts. While articles published on Heterodoxy in the Stacks are not peer- or editorially-reviewed, all posts must model the HxA Way. Content is attributed to the individual contributor(s).

To submit an article for Heterodoxy in the Stacks, send an email with the article title, author name, and article document to hxlibsstack@gmail.com. Unless otherwise requested, the commenting feature will be on. Thank you for joining the conversation!

References and further reading

American Library Association Council, “Resolution on Renaming the Melvil Dewey Medal,” 2019.

Archie McPhee, “The History of the Librarian Action Figure and Nancy Pearl.”

Sanford Berman website

Book Industry Study Group, “BISAC Subject Codes,” 2022.

Shuqing Bu, “Chinese Library Classification,” Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, edited by Birger Hjørland and Claudio Gnoli, November 14, 2019.

Sydney Chambers and Carolynne Myall, Women and the Values of American Librarianship, Las Colinas, TX: Ide House, 1994.

Melissa Chiavaroli, “Ditching Dewey: Take Your Collections from Enraging to Engaging and Position Your Library for 21st Century Success,” Public Library Quarterly vol. 38, no. 2 (2019): 124-46.

Jonathan Furner, “Dewey Deracialized: A Critical Race-Theoretic Perspective,” Knowledge Organization vol. 34, no. 3 (2007): 144-68.

Lynne C. Howarth and Katharine Leigh, eds., Special Issue on Empowering Representations: Rethinking Surrogates from the Margins, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly vol. 60 (2022).

Ashley Huser, “Barbara Gittings,” Women of Library History tumblr, Feminist Task Force, 2018.

Hope A. Olson, “The Power to Name: Representation in Library Catalogs,” Signs vol. 26, no. 3 (Spring 2001): 639-68.

Erin Redihan, “Abandoning the Dewey Decimal System in Public Libraries,” Public Library Quarterly vol. 40, no. 2 (2021): 95-107.

K.R. Roberto, ed. Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front, Jefferson, NC: MacFarland, 2008.

Gina Schlesselman-Tarango, “The Legacy of Lady Bountiful: White Women in the Library,” Library Trends vol. 64, no. 4 (Spring 2016): 667-86.

Wayne Wiegand, Irrepressible Reformer: A Biography of Melvil Dewey, Chicago: American Library Association, 1996.

Steve Wolf, “Sex and the Single Cataloger: New Thoughts on Some Unthinkable Subjects,” in Revolting Librarians, edited by Celeste West and Elizabeth Katz, San Francisco: Booklegger Press, 1972: 39-44.