Knowlton,
S.A. (2005). Three decades since prejudices and antipathies: A study of changes in the
Library of Congress Subject Headings. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 40(2):123-45.
This article addresses biases
inherent in subject cataloging, and assesses modern improvements, and how well
the previous objections had been satisfied. It points out a philosophical
balancing act between the stated goals of search optimization and universal
bibliographic control. Subject categories are designed to enable ease of
searching, and allow users to find resources by the most common term, or the
term they are most likely to search by. However, whenever one presumes to
imagine what a user will search under, or what the most common term might be, which
allows personal biases and prejudices to play a role in cataloging. There is a
danger of normalizing a single experience, and overwhelmingly the average
viewpoint is white, male, heterosexual, and Christian. This bias runs the risk
of stigmatizing any group that does not fall within those specific norms, and
create subject headings which make resources harder to find for certain users.
Specifically, Sanford Berman
published one of the first widely regarded critiques of bias in Library of
Congress subject headings. Since its publication, many of the modifications
suggested by Berman have been at least partially implemented. In the past
several decades, terminology has changed, which to some degree necessitated
different changes from those Berman suggested, accounting for some of the
disparity between his recommendations and actual changes. Additionally, the
vast majority of his recommendations for subject changes related to
African-Americans and women have been implemented, perhaps indicative of the social
climate and movements of the times between then and now.
One subject area which has remained
stubborn is religion. Religious subject categories without qualification are
assumed to be Christian. Thus, religious subheadings which relate to
Christianity are not qualified as such. While some cases of this could be
considered exclusionary toward other religions, I would argue that most of
those listed are subjects particular to Christianity, and not subject to
confusion. Obviously the term ‘God’
could be construed in many different religions, but other subjects such as ‘Virgin
Birth’ is mythologically associated with Christianity, and not necessary to
disambiguate. Such unnecessary disambiguations may account for some of those
not addressed.
Other than religious subjects, I did
notice that two other types of subjects were not addressed. Subjects under ‘poor’
and many of those regarding poverty and economic disparity was not
disambiguated or made into less offensive categories. Perhaps this is because
of the lack of emphasis on socio-economic disparity until very recently in the
history of social justice. Likewise, several aberrant subject headings involving
indigenous populations were not altered. Similarly, social justice issues in US
culture have not emphasized international themes historically until very
recently, and so many of these headings are likely still catching up to
culture.
Ultimately, I think the alterations
to LC subject headings since Berman’s original study have been fairly adequate,
and have stayed abreast of modern social attitudes as well as can be expected
for a complex cataloging structure. However, the age of the original study
makes me wonder if there have been more modern ones reassessing LC subject
headings to see what a more modern take on biases would reveal. If we are still
considering a decades old study as a litmus strip for innovation, it’s unsurprising
that LC subject headings pass the test.
I think we could use a more modern litmus test.
No comments:
Post a Comment