everyone follow charlie Or Else 🔪

anyway :) LC is the library of congress classification system! (classification systems are how new/existing books in a library are added to the right location based on subject.)

the short answer to why we’re switching is that LC is considered standard practice for academic/university/research libraries due to having more specificity, being easier to amend, and being relatively more inclusive. the long answer involves a bunch of history you really didn’t ask for, so…enjoy? 💛

Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) was published in 1876-–basically a huge book with decimal numbers assigned to different books/topics, which Dewey himself developed based on his work at Amherst College’s library. this was a Big Deal because before that, books in libraries were given permanent shelf locations based on the book’s HEIGHT and WHEN IT WAS ACQUIRED. It wasn’t considered important to make libraries navigable to public patrons, because libraries were NOT free to browse. You had to be extremely privileged to look through library collections at all. Dewey’s system was the first in the U.S. to locate books in relation to other books/their subjects, opening up the possibility of public patrons independently locating materials. Dewey’s system wasn’t the only one around, but it was considered the most complete.

In Dewey’s system, there are 10 main numerical classes (numbered 000-900) based on academic discipline, and each class has a number of divisions and sections. The structure of a DDC call number is this number plus the first three letters of the author’s last name. This is the system you would’ve learned in primary school library class, and it is primarily used today at public libraries & schools. Its legibility has given it sustained life through becoming the basis for many other classification systems across the globe. It has its problems, though.

Firstly, Dewey was antisemitic, racist and sexist. These beliefs inevitably impact his classification system. Some examples cited in that second article: Non-Christian holidays are classified under “mythology and religion”; LGBTQ+ books were long shelved under “perversion” and “neurological disorders”; Black history is not classified as part of American history; “women’s work” is a separate category from jobs.

In addition to these equity (/morality) problems, it’s also just a tough system to modify for various reasons. Its baked-in bias is even reflected in the order of those numerical classes, which is extremely skewed toward anglo-american knowledge systems. one good example is the 200 division, which is almost entirely dedicated to Christianity, with all other world religions being put into the 290s. islam, despite being almost if not as large as christianity in terms of population size, is limited to the 297s. the bias is so implicit in the system that it would require years of work for most libraries. (This work is being undertaken through the practice of critical cataloging, which I could write an entire novel-length post about on its own. Just know that if you’re interested in how libraries are combatting their explicitly colonial origins, you should absolutely read up on it. huge shoutout to @chimepunk for being an advocate for libraries for so many years but more specifically for introducing me to this term!)

So maybe you’re like, “Oh, I see! LC must be an equitable, inclusive alternative to Dewey!” Unfortunately, we live in hell ❤️

In 1882, Charles Cutter published the Expansive Classification (with Dewey’s support). It had different classes based on a library’s size, and many subject divisions and subdivisions. It didn’t enjoy nearly as much popularity, as it was considered too complicated, but it DID become the basis for the Library of Congress classification system.

In 1897, the Library of Congress was still using a fixed-location system proposed by Thomas Jefferson (that fun kind of system I mentioned earlier, where books are put in one fixed location based on their heights & dates of acquisition). The collection was growing too quickly to keep that up, though, and perhaps also due to a desire to make the library a little more navigable, the chief of the catalog department at the time (James Hanson) decided to consult with Charles Cutter. Thus, LCC was born. It has its problems, too—not only was it developed for the Library of Congress’s needs (in 1897) rather than having a theoretical basis that could be shared by the libraries that now use the system, but it also has equity issues & biases.

One way of combatting this is by appealing certain subject headings—I highly recommend the documentary Change the Subject, about students at Dartmouth trying to appeal the heading used for immigration. It’s a little under an hour long and free to watch on YouTube! It does a good job of exemplifying how categorization systems really do impact beliefs & experiences—and why having outdated and biased systems is a Big Problem.

ANYWAY. Despite all these issues, LCC is considered more amendable, and therefore better practice for academic & research libraries. I work at a very small, very rural community college library, and for us it’s more a matter of helping our own credibility, and being on par with the other community colleges in our system. Switching even one section (the graphic novels) has taken 2 months so far, because we only have one full-time librarian (I’m part-time and not allowed to catalog until I take my graduate cataloging course per the system office for our state).

another downside of LCC is that it is not intuitive in the way Dewey can be—LCC call numbers look like gibberish if you don’t know what they mean. FOR EXAMPLE: You look up a book and the location listed is BF 1078 .S5 1978 C.1. Hello????? but those letters and punctuation marks all have meanings! (catalogers have to consult existing publications of the different parts that make up an LC call numbers; in my library, it’s a physical, very tall spiral bound tome.) If you’re curious about the breakdown, this article goes over it line by line!

i may work in publishing now, but i am still an archivist and a cataloger at heart, and i have many thoughts about critcat and how important it is, SO here are some more suggested readings that i’ve dug up from my previous coursework and personal research on the topic:

*these articles and books deal with racism, queerphobia, colonialism, xenophobia, etc. — many quite graphically. they’re important to read if you’re interested in this topic or in this field, but please be aware that many of them contain upsetting topics

prejudices and antipathies: a tract on the LC Subject Heads concerning  people by sanford berman (MY MAN) — sandy is basically the founder of radical cataloging, which is the predecessor of critcat. this book is a super straightforward overview of many inequitable subject headings with suggestions for updates. and its available for free on his website!

vocational awe and librarianship: the lies we tell ourselves by fobazi ettarh — not directly about critcat, but a piece that i feel very strongly that EVERYONE in the library field, or honestly any other public service field should read. ettarh’s concept of vocational awe exemplifies the attitudes held by many people in the field that directly impede equitable progress, critcat included

archives for Black lives in philadelphia: anti-racist description resources by alexis a. antracolli et al. — this is a PHENOMENAL resource for reparative justice in archival description pertaining to archival records or collections featuring or about Black people. this is another piece that i consider essential reading for all LIS students and professionals, especially those working in archives that have an abundance of collections from or about the pre-antebellum period (US South, i’m looking at us)

there was sex but no sexuality: critical cataloging and the classification of asexuality in LCSH by brian m. watson — discusses the process by which LCSH get changed and goes into a bit of queer cataloging practices. sometimes fixed subject headings aren’t the right answer! this one also makes the very important point that not only does inequitable classification marginalize groups of people, it actively impedes access to materials

radical cataloging: essays at the front — this is an edited collection of essays that explores seemingly every possible angle of critcat. unfortunately there is no freely accessible version online, but a huge chunk of it is viewable via google books preview, including one of my personal favorites, “don’t class me in antiquities! giving voice to Native American materials.” one of the most important things in this essay for me is the reminder that subject headings are not the only inequitable part of LCC. schedules (the letters at the beginning of LC call numbers) also miscategorize materials in harmful ways, and this particular essay focuses on the classification of all things Native American under history of the Americas, functionally relegating still living communities to the past only.

the genealogy of colonial plunder and erasure – Israel’s control over Palestinian archives by rona sela — sela has a lot of great essays about colonial archives in relation to palestine, and this one is the first of her that i read. it emphasizes how archival descriptions can be straight up false to serve a narrative and the importance of keeping records in their original context. you can find most (possibly all) of her articles on her website.

another word for ‘illegal alien’ at the library of congress: contentious by jasmine aguilera [alt link for those without nyt access] — the fight to change the “illegal alien” subject heading was hard fought and probably the most publicized in recent history. it was finally updated officially in 2021, but it took years to get there. this article is from 2016, and offers insight into the fight, including an attempt by R lawmakers to prevent the change.

August of Another Summer and I'm Unfortunately Still Me