Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front,[1] (henceforth
RC) edited by K.R. Roberto, a librarian at the University of Denver
The Roots of Radicalism: Sanford
The radical
cataloging project originates with the pioneering work of Sanford Berman. In 1968, he took a job at the University of Zambia Library
in Lusaka . There he learned that “kafir,” a racial slur
directed at black South Africans, was being used as a LCSH.[3] Berman argued that LCSHs had a conservative
bias towards the status quo; subject headings reflected societal power
relations at the time.[4] He sought to change and influence Library of
Congress (LC) cataloging by creating additional subject headings for use by Hennepin County
The
far majority of his work dealt with issues of social justice and
inclusion. What was once the LCSH for
“God” became the disambiguated “God (Christianity),” a change implying that the
Christian conception of God was only one point of view rather than the sum
total of LC holdings. He successfully
petitioned the LC to add subject headings for topics like “Plutocracy” and “Culture
Wars,” among others, but was unsuccessful in others, such as “Native American
Holocaust.” When his attempt to get the LC
to add a subject heading for “National Health Insurance” failed, he lobbied
late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) to pressure the LC. “National Health Insurance” was added to the
subject headings (Berman 8).
In
acting as a thorn in the side of the LC, Berman influenced a younger generation
of catalogers and librarians, many of whom are represented in RC. By focusing on headings written in plain
English and standing with interests often lacking power or representation, he has
made it easier for patrons to find materials in catalogs and given voice to
those without it.
Radical Cataloging: Taking on the LC
Like many
left-wing movements, the essays in RC are a group of divergent interests united
under an umbrella of radicalism. Roberto
purposefully chooses to leave “radical cataloging” undefined, noting that the
term originated in a listserv discussion that became political (Roberto 1), but
Jennifer Young argues that “Radical cataloging is the notion that catalogers
are users too” (Young 84). Roberto’s goal
is for this book to become a resource for catalogers and advocates (Roberto 3),
one that is for the most part achieved thanks to the diversity of subjects
throughout the text.
Chapters
focus on a variety of topics, from cataloging outsider art (Benedetti); to
fanzines, also known as zines (Freedman); to organizing popular music by genre
(Summers); to automating OCLC’s Connexxion client to perform low-level
intellectual tasks (Preston ). Much of the collection expands on Berman’s
critique of LCSHs, often by specialists concerned with LCSHs in their areas of
expertise. tatiana de la tierra (the
lowercase name is her choosing) bemoans the lack of a subject heading for
lesbian Latinas (de la tierra 100), while Tracey Nectoux’s chapter attacks the
LCSHs for its use of “cult” because of the negative connotations surrounding
that word (Nectoux 107). Brian
Hasenstab’s annotated bibliography of radical cataloging is a good place to
start for readers interested in the history of activism and cataloging. Although unconcerned with identity politics,
Christopher Walker’s article criticizes LCSHs for inconsistencies with regards
to species, hyphenation, and plurality (Walker
131-132).[7]
Ultimately,
however, the far majority of these authors recognize the usefulness of
LCSHs. They merely want to improve them
and make them more inclusive, or, as Hasenstab notes, “helpful, equal access to
all types of information for all patrons” is not radical (Hasenstab 76). Walker in
particular concedes this point, writing, “LCSH is more baby than bath water” (Walker 137). Yet this begs the question, what is
radical?
This is Not a Radical Catalog
The first truly
radical shots fired in RC come from Jeffrey Beall’s chapter on OCLC, a company that
sells cataloging data and centralized interlibrary loan interfaces to
libraries. Beall’s critique of OCLC is
set up as if libraries are developing countries while OCLC is a profit-hungry
multi-national corporation. This allows
him to attack the organization, “malevolent… in the way that all large, rapacious,
transnational conglomerates are” (Beall 85), under the guise of Gramscian
critique. Just as raw materials come
from developing countries and are made into finished products elsewhere only be
to sold back to those countries,[8]
OCLC buys cataloging data from libraries and then sells them to other libraries
at a substantial markup. OCLC also
discourages the sharing of MARC records between libraries, although how exactly
this is done Beall does not say. The
author also accuses the company of being “an information sweatshop” whose
“mission… is to separate libraries from their money” (Beall 87). OCLC does this by employing temporary workers
and computer scientists at the expense of librarians. While I find this inflammatory rhetoric
entertaining, the author proposes little in the way of substantive strategies
of resistance.
Tina
Gross takes aim at the Calhoun Report,[9] arguing
that its focus on speed and cooperation with the private sector constitutes a
manufactured emergency, a false crisis in which the dissent of catalogers is
marginalized in the name of modernization, efficiency, and cost savings. Gross posits that the policy recommendations
of the Report prevent libraries from being self-sufficient and stifle
dissent. Calhoun’s conclusions paint all
who oppose it with the same brush, those who attempt to stem this tide are
called “selfish” or “dinosaurs” regardless of motives (Gross 141). The author does an admirable job separating
the luddites from those who have legitimate concerns regarding the future of
cataloging. Thomas Mann’s chapter on the
LC expands this critique, noting that many librarians would label the Calhoun
Report as radical (Mann 170).
Elsewhere
in RC less economic and more philosophical forms of radicalism abound. Bradley Dilger and William Thompson think
that cataloging should become more prevalent, more public, in library
settings. Using Derrida’s discussion of
play as a point of departure, they argue
Cataloging assuages an absence, a desire for getting at the knowledge contained in a library’s collection and creating new knowledge from it. Catalogs still act as permeable boundaries between people and ‘real’ knowledge and ‘potential’ knowledge contained in the collection, mediating the indeterminacy between what is known (a work’s title, author, or subject) and the desire for the unknown (the work’s content, and more importantly, its potential use) (Dilger and Thompson 45).
While these
authors use a (rare) uplifting strain of postmodernism to elevate the catalog
to an object of protection, Emily Drabinski challenges the very concept of a
catalog, contending, “Political efforts to change terminology or localize
classification schemes are inevitably limited by the nature of classification
itself” (Drabinski 198). Although humans
have been cataloging and classifying for thousands of years, she sees these
tools as hegemonic; to overhaul this structure one must step outside of it.[10] Her chapter is a powerful rejoinder to Berman
and others because it implicates them as part of a system in which incremental
changes to LCSHs are epiphenomenal, obscuring true power structures and those
that might benefit from them.
Drabinski
also argues that classification and cataloging are “products of human labor
that carry traces of all the intentional and unintentional racism, sexism, and
classism of the workers who create them” (Drabinski 198). While Berman and other authors in RC agree
with this statement, her conclusions do not logically follow. Drabinski’s solution is to borrow from The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, in which
a dialectic of education and liberation in information literacy can free one
from hegemony.[11] I
propose a more modest goal: historicize the catalog. Instead of abandoning or overthrowing it,
realize and then teach that catalogs and systems of classification are not only
social constructs, created by humans, but also historical constructs, created
at specific points in time. Recast in
historicist light, Berman’s work on LCSHs appears more radical as he and others
worked to revise and dismantle subject headings that reflected a white male
power structure while many did the same with regards to society at large. In short, by asking the LC to add, amend, or
eliminate some subject headings, Berman is historicizing the catalog. I suggest that creations dates of LCSHs be
added to LCSH authority records so patrons can see when headings were
created. Others, like dates of major
reorganizations, should be entered as well. Doing so will make it easier for users to view
catalogs as products of their times.
UnRadical Cataloging: What Works
The authors in
the third part of RC shy away from the confrontational tactics of those in the
first part,[12] and lack
the philosophizing of those in the second.
As a result, many readers, especially information professionals, will
find the focus on pragmatic strategies and solutions the most useful part of
the volume. Perhaps not coincidentally,
this is the least radical section of the book.
Librarians would be wise to implement many of the suggestions in the
third portion, regardless of their dubious connection to the first two.
Jennifer
Erica Sweda’s chapter proposes tagging as a way around inflexible LCSHs. Tom Adamich adds metadata regarding the
educational quality of items in the 505 and 586 fields of MARC records to show
teachers searching for resources if an item has a certain theme, meets a state
standard, or has won an award (Adamich 242, 244). Dana M. Caudle and Cecilia M. Schmitz propose
that catalogers spend time at the reference desk, while A. Arro Smith (yes,
that’s his name) encourages catalogers to think and act like reference
librarians. Altering MARC records to aid
patrons’ searches is the goal of his chapter.
He adds “Harry Potter” to the 240 field, making books about Harry Potter
more visible for patrons, increasing their circulation (Smith 296).
In
sum, the authors in RC are united by little more than a desire to help patrons
find what they are looking for, the goal of any catalog, and are bound by the
beliefs that cataloging need not be boring and should be a force for good. The collection of essays is disjointed and
not always radical, but it is thought-provoking and offers up something
interesting for catalogers of all persuasions and interests. The work of Berman and others to update LCSHs
is a noble and worthy cause; one all information professionals should pay
attention to. Although RC lacks the theoretical and analytical rigor needed to
properly historicize cataloging, it is a qualified success and an important
first step towards that goal. Finally,
the recommendations of the third section will prove invaluable to many
librarians.
Appendix: So You Want to be a Radical
Cataloger
If you are interested in current issues in radical
cataloging, the following are good places to start.
- Join the Radical Cataloging listserv, RadCat, at http://www.listserv.uga.edu/archives/radcat.html. (Caution, may contain Comic Sans.)
- Read and subscribe to Sanford Berman’s library zine, The Unabashed Librarian: http://www.unabashedlibrarian.com/.
- Bookmark or add The Library Juice blog to your RSS feed: http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/.
Read up on the history of radical cataloging.
- Olson,
Hope A. The Power to Name: Locating
the Limits of Subject Representation in Libraries.
- Roberto,
Katia and Jessamyn West, eds. Revolting
Librarians Redux: Radical Librarians Speak Out.
- The Sanford Berman Website. http://www.sanfordberman.org/.
- West,
Celeste and Elizabeth Katz, et al., eds. Revolting Librarians.
Practice it!
- Keep tabs on new and updated LCSHs: http://www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/weeklylists/.
- Propose a few of your own: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/prop/proposal.html and http://www.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/saco/sacopropform.html.
References
from Roberto, K.R., ed. Radical Cataloging: Essays at the Front.
Jefferson , NC
Adamich, Tom. “CE-MARC: The Educator’s Library ‘Receipt.’”
p.241-245.
Beall, Jeffrey. “OCLC: A Review.” p.85-93.
Benedetti, Joan M. “Folk Art Terminology Revisited: Why It
(Still) Matters.” p.112-125.
Berman, Sanford. “Introduction: Cataloging Reform, LC, and Me. ” p.5-11.
Caudle, Dana M. and Cecilia M. Schmitz. “Drawing Reference
Librarians into the Fold.” p.251-254.
de la tierra, tatiana. “Latin Lesbian Subject Headings: The
Power of Naming.” p.94-102.
Dilger, Bradley and William Thompson “Ubiquitous
Cataloging.” p.40-52.
Drabinksi, Emily. “Teaching the Radical Catalog.” p.198-205.
Freedman, Jenna. “AACR 2 – Bendable but Not Flexible:
Cataloging Zines at Barnard College.” p.231-240.
Gross, Tina. “Who Moved My Pinakes? Cataloging and Change.”
p.140-147.
Hasenstab, Brian. “This Subfield Kills Fascists: A Highly
Selective, Slightly Irreverent Trip Down Radical Cataloging Literature Lane.”
p.75-82.
Mann, Thomas. “What is going on at the Library of Congress?”
p.170-188.
Nectoux, Tracey. “Cults, New Religious Movements, and Bias
in LC Subject Headings.” p.106-109.
Preston, Carrie. “High-Speed Cataloging Without Sacrificing
Subject Access or Authority Control: A Case Study.” p.269-276.
Roberto, K.R. “Preface: What Does “Radical Cataloging” Mean,
Anyway?” p.1-3.
Smith, A. Arro. “Cataloging Heresy.” p.291-299.
Summers, Michael. ‘The Genre Jungle: Organizing Pop Music
Recordings.” p.53-68.
Sweda, Jennifer Erica. “Dr. Strangecataloger: Or, How I
learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Tag.” p.246-251.
Walker, Christopher H. “Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic: A Drowning Cataloger’s Call to
Stop Churning the Subject Headings.” p.126-140.
Young, Jennifer. “Ranganathan’s Forgotten Law: Save the Time
of the Cataloger.” p.83-84.
[1] Jefferson , NC
[2] What
constitutes “radical” for our purpose, as will become clear later, is a
postmodern/poststructuralist or Gramscian worldview as applied to library and
information science in general and cataloging in particular. If these terms are meaningless to you, I
suggest Palmer, Donald. Structuralism and
Poststructuralism for Beginners. New
York : Writers and Readers Publishing, 1997, as well
as the Wikipedia pages for Antonio Gramsci <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramsci>,
postmodernism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism>,
and poststructuralism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poststructuralism>
as introductions to these contested terms.
[3] Gilyard,
Burl. “Sandy Berman’s Last Stand.” City
Pages 20(971). July 14th 1999, p.3. <http://www.sanfordberman.org/cityp/ber3t.htm>
Accessed April 11, 2009.
[4] Briefly,
this means that dominant groups within a society have the power to name and
classify, often at the expense of those who do not. Hope Olson agrees, arguing that first term
subject headings “masquerade as neutral when they are, in fact, culturally
informed and reflective of social power.” Quoted in Drabinski, 200.
[5] Gilyard.
[6] A LCSH
for “Incandescent lamps” remains in use, albeit with much less content.
Please note that all references from Radical Cataloging will be in text
parenthetical, followed by a works cited section at the end of the paper. Other references will be footnoted.
[7] Walker also points out
that in the 670 field of authority records you may come across a “Hennepin”
note, a reminder of Berman’s influence.
See Walker
133.
[8] The
world economy functions with more complexity than this. What I describe above is more akin to 19th
century imperialism than contemporary Gramscian neo-imperialism in which
corporate and other non-state actors are sometimes able to dictate and control
national economies.
[9]Calhoun, Karen.
“The Changing Nature of the Catalog and its Integration with Other Discovery
Tools.” Prepared for The Library of Congress. March 17, 2006. < http://www.LC.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf>
Accessed April 11, 2009.
[10] In
Gramscian thought hegemony is an ideological superstructure that exerts
influence unconsciously. The fact that
it goes unnoticed, assumed, and taken for granted by most is proof of its
effectiveness. The first step to
challenging a hegemonic structure is realizing that it exists.
[11] Freire,
Paolo. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
New York :
Continuum, 2007. According to Drabinski,
what Freire termed “banking education,” in which rote memorization is valued over
critical thought, is too common in contemporary information literacy. Freire’s solution is “problem-posing
education,” in which students are each given complex problems. These individuals in turn teach each other,
as well as teaching the teacher, and the end result is that student and teacher
alike are made aware of hegemonic forces that surround them. How one could apply this to information
literacy goes unmentioned in Drabinski’s chapter, and her use of “banking
education” is a straw man argument, since rote memorization is by no means the
dominant form of teaching information literacy.
In fact, she does not even summarize or describe current trends in
information literacy and pedagogy. See
Drabinksi, 202-204.
[12] A
notable exception is Drabinski’s article, which appears in the third part
because her focus on critical pedagogy is seen as a solution.
