21st September 2009
To: British Library
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have been looking at the way that books about transsexual people have been classified by the British Library using the Dewey Decimal System. Some decisions appear to have been made in the past that, to a contemporary eye, can appear at least questionable and sometimes plain wrong, as I hope you will agree when I highlight them.
Perhaps the best-known autobiography of a transsexual woman, Jan Morris’ Conundrum (1974), has been assigned to 616.85, Diseases: Personality Disorders. I find that in the British Library catalogue, the book is placed between two volumes entitled respectively Clinical Aspects of the Rapist and Perversion. Similarly, Duncan Ashwell’s book April Ashley’s Odyssey (1982) may be found between Adult Sexual Interest in Children and The Child Molester. There can surely be no doubt that they do not belong there.
There is, of course, a category for Transsexuality; though the position of that category within the Dewey system is itself questionable, as a sub-group of 306.7 (Culture and Institutions: Sexual Relations). Transsexuality is a condition related to gender identity, and not a mental disorder; it is not a cultural phenomenon, and has nothing to do with sexual relations. However, accepting that, as a topic, it has to exist somewhere, surely this is a section which should deal with the condition itself? There are books dealing with the medical, social, and even political aspects of transsexuality; and they are indeed in this section, and perhaps rightly so.
But I would argue that, in biography, transsexuality may be an element, and even an important element, of a subject's life; but it is not the defining element. And I am concerned that, by placing biographies of people with a transsexual history into the 306.768 category, those people are being 'othered'. This can and does happen in everyday life, where some people are too ready to see the 'transsexual' in the individual to notice that they are in fact just people too: and, in doing this, they marginalise, exoticise, isolate and even persecute them.
It was at least in part to address these concerns that I worked with Richard Beard on the book "Becoming Drusilla", and it seems sadly ironic that this book has been pigeonholed as it has been (306.768092), when the subject matter is as much the biographer as the biographee; and the book is as much a travel book as it is a biography; and, where it is a biography, it is concerned with a whole life rather than a ‘sex change’.
I should be most grateful if you would review the categorisation of these books, and the other books in your collection which may have suffered a similar fate.
Yours sincerely,
Ms Drusilla Marland
Hi Dru,
ReplyDeleteWhere would you recommend as the best place to buy your book? In particular do any local shops offer you a particularly good return?
Thanks.
I worked in a private Library for 5 years, sometimes classifying the books that came in, (which isn't easy!) and we refused to use the Dewey system, it's ****ing awful. We invented our own system that was much better. I think we'd have put your book in a much better spot on the shelf!
ReplyDeleteYou're right, I think I'd have put it in regular biographies, that seems much more what it is about. It's a snapshot of you, not just some event you went through. It's a book about a person, and I think they missed that in their silly system. I didn't.
Hi Dan!
ReplyDeleteIt's all pretty much alike to me, since most of the indy bookshops in Bristol have closed down... though if you're anywhere in the North Bristol area I'd be happy to give you one of the pile of books I've got here...
I have found it hard to get a detailed overview of the Dewey system, Chandira, as you need to be a member of a subscribing institution to access all the information. Working in a private library sounds like a whole lot of fun, though. Or was it specialist texts?
I'll ask Dom what they do in France when she comes home, also where would she put your book. Biography makes sense to me. Can you imagine how many people are missing out because they probably wouldn't dream of looking in the 306 part?
ReplyDeleteJohn Lee tells me there has been a reply. What did they say?
ReplyDeleteThat would be interesting, Anji; looking at US classifications, it seems that they are a bit more informed as to where to stick the sort of books we're talking about...
ReplyDeleteNo, Chris; I've had a reply from Bristol City Library, cited in an earlier post. but not a reply to my response to that reply; and so far I have just received an acknowledgment from the BL, and expect to hear a proper response sometime next week.
It's the "ontology problem" -your world view shapes your classification. Look at how Dewey classifies religion as another example, most of the space is taken up with variants on christianity, a small bit at the end for "others".
ReplyDeleteSee Ontology is Overrated
Thank you, Steve; that linked article is really very good, and I'll link it in a new post. A useful reminder that 'othering' is just what hierarchies do.
ReplyDeleteI assume there is a biography section in the Dewey system? What's in there? Perhaps it's considered lazy to use it; not trying hard enough.
ReplyDeleteHow come plays all get classified under 'plays'? Perhaps Hamlet should get moved to 'mental health disorders'. Most of David Hare's output could go under 'politics'.
Shall be interested to see what response you get to this letter.