After a nice weekend in deepest Oxfordshire, I'm shuffling pieces of paper around and wondering where this week will go. To start with, let's look at the state of play with the Campaign To Rescue Books With Transsexual Content From Stupid Categories In The Dewey System.Must think of a snappier and acronym-friendly title. Hmm.
Anyway.
As mentioned earlier, it appears that biographies and autobiographies of people with a transsexual history tend to get lumped into Social Sciences: Culture and Institutions. That's if they're lucky. If they aren't, they might well find themselves among the paedophiles over at Mental Health: Personality Disorders.
Previous posts are here, here and here.
I have written to Bristol Library, whose stock officer accepted that the latter category 'is now incorrect and unacceptable', but stated that Becoming Drusilla, the book in which I have an interest, is about a change of sex, and is therefore correctly assigned to 306.768, where it can presumably be studied by students of social science. He expressed the hope that it clarified things for me.
Alas, it did not, as my reply explained.
But answer (from Bristol library) came there none. And two weeks later, Jan Morris' Conundrum is still listed in the 'incorrect and unacceptable' 616.858 category in the library catalogue.
I still await a reply from the British Library.
Thanks, though, to SteveL, who posted the link to this article, which deals with ways of ordering information, and which introduced me to the word ontology, which is a good word.
I feel rather less alone when I realise that 'othering' is an inevitable side-effect of hierarchical ordering, performed by 'experts', as in the Dewey System; here, for instance, is the category Religion
Dewey, 200: Religion...can you see what it is yet? -as Rolf Harris used to say....
210 Natural theology
220 Bible
230 Christian theology
240 Christian moral & devotional theology
250 Christian orders & local church
260 Christian social theology
270 Christian church history
280 Christian sects & denominations
290 Other religions
As Nose In A Book commented,
I 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.Indeed.
How 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'...
The road goes on and ever on....
ReplyDeleteI asked Dom but she is snowed under and needs to read all of your posts on the subject when she has the time, but she did agree that it sounded like the wrong classification to her, of course she works in a library overweighted towards psychology.
i caught the end of a program on the BBC about Bristol bikers this morning. I listened out for you cyling by.
OK. I've done the necessary research. This is definitely one for OCLC who maintain Dewey. The current (22nd) introduced the new heading of 'Transexuality' within the more general class 'Sexual orientation'.
ReplyDeleteThere are subdivisions of 'Transsexual adolescents', 'Older transsexuals' and 'Christian transsexuals'.
The Relative Index (which lists more terms than in the Schedules themselves) refers 'Transgender people' and 'Transexuals' to this new 'Transexuality' class.
The earlier (21st - I haven't gone back any further) edition handled it quite differently under the general heading 'Social groups', then 'Occupational and misc groups', then 'Persons with special social status' and finally 'Persons by sexual orientation'.
To 'Persons by sexual orientation' to had to add a supplementary heading from a list including 'Gays' and 'Transsexuals'.
The current (22nd ed) number allocated to 'Transsexuality' is 306.768. The old one was 305.9066-something-or-other.
I'm at a loss to understand how the powers-that-be at OCLC allow a gender issue to have been relocated to a sexuality class. At the end of the day, we have to accept that Dewey is a US classification and reflects an American world-view.
We have our copies of Richard's book classified as biography in Plymouth, by the way, but that was down to me.
Webrarian, great work.
ReplyDelete"I'm at a loss to understand how the powers-that-be at OCLC allow a gender issue to have been relocated to a sexuality class."
No kidding.
I think people do their best, but are so completely unconscious about things, they just can't feel what that might be perceived like to the person being categorized.
Which is another reason us bloggers are so necessary! If only people thought to think past and question things a little more, all the answers are here.
It was a good programme, wasn't it, Anji? I was familiar with all the places, of course... and the attitudes...
ReplyDeleteChris, that is terrifically helpful. Thank you. It also sucks that free access is denied to the categories; but I found this in an OCLC guide,
Table of Last Resort
5.9 When several numbers have been found for the work in hand, and each seems as good as
the next, the following table of last resort (in order of preference) may be used as a
guideline in the absence of any other rule:
Table of last resort
(1) Kinds of things
(2) Parts of things
(3) Materials from which things, kinds, or parts are made
(4) Properties of things, kinds, parts, or materials
(5) Processes within things, kinds, parts, or materials
(6) Operations upon things, kinds, parts, or materials
(7) Instrumentalities for performing such operations
For example, surveillance by border patrols could be classed in either 363.285 Border
patrols, or 363.232 Patrol and surveillance. Choose 363.285 since border patrols are a
kind of police service, while patrol and surveillance are processes performed by police
services.
5.10 Do not apply this table or any other guideline if it appears to disregard the author's
intention and emphasis.
...that last bit (5.10) is interesting; I wonder how much its intention is honoured? -but anyway, there is something seriously wrong about the category. And work to be done.
"I think people do their best, but are so completely unconscious about things, they just can't feel what that might be perceived like to the person being categorized." -that's really it, isn't it, Chandira? The chap at Bristol who expressed the hope that he had clarified things for me seemed to think that he had imparted knowledge to someone dwelling in the outer darkness...
As a former librarian in a small village library, my experience was that the classification would have been left to my discretion, usually guided by the publisher. Most books nowadays---I've loaned yours to a friend, so don't have it handy to check---include a Dewey classification on the page with the copyright info. I would, of course, having read the book, classify it as a bio, with additional classifiables spelled out in the catalog as guided by the publisher---presumably with the author's permission.
ReplyDeleteThere is no "biography" classification within the Dewey system. That's why every library I've ever visited has a "Biography" section.
ReplyDelete(I did a Google search, and biographies are listed as being alphabetical by last name in every instance. I did not check the Library of Congress. But they have a numbering system that is reputed to be arcane to say the least!)
The Dewey system is not renowned for keeping pace with contemporary life; I believe the Oxford dictionaries have a better reputation for being up to date! But no one has come up with a system that is better. So it endures. (It's a chicken/egg problem, for sure.)
I've always found the Dewey system to be quite mysterious. It doesn't reflect an American view of the world as much as it reflects a best effort, at the time the system came into being. Complete with the prejudices of that time.
The British Library could certainly do a better job of categorization, but I don't think anyone would accuse them of adventurous thinking in such matters.
You're fighting inertia, really. Not the implementation of a classification system. It would fairly easy to re-categorize all transgender subjects, but that would require shaking up some concepts they're not ready to do. Prove your ontology right, and in a dozen years - the British Library might move. Or it might not. Keep at it, though.
(You might want to talk to the publisher, and get them to write 'biography' on the book in their categorization section.)
Sorry.
Carolyn Ann
There is no guidance in the book itself, Larry; I checked hardback and paperback; just a statement that there is a CIP reference at the British Library, which was presumably decided by BDS, the commercial outfit who assign categories on behalf of the BL...
ReplyDeleteYes, Carolyn Ann, a part of the problem is that DSM classes transsexuality as a mental illness, so it would be unrealistic to expect the Dewey system to differ. But there is a Biography section, 920, and I am arguing that books other than those dealing with the condition itself should be there. Don't ask, don't get... I'm just a bit surprised that this has gone on for so long.