The first thing that came to mind while reading this week’s reading covering selecting, sorting, and classifying is the Dewey Decimal Classification. In Classification and its Structures, C.M. Sperberg-McQueen actually mentions this system as an example of a classification scheme that operates within n-dimensional space. The DDC “assigns class numbers in the 800s to literary works. Within the 800s, it assigns numbers in the 820s to English literature, in the 830s to German literature, the 840s to French, etc. Within the 820s, the number 821 denotes English poetry, 822 to English drama, 823 English fiction, and so on. Further digits after the third make even finer distinctions” (Sperberg-McQueen). Creating a “tree-like hierarchy”, the DDC designated the widest, most important label first (i.e. country of origin), then refines it farther and farther into a classified system.
Researching more about the DDC, I wondered why and how Melvil Dewey decided “American” would be assigned number one, “English” number two, etc. in 1876. In a 2012 post to the Association for the Library Service to Children blog, guest contributor Tali Balas Kaplan emphasizes the outdated quality of the DDC, arguing, “Successful systems have clear logic and the different pieces are connected in ways that make sense to people who’re using the system. Students may be able to navigate the numbers if you spend enough time teaching Dewey and find pieces of it, such as the 636.7 books or the 745.5 books. But the logic, the sense of it, will escape them because it’s based on criteria that are unknown or irrelevant to them” (Kaplan). Answering my own question, the DDC has also received criticism for its bias towards Anglo-American voice in its hierarchical designations.1
This particular disadvantage of the DDC relates closely with Julia Gaffield’s article Haiti’s Declaration of Independence: Digging for Lost Documents in the Archives of the Atlantic World. The process of filtering information, “by identifying the properties relevant for such judgments of similarity and dissimilarity can make explicit a particular view concerning the nature of the objects being classified” (Sperberg-McQueen). In the beginning of her research, her associates warned Gaffield of the very few resources available on the early period of Haiti’s independence. Nonetheless, Gaffield devised a new research strategy, in which she traveled to six other countries besides Haiti, including Jamaica, Great Britain, France, the United States, Netherlands and Denmark in order to “emphasize the interconnectedness of the Atlantic World” (Gaffield). In doing so, Gaffield discovered the long lost original copy of Haiti’s Declaration of Independence at the National Archives of the United Kingdom.
Further, Gaffield’s curation of her research process reveals “the interconnectedness of empires, colonies, and countries in the early modern period. Historians are beginning to conduct their research in new ways, traveling to archives in multiple countries and researching in several languages” (Gaffield). When confronted with a mass body of material like a library of a country’s history, one must decide how and why they curate information. The implications of both the DDC and Gaffield’s work show that their responsibility is enormous. The impact and voice of this information within culture is up to the way in which it is classified.
1. Fandino, Marta (2008). “UDC or DDC: a note about the suitable choice for the National Library of Liechtenstein”. Extensions and Corrections to the UDC. Retrieved 12 October 2014.
Works Cited
Balas Kaplan, Tali. “Done with Dewey.” Web log post. ALSC Blog. Association for Library Service to Children, 17 Apr. 2012. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.
Gaffield, Julia. “Haiti’s Declaration of Independence: Digging for Lost Documents in the Archives of the Atlantic World.” The Appendix 2, no. 1 (October 2014)
Sperberg-McQueen, “Classification and its Structures,” in Schreibman et al., ed., Companion to Digital Humanities (Malden, Mass: Blackwell, 2004)