LS 500 Three Decades Sine P & A

Knowlton, S.A. (2005). Three Decades Since Prejudices and Antipathies: A Study of Changes in the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 40(2):123-45.

In 1971 Sanford Berman wrote Prejudices and Antipathies: A Tract on the LC Subject Heads Concerning People (P & A) which listed numerous objectionable headings and proposed changes. The article compiles all of Berman’s suggestions and looks at the changes that have happened over the last thirty years and the biases that still remain.

The Problem of Biased Headings In LCSH

Since LCSH was first published it has come under microscopic review by librarians. Critics have examined the choice of terms, the syndetic structure and the inconsistency with which subject headings are formulated. Even with these objections the LCSH is the primary thesaurus for controlled vocabulary searching in libraries in the United States and around the world. With the increase use of LCSH and especially the world wide use Librarians continue to object about the bias in subject headings, especially those used to identify groups of people that perpetuate “the exclusionary cultural supremacy of the main-stream patriarchal, Euro-settler culture.” This means that a Subject Heading has a BIAS when it only uses language that shows a prejudice in favoring particular view points and against others.

The core of the bias problem is illustrated in the LCSH Operating Principles. David J. Haykin, chief of the Library of Congress stated, “The heading…should be that which the reader will seek in the catalog, if we know or can presume what the reader will look under.” This rule also ignores the notion of universal bibliographic control to which the LC also has a commitment to do. The article states the largest problem is the identity of the “average”reader: an American/Western European, Christian, White, Heterosexual and Male. LCSH with biases also makes materials harder to find for certain users, it stigmatizes certain groups of people with inaccurate and demeaning labels and creates the impression that certain points of view are normal while others are unusual. With the increased use of the LCSH into the four corners of the world, more and more librarians are objecting to the biases from as far away as Great Britain and Australia.

Sanford Berman’s Prejudices & Antipathies

The pioneer in calling attention to the biases has of course been Sanford Berman who wrote the paper that this article is examining. Berman’s goal was to, “question certain subject headings in LCSH and propose alterations, additions and deletions of headings in LCSH and propose alterations, additions and deletions of headings and cross references to more accurately reflect the language used in addressing these topics, to rectify errors of bias and to better guide librarians and readers to material of interest.” Berman’s paper was met with mixed reviews in the library press.

Changes to LCSH SINCE the Publication of P & A

Berman himself estimates that no more than half of his suggestions have been adopted.

Discussion

In reality P & A proved to be the cornerstone for changes in LCSH. “In the 225 headings that Berman suggested be changed 88 or 39% were changed almost exactly as he suggested and an additional 54 headings or 24% were changed in a way that partially reflects Berman’s suggestions. 80 items remain unchanged or 36% show patterns of thought that persist in the Library of Congress, one such example are the many subject headings that pertain to the Christian Religion remain unchanged.”

The article states that while the biases are a continuing source of concern they have been seriously addressed by the compilers of the LCSH. The main biases that still persist deal with unglossed religious headings that refer to Christian topics and terms relating to the United States history and geography, which would be confusing to users outside of the U.S.

Reflection

I am very glad to see that LCSH has taken the biases seriously and dealt with them accordingly since Berman wrote his paper. I think we need to be ever vigilant for the users of the future and make sure that things continue to change and that search terms are as inclusive as possible so that users world wide have an equal shot at finding the same information. Equal and easy access for all — isn’t that what we strive for as a profession? Making sure the information gets to those that need it most.