he didn't understand the difference, because she didn't conceive it as such.
I think this alludes to a larger societal issue because we might be ignorant of stuff simply because we haven't experienced something; that doesn't give us an excuse however, to not try and understand another's experience or position.
, we will need to be willing to be learners, along with our students.
Yes, I think a great way to grow in your practice is to recognize that you might make faults sometimes, and that's ok -- as long as you continue to learn and grow from each encounter.
Students cannot succeed unless they know how to navigate our many and varied classifications, with all their limitations and political difficulties.
This is why teaching digital and traditional information literacy skills are so important!! How can you expect to find information and analyze it, if you don't know where first to go and search for it?
a critical library instruction program might instead teach students to engage critically with the classifications as text, encouraging critical thought in relation to the tools.
This is important. I think not only teaching students how to look for texts but how to critically analyze them is key to understanding the LCSHs -- understanding that just because certain terms were used decades ago (or even now) aren't good terms to use as they might carry implicit biases.
Surely people can continue to change regardless of LC subject headings; however, the headings do fix certain identities and not others in place and time.
Yes, good example. Since I think language is fluid and can change over time, has LCSH kept up with this change in language? Who is in charge of whether LCSH adapts with the terminology people use today to express their identity, versus what they used a few decades or centuries ago? Whose "voice" is truly represented--the cataloger's or the patron's?
This is a very human and very subjective process
This is what's negative about LCSH is that people choose what subject heading to file a book under--their implicit biases might come into play as they might think they "know better" where a book should go instead of considering all categories a book could fit into.
The result is a hierarchical arrangement that gathers effectively by the first facet following the idea that we gather what is the same and separate what is differen
This is important to consider because it can affect how we search for something using the LCSH--we might have to adjust our query or take a different "information pathway" to find what we want.
First, the classifications are hierarchical, and prescribe a universalizing structure of "first terms" that masquerade as neutral when they are, in fact, culturally informed and reflective of social power.
Yes, I agree. I think this "hierarchical" terms problem is precisely what Dabrinski mentions in the above paragraph about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; because there are higher-order terms in place that don't necessarily fit this specific topic, it can be harder for someone to find information about that topic if they don't know how to navigate the system.
Library classifications in the ideal are ambitious, totalizing projects: they seek to contain not only the present sum of human knowledge, but also to encompass any new knowledge generated in the future.
Perhaps this is the drawback to classification systems like DDC and LCSH--they try to encompass old, current, and new knowledges--things we might not have names for yet. So by trying to encompass "everything," evidently certain things get left out or phrased differently than we'd like them to be (now that we know better).
controlled vocabulary
In her "the power to name" article, I think Olson does a great job explaining what "controlled vocabulary" is.
In libraries, the classification can include National Library of Medicine, Dewey Decimal, Library of Congress
I think DDC is mostly used in K-12 and LCSH used in public/academic libraries.
We must get it right
Yes, totally agree that we "must get it right" now more than ever. I didn't know before reading this that "negro women" was (is?) a subject heading as I think some people find the term offensive.
I argue that classification schemes are socially produced and embedded structures
This reminds me of the Olson article when she discusses Cutter's classification terms in favor of a "singular public" -- controlled vocabulary and hierarchical structure.