Olson, Hope – Making Sense of
Running head: OLSON, HOPE – MAKING SENSE OF
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of Some of the Content of Her Works
Michele Elnicky
Emporia State University
1
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of
2
Abstract
This paper is an assessment of the writings of Hope Olson in relation to her work
on analyzing the DDC and LCSH for social and cultural biases. The purpose of this paper
is for the author to make sense of Olson’s dense material concerning her discussions on
hierarchy and universalism and its effects on information organization in relation to
marginalized people and their publications. Utilized for this paper were Hope Olson’s
publications: Mapping Beyond Dewey’s Boundaries: Constructing Classificatory Space
for Marginalized Knowledge Domains, The Power to Name: Representation in Library
Catalogs, Patriarchal Structures of Subject Access and Subversive Techniques for
Change, and The Ubiquitous Hierarchy: An Army to Overcome the Threat of a Mob.
What was concluded was that there are biases existent within the DDC and the LCSH.
Suggestions for improvement are making paradoxical space, leaving space for the “other”
to voice, using free text searches along side controlled vocabulary, utilizing multilingual
catalogs, using an adapted interface that can mediate between standard records, and
letting users create their own search maps that they can then share with others.
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of
3
Introduction
“Language is one of the most intimate and most political of
human activities. The power of naming in fact shapes and defines
the institutions that structure so much of our lives” (Capek, as
quoted by Olson, 2001, p.12).
Acknowledging that language has the power to shape and construct our lives,
Hope Olson analyzes the Dewey Decimal System and Charles Cutter’s Library of
Congress Subject Headings and their basis in Western philosophy to assess any cultural
or structural biases inherent in these information-organizing systems. By clearly
establishing Hegel and Bacon’s influence upon Dewey and linking Charles Cutter to Paul
Reid and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers in her article The Ubiquitous
Hierarchy: An Army to Overcome the Threat of a Mob (2004,601-612), Olson sets the
stage for a feminist critical analysis of the very foundations and structures upon which
these two widely used organizational systems rest. Hope Olson believes that Dewey and
Cutter’s organizational systems are hierarchically based as they attempt to make militarylike order out of what they perceived to be the chaos of unstructured information.
“Western philosophy has hierarchy as one of its underlying themes” (Olson, 2004, p.
606).
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of
4
Dewey and Hierarchical Structures
“Dewey created his hierarchical arrangement by gathering like
entities in a structure that progresses through ranks of relationships
between things…Dewey’s use of classes, divisions, and sections
recalls the hierarchy of an army…Each differentiation of the
hierarchical arrangement compounds the separation of classes,
dwindling same from different as more levels are added in a chain
of facets like a chain of command” (Olson, 2004, p. 608-609).
As a result of this type of military-like arrangement, Olson points out that what is
created is a “structural hierarchy” which “means that all topics (aside from the ten main
classes) are subordinate to and part of all of the broader topics above it” (Dewey, 1996, as
quoted by Olson, 2004, p. 612). “As a result, the hierarchy shapes the topics within it as
Hegel’s universal shapes the individual through the particular” (Olson, 2004, p. 612). In
other words, the placement of a multidimensional work is shaped by, affected by, further
defined (and undermined by the elimination of that which does not fit) by the topics
above it in the hierarchical format, initially being limited or pigeon holed by the closed
ten main classes at the top of the hierarchical format. If, then, as Olson discusses in her
Mapping Beyond Dewey, classification “tends to reflect the most mainstream version of
these relationships…(that) classificatory structures are developed by the most powerful
discourses in society…the result is the marginalization of concepts outside of the
mainstream” (Olson, 1998, p. 3). If we are pigeon holing or “fitting-in” non-mainstream
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of
5
concepts within mainstream hierarchical structures in order to create order, their
placement, then, would be based loosely on their mere relevance to mainstream thought
only, and not their content’s full meaning and discourse, thereby potentially silencing the
full meaning of the text and possibly displacing the work from other works of relevance
to it – further marginalizing the concepts. “The result of hierarchical classification is that
groups at the top of the hierarchy will always be gathered together, but groups lower
down the hierarchy will be dispersed…People of African descent are diasporized
throughout DDC by more than just geographical factors” (Olson, Spring 2001, p. 654655).
Those loose fitting, outside the normal discourse works are being situated in an
area that barely describes their content in order to place it somewhere in relation to a
mainstream subject and may, as a result, be placed among irrelevant topics to its content
and be placed away from other relevant works who have also been pigeon holed but
whose combined relevant topic(s) is/are not recognized by the mainstream. How does
Olson address this problem?
Among other things, in her Mapping Beyond Dewey’s Boundaries: Constructing
Classificatory Space for Marginalized Knowledge Domains, Olson suggests placing a
paradoxical notion within the related terms or narrower terms of a structured hierarchy
where omission has taken place in order to open up the space and to make the limits
pliable. “Making the exclusions visible means identifying the space’s boundaries to
allow recognition of what is outside of those boundaries…It shows the constructed nature
of the space” (Olson, 1998, p. 9). By including the paradoxical notions the author hopes
to create continued and open discussion of the issues (Olson, 1998, p. 14) by increasing
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of
6
awareness of the omissions and to make space within the DDC for non-hierarchical
relationships.
She also suggests making spaces, “rather than filling them: The spaces are for the
other to fill should she desire to do so” (Olson, 2001, p.21). By “other”, Olson is
speaking about the marginalized voices whom, by opening the limits with implications of
the biases there in, should be afforded the space to speak for themselves.
Cutter and Presumptions of Universality
“Charles Cutter, on the other hand, was not creating a
classification. He was creating a dictionary catalog to assign
names to information…The structure that Cutter devised to arrange
entries so that they may be easily found is a hierarchical structure
formed by cross-references” (Olson, 2004, p. 605-606).
According to Olson in her article The Power to Name: Representation in Library
Catalogs, Cutter developed his subject headings under the notion that library users act as
a unified whole and as such would want a universal controlled vocabulary in order to
easily find relevant topics placed together in a browse able format (2001, p. 642). Also,
Olson states, there is another presumption happening in the LCSH:
“In assigning subject headings, the cataloger is instructed in the
Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings to assign the most
specific heading available” (Library of Congress, as quoted by
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of
7
Olson, 2004, p. 613)…The cataloger finds this specific heading by
following the reference structure of NARROWER TERMS (NT)
down the hierarchy as far as it applies. Given the hierarchical
structure of LCSH, this dictum is logical. However, it presumes
that all headings and, therefore, all topics fit neatly into
hierarchies” (Olson, 2004, p. 613).
These two presumptions, that the public thinks and acts as a unified whole and therefore
want to utilize a universal, controlled vocabulary, and that all topics fit neatly into these
universal subjects, are a basis of focus for Olson in her evaluation of the LCSH.
According to Olson, what the LCSH is looking for is a notion of sameness at the expense
of diversity and based on the notion that a universal language is ideal. The notion of
universal once again gets translated into mainstream thought where the majority
outweighs the minority. What is being left out when trying to fit everything into a neat
hierarchical format that is supposed to relate to universal concepts? How/ where does
that “fit” affect the placement and thereby the definition of works that do not necessarily
fit into these assumed universal molds? Olson approaches these questions in her article
The Power to Name: Representation in Library Catalogs with an analysis of the
handling and placement of bell hooks’ accredited book Talking Back: Thinking Feminist,
Thinking Black (1989), a virtual cannon of feminist and black discourse. Within the
LCSH, this book has been assigned the headings:
Afro-American women.
Feminism – United States
Hooks, Bell.
(Olson, 2001, p. 656)
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of
8
Yes, it is a book written by an African American woman, and yes it is based in feminism,
however, according to Olson, the placement of this book is irrelevant to its topic, which is
that of giving voice to the marginalized and unheard, a topic that is and has been accepted
and discussed amongst feminist and cultural poststructuralists for some time now and has
been established as a subject of warrant within these fields. “The LC catalogers are
charged with proposing new headings on the basis of literary warrant – that is, when they
catalog a work on a new topic they are responsible for proposing a subject heading to
represent it. Other libraries are also invited to submit proposals for new headings to LC,
and many are added to LCSH each year one may well wonder why there is still no
appropriate heading even after hooks’ and others’ books have been in print for over a
decade” (p. 656).
Olson’s answer to this question why, although Cutter’s system allows for change
in this area the LCSH does not create a subject heading about getting voice for the
marginalized, is that “the inappropriate, inadequate classification of (this book) stems
from the lack of importance placed on the concerns of other women in our culture and
society in general” (pg. 658). “The LCSH cannot represent ‘voice’ because of its
association with silenced groups, because those who give it meaning are excluded from
the process of subject representation and definition. Like other language, LCSH is
socially constructed and reflects such biases, usually unintentionally” (pg 656).
Olson furthers her critique of the organizing system by stating: “books embodying
multiple marginalizations are either ghettoized in an obscure corner of the catalog (all
women or all African Americans lumped together) or dispersed in a diaspora of little
ghettos. Separated from mainstream subject classifications, where they are pushed to the
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of
9
margins, they will not disturb library users looking for books on ‘real’ topics” (p. 658659). Although this book and its theory has gained and held long time standing of
literary warrant in feminist and black theory discourse, it appears that the LC catalogers
do not value or know to value the warrant of these “other”, outside of mainstream
discourses and thereby, instead of creating a subject heading that would acknowledge this
theory, instead displace this work within the system in order to make it fit within the
‘norm’, losing its content to the hierarchical structure, placing it near lesser relevant texts,
redefining it within the context of the mainstream and ultimately depriving it of its voice.
Ironic.
Furthering the disempowerment of her work, Olson points out that the LCSH
spells her name Bell Hooks in accordance to the LCSH standards, instead of bell hooks,
her chosen way of naming herself.
What proposals does Hope Olson suggest for addressing these issues? She
suggests following Cornell’s injunction by building an “ethical relationship with the other
through techniques for making the limits of our existing information systems permeable”
(p. 659). “Cornell proposes that we need to let the other speak for it/him/herself – we
need to develop an ethical relation with the other” (p. 659). She states that there are three
ways to make the systems permeable, “to apply technology in innovative and subversive
ways, to stretch standards such as LCSH and DDC, and to adopt an active stance by
creating spaces in our boundaries for the voices of those who have been excluded” (p.
659). “Library and information studies researches have typically concluded that a
combination of free text and controlled vocabulary is ideal because one provides freedom
while the other provides control” (p. 660). This way, by using free text searches, the
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of 10
notion of voice could be accessed outside of their hierarchical placement. Also, “using
systems designed for multilingual catalogs to allow more than one authoritative heading
for a topic” (p. 661) would be a way to make the boundaries more permeable, stretching
the notion of universality and increasing the potential for subject headings.
Another proposal would be an “easily adapted interface (that) can mediate
between standard records, such as LC’s, and users’ needs – gathering topics of current
interest at a particular time in a particular context” (p. 661). This could work in
connecting works outside or alongside the organizational systems’ contexts. “Or users
could be encouraged to create their own links between documents to gather in ways they
find useful and leave a trail for future users…the technologies for all three of these
techniques already exist” (p. 661).
Olson further states, “to implement these changes requires an active stance on the
part of librarians and library users” (p. 662) and that such notions should be acted upon
locally, in order to further avoid the notion of universality and maintain a dynamic
dialogue within the local culture (p. 661). “While changes are expensive and labor
intensive, if libraries have a serious commitment to serving their users the workload
imposed by such changes will be cost effective in terms of improved access” (p. 663).
Conclusion
Hope Olson’s intense critical evaluations of the DDC and LCSH systems are
complex and filled with important revelations of exclusions lost within the systems and
displaced/ marginalized within our Western ways of thought. Only a few have been
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of 11
handled in this particular paper as I try to wrap my head around everything that she has
been writing.
By creating an historical background of the two systems as imbedded in Western
philosophical thought, Olson is then able to suggest that biases exist within these
organizational systems just as they do within their corresponding culture’s constructs.
Utilizing the same tools that poststructuralists utilize to mine out and assess these biases
and by taking a feminist analysis approach thereby making the notion of such biases
political and taking the stance of resistance and change, Olson is able to point out
omissions and displacements of works that would otherwise add to the discussion and
overall improvement of browse ability within the library systems and to our cultural
discourses as a whole.
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of 12
References
hooks, b. (1989). Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Cambridge, MA:
South End Press.
Olson, H. A., (1998). Mapping Beyond Dewey’s Boundaries: constructing Classificatory
Space for Marginalized Knowledge Domains. Library Trends, 47, 233-254.
Retrieved June 7, 2006, from the EBSCOhost database.
Olson, H. A., (2001). The Power to Name: Representation in Library Catalogs. Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society 26, 639-668. Retrieved June 7, 2006,
from the EBSCOhost database.
Olson, H. A. (2001). Patriarchal Structures of Subject Access and Subversive Techniques
for Change. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 26, 1-29.
Retrieved June 7, 2006, from the EBSCOhost database.
Olson, H. A. (2004). The Ubiquitous Hierarchy: An Army to Overcome the Threat of a
Mob. Library Trends 52, 604-616. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from the EBSCOhost
database.
Olson, Hope – Making Sense of 13