Queer Identities, Queer Content and Library Classification: Is ‘Queering the Catalogue’ the Answer?

ABSTRACT

This article explores and reviews some of the literature surrounding the issue of traditional classification methods for queer identities and content in libraries. Particular attention is given to Emily Drabinski’s article, ‘Queering the Catalogue’ and what her proposed methods might look like in practice. The review was conducted through an analysis of relevant literature, especially paying attention to resources which came from the critical librarianship perspective. The literature addressed in this review considered two major approaches: the first involved methods that were part of cataloguing processes, and the second were concerned with complementary library practice. Further to these two approaches, Drabinski uses queer theory to propose a different method in which original classification terminology is used to ensure an acknowledgement of all relevant discourse. My conclusion from this review is that there is no one universal solution and all libraries should critically engage with their collection in relation to the safety and information needs of their community before making any decisions. In the future, there is a need for more librarians to consider their role critically so that they can make informed decisions about cataloguing and classification regarding access to queer identities and content.

IMPLICATIONS FOR BEST PRACTICE

• Provides an analysis of the seminal critical librarianship piece ‘Queering the Catalogue’ (Drabinski, 2013)

• Introduces contested concepts within traditional library classification methods, especially in reference to queer identities and content

• Highlights the important role that librarians can play in classifying queer identities and content within their library

KEYWORDS:

• Critical librarianship
• queer theory
• queer
• inclusion
• classification

Introduction: Critical Librarianship and ‘Queering the Catalogue’

Traditionally, librarians have attempted to present libraries as neutral spaces, inhabited by neutral professionals, who undertake neutral practices. However, voices have emerged in recent years to question this notion and encourage librarians to critically engage with their profession and how they practice it (Barr-Walker & Sharifi, 2019; Edge, 2019; Hackney et al., 2018; Mehra, 2019; Olson, 2001). Some proponents of critical librarianship have even gone as far to say that the idea of neutral libraries is not only incorrect, but also inherently harmful to any patrons or employees who belong to or identify with marginalised groups, including members of the queer community (Barr-Walker & Sharifi, 2019; Hackney et al., 2018). In this article, queer is used as an umbrella term to refer to minority sexuality and gender identities that are neither cisgender nor heterosexual.

Resistance to this idea of neutral libraries has emerged, in part, due to the critical librarianship movement, which encourages information professionals to critically engage with library practice – particularly regarding cataloguing methods, information literacy instruction and archival policies (Barr-Walker & Sharifi, 2019) – so that they can actively incorporate social justice principles into their professional lives (critlib, n.d.). As Bale (2017) notes, this process of critical engagement can be confronting for librarians as it suggests that the knowledge and power structures seen within and behind most library functions are hierarchical, patriarchal, and conservative in nature, and that change is necessary. In turn, this forces librarians to critically review their own position as agents within these structures, which are often in direct opposition with social justice narratives – such as respect, justice and equal opportunity – that many librarians believe they inherently embody (Bale, 2017). It is necessary for more librarians to critically engage with their profession in order to engage with any contemporary discourse surrounding library functions.

As Edge (2019) indicates, the critical librarianship movement has made several efforts to critically analyse and engage with the cataloguing and classification systems that are utilised by libraries through the world. Edge’s review (Edge, 2019) of critical librarianship determined that traditional catalogues both maintain and produce hegemonic ideals by using controlled and uncontrolled language to categorise and classify information. This is especially relevant when considering queer identities and content (Drabinski, 2013; Edge, 2019). A particularly notable example of this type of analysis is Drabinski’s paper ‘Queering the Catalogue: Queer Theory and the Politics of Correction’ (2013), which is a seminal and complex work in critical librarianship. It challenges librarians – and by extension, their patrons – to analyse and examine the power structures that exist within and behind traditional cataloguing and classification methods. Others have tackled this same issue and have primarily contended that the solution is to alter the controlled vocabulary within cataloguing and classification schemas to better reflect changes in attitudes towards queer identities and content (Edge, 2019). Drabinski (2013), however, uses queer theory to present the idea that altering controlled vocabulary, especially when talking about queer identities and content, is a contradictory endeavour that merely erases relevant discourse while also continuing to fail to meet the information needs of those seeking content classified in such controlled ways.

Instead of altering the language, Drabinski suggests that it should remain in its original state so that librarians – especially those that have direct contact with patrons – can use a critical perspective to view catalogues as complicated and biased texts. From this position, they can then also teach their patrons to consider catalogues through the same critical lens.

To better understand the issue, this article explores the scope and context of the relationship between traditional library classification methods and queer identities and content. The paper also considers the practices of librarians, reviews some of the relevant literature, and provides an analysis of Drabinski’s theory.

Traditional Classification Methods and Queer Identities

Traditional library classification methods – including Dewey Decimal Classification, Library of Congress Classification and Library of Congress Subject Headings – have failed to accurately and respectfully represent queer identities within their controlled languages and structures (Adler & Harper, 2018; Drabinski, 2013; Edge, 2019; Howard & Knowlton, 2018). By challenging long-standing practices, the critical librarianship movement has been able to alter some of the controlled vocabulary and classification methods used in traditional schemas so that they are better equipped to represent and signify queer identities and content (Drabinski, 2013; Edge, 2019). However, there are other issues that critical librarianship proponents have identified that still remain:

• Traditional cataloguing and classification systems are slow to update, sometimes even stagnant, which makes it impossible for them to represent the fluidity of queer identities and people (Adler, 2009; Hackney et al., 2018; Howard & Knowlton, 2018);

• The terminology used can be outdated and offensive, especially from the respective of queer individuals (Edge, 2019; Howard & Knowlton, 2018);

• Identities are either minoritized (described too specifically) or universalised (described only through broad umbrella terms) and in both situations, content may be hidden from keyword searches making it difficult for patrons to access (Christensen, 2008; Edge, 2019);

• Identities can be ‘othered’ (a process rooted in heteronormativity and gender binarism that results in queer identities being treated as deviant, abnormal or pathological (Widdersheim & McCleary, 2016)) due to the way in which controlled vocabulary is used; for example, using ‘homosexual’ as an access point but not ‘heterosexual’ (Hackney et al., 2018; Widdersheim & McCleary, 2016); and,

• Traditional methods are unable to represent interdisciplinary content in bibliographic records or physical shelving which makes it difficult for patrons to find and link related content (Clarke & Schoonmaker, 2019; Hackney et al., 2018; Howard & Knowlton, 2018).

This brief summary highlights the hegemonic discourse that has defined, and is in turn defined by, traditional cataloguing and classification schemas used by libraries. Understanding that this discourse exists is a necessary step for librarians to take so that they can critically engage with catalogues, especially regarding queer identities and content. Without this understanding it is not possible to consider the role that librarians play in perpetuating, revising or rejecting this discourse.

Librarians in Practice

While the power structures of cataloguing are the primary concern of this discussion, it is impossible to analyse these without also considering the role of librarians. It is especially important to acknowledge the role of librarians because, as Hackney et al. (2018) note, much of the current literature surrounding this topic highlights the politicised nature of libraries without mentioning the equally politicised position of librarians. Critical discussions of libraries need to consider librarians as they can be – and often are – the deciding factor in whether a specific library will reproduce or challenge the traditional structures that are evident in library cataloguing and classification systems (Widdersheim & McCleary, 2016). If librarians do not engage with critical practice – consequently upholding traditional power structures – they are putting their patrons and library peers, especially those who identify with minority groups, at risk of feeling othered, excluded, and ultimately, unwelcome in traditional library spaces (Clarke & Schoonmaker, 2019; Hackney et al., 2018; Howard & Knowlton, 2018; Widdersheim & McCleary, 2016). Alternatively, librarians who actively participate in critical librarianship are able to question the so-called norms in libraries, and thus demonstrate to queer patrons and fellow workers that they are seen and welcome, both physically and virtually, in library spaces (Widdersheim & McCleary, 2016).

Options for Combatting Hegemonic Classification

As addressed above, there is space for library authorities and librarians to critically engage with hegemonic classification language to ensure that queer identities and content are more accessible within a collection. From the literature, there appear to be two broad approaches to the issue: the first is to create methods that work alongside current practice; and the second, is to be operated outside of traditional practice (Edge, 2019). While the second, more radical method, can be appropriate, this discussion will primarily focus on the first; this is because the second method usually requires either the creation of new cataloguing and classification standards, or blending traditional methods with more modern styles of classification (Nowak & Mitchell, 2016; Rawson, 2010). Due to the complexity of the second option, this discussion will be focussing on methods that involve working entirely within current practices. This method can further be delineated by two major methodologies. The first engages with traditional cataloguing processes, as summarised below. It suggests that we:

• Ensure that librarians understand the cataloguing and classification systems that are used in their collection so that they can quickly identify and locate queer content for patrons looking for it (Howard & Knowlton, 2018);

• Build on the above, so that librarians are able to communicate how library classification and cataloguing systems work so that they can help patrons understand how and why queer identities and content are represented the way they are (Howard & Knowlton, 2018);

• Consider implementing additional metadata schemas that can incorporate diversity factors within bibliographic records, making content more searchable and accessible within catalogues (Clarke & Schoonmaker, 2019);

• Allow the use of folksonomies, such as tagging, which could add more freedom to cataloguing and make content more readily accessible (Adler, 2009; Clarke & Schoonmaker, 2019; Rawson, 2010); and,

• Where possible, continuously update, and expand upon traditional cataloguing and classification methods in order to integrate more relevant, acceptable, and appropriate language to describe queer identities and content (Edge, 2019).

The second approach involves library practices and activities alongside cataloguing, and I summarise these below. This approach suggests librarians:

• Create library spaces that are openly welcoming and inclusive towards queer patrons and employees so that they are immediately aware that not only are they welcome within the space, but also indicates that there is queer content within the collection. Making this explicit can also encourage patrons to seek assistance in finding queer materials if necessary (Floegel & Costello, 2019; Widdersheim & McCleary, 2016);

• Encourage professional library associations and educational institutions with library and information programs to consciously include literature and information about queer identities and content within libraries so that current, and future, librarians are aware of the relevant issues (Hackney et al., 2018);

• Ensure that any engagement with patrons represents the diverse nature of content available within a collection while also making sure not to stereotype either patrons or content; that is, librarians need to ensure that they recommend queer content, and do not exclusively recommend it to patrons that they assume to be queer (Widdersheim & McCleary, 2016); and,

• Encourage queer communities and employees to actively engage with libraries so that informed, inclusive and community-based initiatives can emerge as potential solutions (Floegel & Costello, 2019).

These two aspects of engaging with queer content and patrons can demonstrate that there are variety of potential ways to engage with, and possibly disrupt, the traditional hegemonic structures of classifying information surrounding queer identities and content.

It is important to note that this is not an exhaustive analysis of the literature available, and there may be even more suggestions available in other literature. It is also important to remember that each potential solution comes with its own advantages and disadvantages and there is no universal solution for all organisations. However, with the context of some potential methods for approaching this issue, it is easier to develop a more in depth understanding of Drabinski’s stance in her seminal article ‘Queering the Catalogue’ (2013).

‘Queering the Catalogue’ in Practice

With the knowledge of the above literature – as well as some knowledge of the context and role of librarians – it is worth revisiting Drabinski’s position to assess if it is appropriate or viable. Drabinski’s theory is considered outside the above categories; that is, either part of traditional cataloguing, or complimentary to it. This is because the very nature of queer theory – which Drabinski utilises – requires the abandonment of traditional practices, especially as a means of cataloguing and classifying information regarding queer identities. As this is not an immediate solution, Drabinski posits that original vocabulary should remain intact – for example, the use of ‘sexual deviancy’ to describe queer relationships – so that the discourse associated with both the term and the hegemonic structures that generated it can be addressed by librarians and patrons alike. Others, such as Campbell (2000) and Adler (2009), have suggested similar approaches, but there is still a need to consider how this approach may work in practice. Below are my own analyses of some of the issues that could arise if this approach were to be implemented in all libraries:

• There is no way to guarantee that patrons or librarians will actively engage in the necessary critical discourse; the absence of this could then simply reinforce the traditional knowledge and power structures;

• As there have already been alterations made to the language and vocabulary used when classifying queer content and identities, it would now be necessary to reinstate original terms which would then create more discourse while also requiring massive labour operations;

• If original terms are to be reinstated, there is a possibility that non-queer librarians would need to explain to a queer patron why a term like ‘sexual deviancy’ is being used to describe queer relationships; queer patrons may interpret this exchange as librarians having more authority in deciding appropriate terminology used to describe queer identities, which could then further alienate them from library spaces; and,

• Not all patrons find information through conversations with librarians, which could result in two different, yet equally concerning scenarios: patrons may see offensive or outdated terminology being used and assume it to be the truth (thereby reinforcing traditional power structures surrounding queer identities and content); or, queer patrons will see this language being used, and feel othered or rejected in the library space, leading to and abandonment of such spaces (again, reinforcing the traditional structures).

The intention of this discussion is not to delegitimise Drabinski’s theory but rather to highlight some of the potential disadvantages of it in practice. As mentioned in the above alternative options, it is important to remember that any potential solution surrounding queer identities and traditional classification methods must be carefully considered against both the relevant collection and community.

Conclusion

There is no one way to challenge and remove the traditional hegemonic structures that uphold and perpetuate current cataloguing and classification methods in libraries, especially when considering queer identities and content. This is a complex issue for contemporary libraries that will, potentially, never be fully solved as there is no universally correct option, and the situation itself is fluid and ever-changing. In saying this, a range of literature exists that suggests potential options and ideas as discussed throughout this article, which may work from some libraries but not others. As always, it is necessary to consider the needs of one’s community and collection before making any decisions regarding cataloguing and classification. Drabinski’s ‘Queering the Catalogue’ (2013) seeks to offer a solution but there are still a number of practical issues that may arise; despite these issues, there is a reason to believe that it does have a future as a viable solution, as do the other methods discussed. Whatever approach we as librarians may take, taking a critical approach will enable us to have a reflexive approach to our work and workplaces and consider social justice issues to assist in making libraries safe places for all.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bethany McAuliffe

Bethany McAuliffe is a recent graduate of the Master of Information Management at RMIT and is currently working as a Library Assistant at Roxburgh College. In the future, she is interested in researching critical librarianship, with a focus on the limits of traditional cataloguing and classification methods for marginalised communities.