Yours was the first non-defunct librarian blog I found when I searched "librarian", so I will try my question with you (I use duckduckgo now instead of google but it is not always very helpful).
I'm working on organizing my books at home, so I was reading about the dewey decimal system. I saw that Christianity has sections 220 through 289 but Islam shares section 297 with Bábism and Bahá'í Faith. The internet told me that most countries in Asia and Africa use the dewey decimal system. Surely there are at least as many books on Islam as there are on Christianity in the libraries in majority Islamic countries, right? Do they add subsections to section 297? Or do they amend the sections otherwise?
If you do not know the answer, do you have an idea of where I can find an answer? Should I email a library in an Islamic country?
1.) It’s very funny to me that my blog comes up as a librarian thing. I know I’m pretty open on here about my job, but this is a sideblog to a dead main that I shotgun-blast randomly onto. This is heartening information to learn!
2.) To actually answer your question (this will be long; if you want the direct answer to your question, go to the bottom. Also, this is an opinion piece. I am not a Librarian, but a Library Worker. This is a Tumblr post and I will not be citing my sources here. There are people more qualified than me who you should be seeking out and listening to. Regular disclaimer: posts are not theory, discussion is only productive if it moves the conversation forward, etc. Etc.)–
You’re running up against one of the most frustrating and present flaws in the Dewey Decimal System. Remember, Mr. Melvil Dewey was not a great person–his legacy is carried only by the fact that he was abnormally dedicated to organization. But he wasn’t just a “man of his time”, a stupid argument on its own, but was famously worse than the men of his time. So much worse that he was even ousted from the organization he was founding member and short-term president of (ALA) for being genuinely just awful. He was a constant sex pest, infamously racist, and purposely eurocentrist. You can see this reflected in his work.
The upside to it being a system of organization that now exists globally and decades detached from its creator’s death is that it’s a lot easier to edit, change, and develop than, say, a fiction book series (like, say, how it is impossible to detach Harry Potter from the cisheteronormative, racist and short-sighted views of Joanne Rowling, whose biases are the foundation of its world. Harry Potter would not exist without Joanne, but generic systems of numerical book cataloging would exist without Melvil).
This does not mean changing it has been as successful or as radical as it must be, but that it is marginally easier in prospect.
Organizationally, the Dewey Decimal system works. I find it intuitive, and most importantly, consistent. Foundationally, it’s flawed. The company that owns it (it is an owned product, do not forget that–it is a product bought and sold by the OCLC in collaboration with the Library of Congress) has spent a long time trying to iron it out. I do believe there are genuinely passionate and diverse people working on making it a more accessible, and more universal, system (for example: somewhat recently, asexuality was finally recategorized separate from eunuchs). But, I fear margins of profit, bias of race and religion, and pure western-centric oversight has prevented much of the most impactful and necessary changes from being committed to.
In short: It is a system that works. This does not mean we shouldn’t be striving for better or that people aren't. We should always be striving for better. Better is a requirement, not a reward.
That isn’t what your question was, though.
Baseline: I believe Christianity takes up far too much space in DDC# than I and many, many others are comfortable with. 200, overall, is the section for Religions. However, 200 is one of the subject sections that is the most blatant in its organizational bias and eurocentrism.
If we took, for example, 900 (History)--the summary looks like this (all these are copy and pasted directly from the cataloging guide provided by the OCLC):
900.1–.9 Standard subdivisions of history and geography
901–909 Standard subdivisions of history, collected accounts of events, world history
920 Biography, genealogy, insignia
930 History of ancient world to ca. 499
970 History of North America
980 History of South America
990 History of Australasia, Pacific Ocean islands, Atlantic Ocean islands, Arcticislands, Antarctica, extraterrestrial worlds
There is clear bias–especially with that 990 down there–but overall is it more balanced than… say, 200 (Religions):
200.1–.9 Standard subdivisions
201–209 Specific aspects of religion
210 Philosophy and theory of religion
240 Christian moral and devotional theology
250 Local Christian church and Christian religious orders
260 Christian social and ecclesiastical theology
270 History, geographic treatment, biography of Christianity
280 Denominations and sects of Christian church
Where 230 - 280 is dedicated entirely to the minutiae of Christianity. This is egregious to me. I don’t have the power to individually change it. But, I do have the power to protest it and make diverse materials accessible and plentiful despite it.
It is good to know that the amount of numbers given to any one subject does not reflect the amount of materials that exist regarding that subject. And, as well, that “decimal” part comes in handy when we are within a certain category. 290, right now, is “Other Religions". There is a decimal categorization within that which breaks down into further categories. It looks like this:
292 Classical religion (Greek and Roman religion)
294 Religions of Indic origin
295 Zoroastrianism (Mazdaism, Parseeism)
297 Islam, Babism, Bahai Faith
299 Religions not provided for elsewhere
And, you can get even deeper into the subject like this, using that decimal point:
297.01–.09 Standard subdivisions
.2 Islamic doctrinal theology (ʻAqāʼid and Kalām); Islam and secular disciplines; Islam and other systems of belief
.5 Islamic ethics and religious experience, life, practice
.6 Islamic leaders and organization
.7 Protection and propagation of Islam
.8 Islamic sects and reform movements
.9 Babism and Bahai Faith
So, you’ll find books on research and educational practice within Islam, look under DDC# 297.07. For books on Islamic research methodologies, 297.072. Etc. Etc.
As someone who organizes a collection within a specific niche (queer non-fiction literature, biographies, and research), I find myself splitting these decimal-point hairs often. I’m usually at least four numbers or so out average just to make sure my sections are clearly defined. Since, most if not all of what I curate falls under just one number that is already some figures past the point in (306.76/…). This is a similar oversight in the system.
So, if you’re dedicated to using DDC to organize your collection, you’ll have the numbers to work with. Every library in the world that uses DDC does so because it has the capacity to categorize most of the information we’ve got, and do so consistently. But, personally, I don’t know if I’d recommend it. Not because of your subjects of interest (although that plays a part), but because you’re working with a personal library.
Unless you’ve got wall-to-wall shelves with hundreds-to-thousands of books you are often seeking, referencing, and reshelving. If you do, that’s rad as hell. Or, unless your private collection is often being accessed by friends or colleagues who need to be able to consistently find materials. Also rad as hell. A hard cataloging system like DDC wouldn’t be much use to you (other than being a fun project, if you’re built like that). It might be more useful to you to follow a more broader system that focuses on how you personally use your materials. Maybe even DDC# inspired, maybe even in the same order. But the actual numbers won’t do you much good, unless you’re really working with that many books. There’s a reason people like me get paid to organize materials under these systems–it’s very tedious, and very useful. But very tedious. It’s labor for a reason. I'm not even the person who, within a library system, determines the number and exact shelf location. There's minimum two or three people in any one library who are trained in making the decisions to make such a collection function.
That queer collection of books I’ve got is the only personal collection I organize under DDC# because I’ve created it with the intention of making it accessible to other people in my community. It needs to be systematic. I need there to be something in place so that when someone picks up a book, that book is in the same place every time. Even though, technically, that queer collection is actually less in quantity than my regular “books”. It's a lot of work to take on the responsibility of what would be two or three trained laborers for even a small collection. My actual personal collection that I use for my own daily purposes and entertainment I just kind of have in broad categories of subject–mostly based on vibes–that may or may not be alphabetized by author’s name. Mostly, it’s in the order of what I most frequently use. I'd say really interrogate your workflow and determine what system of organization will support how you interact best with your own materials. As opposed to choosing an order of organization and forcing your workflow to fit it. And, hey, maybe at the end of that you decide something like DDC or LoC will actually work pretty well for you! It very well could! If it works, you're doing it correctly. Unless you're part of a public library system, then there's some vibe restrictions.
And this is only for non-fiction. Fiction is a different ask.
Anyway, thanks for reaching out! I really hope this is helpful! Sorry it’s an essay, but that’s pretty standard with me in particular. I like talking.
Also, yes, you should be reaching out to librarians in majority-Islamic countries! You should reach out to Islamic libraries in non-Islamic majority countries! Reach out to any librarian your heart tells you to! And researchers! And students! And people (if it’s polite to do so). It’s a lot of fun and really a boon. We live in an age where many of us are privileged to be able to access the expertise and opinions of folks all across the world.
I’m glad to live in a world that would’ve terrified Melvil Dewey.
