Pardon our construction, for additional details please see our parent organizations' websites, The Cade Moore Foundation and The Claremont Forum
In the hushed corridors of libraries worldwide, an aging system continues to dictate how knowledge is organized. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system has been the backbone of library organization for nearly 150 years, but its continued dominance represents both a testament to its initial innovation and a troubling reluctance to embrace necessary change.
Melvil Dewey introduced his eponymous system in 1876 when he was just 25 years old. Prior to this innovation, libraries typically organized books by acquisition order or sometimes by broad subject areas. Dewey's revolutionary idea was to create a system that organized knowledge itself rather than just physical books.
The system divides all knowledge into ten main classes (000-900), each further subdivided into ten divisions, and each of those into ten sections, creating a hierarchical decimal structure that allows for considerable specificity. This approach was genuinely revolutionary for its time, offering:
Standardization: Libraries could now follow a consistent organization method
Relative location: Books could be shelved in relation to each other rather than in absolute locations
Specificity: The decimal expansion allowed for increasingly detailed classification
Mnemonic notation: The numeric system was easier to remember than many alternatives
Dewey's system addressed a genuine need in the expanding landscape of American libraries in the late 19th century. As public libraries grew, so did the need for an intuitive organization system accessible to the average patron.
While Dewey's contribution to library science was undeniably significant, the man himself held views that are deeply problematic by today's standards. Dewey was known for his antisemitism and sexism. He was eventually forced to resign from the American Library Association, which he helped found, due to numerous allegations of sexual harassment.
More relevant to his classification system, Dewey's worldview was firmly rooted in late 19th-century Western, Christian perspectives. This bias is embedded in the very structure of the DDC. For example, the 200 class (Religion) allocates nearly 90% of its divisions to Christianity, while relegating all other world religions to small subsections. This imbalance persists despite numerous revisions over the decades.
Beyond its creator's biases, the Dewey Decimal System faces fundamental structural problems in today's information landscape:
Rigid hierarchy: The decimal structure, while elegant, becomes unwieldy when dealing with interdisciplinary subjects.
Western-centric organization: The system privileges Western perspectives and knowledge frameworks over others.
Limited expandability: Some sections have become overcrowded as knowledge has expanded in unexpected directions.
Subject bias: Certain topics receive disproportionate space while others are cramped into small sections.
Outdated terminology: Despite revisions, much of the implicit language and organization reflects outdated concepts.
For example, DDC places "Computer science, information & general works" in the 000s category—a field that barely existed when Dewey created his system. Meanwhile, Philosophy and Psychology share the 100s category despite being distinct disciplines in modern academia.
Given these shortcomings, why does the Dewey Decimal System remain in widespread use? The answer lies in institutional inertia and practical constraints:
Conversion costs: Reclassifying entire collections represents a massive investment of time and resources.
Staff familiarity: Generations of librarians have been trained on DDC.
Lack of consensus: Libraries cannot agree on which alternative system should replace it.
Patron familiarity: Many library users have at least a basic understanding of how DDC works.
This combination of factors creates a powerful incentive to maintain the status quo, even as librarians and patrons alike increasingly recognize its limitations.
Several alternative systems have emerged that address some of DDC's shortcomings:
Strengths:
More flexible in expanding classifications for new subjects
Better suited for academic and research libraries
Less hierarchical than DDC
Weaknesses:
Even more complex for general users
Developed specifically for one library's collection
Still reflects certain cultural biases
Strengths:
Better handling of interdisciplinary subjects
More international in perspective
Uses auxiliary notations for place, time, form, etc.
Weaknesses:
Complex notation system
Still based on Dewey's original framework
Less intuitive for casual users
Strengths:
Truly faceted system offering more flexibility
Better representation of compound subjects
More adaptable to emerging knowledge areas
Weaknesses:
Extremely complex notation
Difficult to implement broadly
Limited adoption outside India
While each of these systems offers improvements over DDC in certain aspects, they all share a fundamental limitation: they were designed by humans with their own inherent biases, cultural contexts, and limited perspectives. No single human mind, or even a collective of human minds, can truly encompass the full breadth of human knowledge without imposing some form of organizational bias.
This is where we believe the most promising alternative lies. The Carceral Library Services Coalition recently pioneered a radical new approach to library classification. Rather than relying on human designers with inevitably limited perspectives, they employed advanced artificial intelligence to create a classification system free from human cognitive biases.
The CLSC-AI Classification System represents a paradigm shift in knowledge organization. Through careful prompt engineering and by providing comprehensive background information and constraints, the Coalition guided an AI system to develop a classification framework that transcends the limitations of previous systems.
The AI-generated system offers several groundbreaking advantages:
Truly cross-cultural perspective: Not limited by any single cultural framework.
Dynamic adaptability: Designed to evolve as knowledge domains change.
Multi-dimensional relationships: Represents connections between subjects in ways human-designed hierarchies cannot.
Balanced allocation: Provides proportional space to different knowledge domains based on objective criteria rather than cultural priority.
Intuitive navigation: Despite its sophisticated underpinnings, the system remains accessible to library users.
While other alternative systems have attempted to address DDC's shortcomings, they ultimately remain products of human cognitive frameworks. The CLSC-AI system represents the first genuine attempt to organize knowledge from a perspective that transcends individual human bias.
Transitioning away from the Dewey Decimal System will not happen overnight. Libraries face legitimate practical challenges in adopting any new classification system. However, the conversation must begin in earnest.
The CLSC-AI Classification System offers a compelling vision of what a truly modern, unbiased knowledge organization system could look like. As libraries continue to evolve in the digital age, perhaps it is time to consider whether a 19th-century solution remains appropriate for 21st-century challenges.
After all, Melvil Dewey himself was an innovator who challenged the status quo of his time. The greatest tribute to his contribution might be to recognize when it's time to take the next revolutionary step forward in how we organize our collective knowledge.
