We are in the position of a little child
entering a huge library
filled with books in many different languages.
The child knows someone must have written those books.
It does not know how.
It does not understand the languages
in which they are written.
The child dimly suspects a mysterious order
in the arrangement of the books
but doesn't know what it is.
That, it seems to me,
is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
We see a universe marvelously arranged
and obeying certain laws,
but only dimly understand these laws.
Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force
that moves the constellations
- Albert Einstein

Dewey have to use traditional classification systems? Part 1: From the hole in the card to the bit in the disk

Perhaps we are finally ready to re-evaluate our venerable classification systems.

Dewey, LC, and our other familiar friends were developed during the now historic, pre-computer period, when all good libraries had old-fashioned card catalogs, with drawers and 3x5 cards. In those days, some librarians were occupied for a good part of the time in re-alphabetizing cards. They faced a never-ending battle against those zealous patrons who were convinced that the best cards were always in the back of the drawer. A patron who pulled out the drawer just a bit too much might cause grief for the librarian during yet another afternoon.

The first glimmer of hope came when someone invented a hole near the bottom of the catalogue card. That major, but largely uncelebrated invention offered salvation to many librarians, and it granted them the opportunity to devote time to more productive work, confidently believing that the precious cards would remain where they belonged - in the drawer.

Their unbridled joy and their trust in the role of the hole may have been a bit premature. Librarians wrongly believed that the cards could suffer from only two crises now - that they could either be willfully removed by vandals, or that they could be damaged by negligent handling of the post through the hole. Actually, there was never reason to relax their guard. Even under the best of circumstances, some cards inevitably wore out, while others fell out by themselves. Worse, that post didn’t work very well when a conscientious librarian intentionally refrained from re-inserting it after carrying out routine maintenance. Yes, that post was a bit of a nuisance to re-insert. The holes in the cards seemed to move each time the post was inserted, so that it was sometimes left out “temporarily”. Other librarians used the posts as place markers - possibly in order to remember where to continue alphabetizing after a break. That post may have reduced the frequency of onerous alphabetizing jobs, but it didn’t eliminate the task.

It seemed that the job would never go away, so thoughtful librarians looked for ways to make the chore a bit easier. They found that alphabetizing was somewhat more tolerable when they used alphabetizers. These were long, stiff boards on which floppy plasticized letter card dividers were pre-installed. Cards were placed behind the appropriate alphabetical letter cards, to be re-alphabetized subsequently within each letter grouping, and then to be re-alphabetized again within those 3x5 drawers. Librarians pleaded with the technology experts to find a better way to revise the entire chore of alphabetizing.

While the librarians were struggling with their more mundane jobs, the classification systems themselves underwent sundry revisions in order to adapt themselves to the changing times. However, le plus ça change, le plus... meme chose. Most revisions were hailed as major advances, but in truth, Dewey and LC couldn’t make a real overhaul. After all, any change in the basic philosophy of the system would require that books in modified categories would have to be reclassified and re-shelved. Any significant change would create havoc among the libraries. So modern sciences developed and forged ahead, while libraries stagnated - especially those using the Dewey system. They couldn’t expand the range of numbers enough, they couldn’t make those numbers more flexible, and they couldn’t distribute them in a more equitable manner, in order to accommodate the needs of changing times. The systems remained, and no usable or better alternative was proposed.