Template:Dewey decimal system: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
The [[Dewey decimal system]] divides the universe, known and unknown<ref>[[001.9]], [[as any fule kno]].</ref> into a subdivisions of 1,000. In its way, it offers infinite particularity, but only by subdivision of ten major categories: General reference, Philosophy, Religion, Social Sciences, Language, Natural Science, Applied Science, Arts & Recreation, Literature and History.
The [[Dewey decimal system]] divides the universe, known and unknown<ref>[[001.9]], [[as any fule kno]].</ref> into a subdivisions of 1,000. In its way, it offers infinite particularity, but only by subdivision of ten major categories:
*000: General Reference
*100: Philosophy
*200: Religion
*300: Social Sciences
*400 Language
*500 Natural Science
*600 Applied Science
*700 Arts & Recreation
*800 Literature  
*900 History


As with all [[Taxonomy|taxonomies]], these major categories carve nature in an idiosyncratic way — not to get all post-structuralist on you, but a way that is inevitably rooted in the western intellectual tradition in which Dewey, universities and their libraries operate. They produce arbitrary ''dis''-juxtapositions: Why is Logic (part of {{tag|Philosophy}}) nowhere near Mathematics (a part of Natural Science) or even Language? And so on. But we have to physically arrange our libraries ''somehow'', and that forced Dewey into an intellectual commitment to ''some'' kind of order, privileged over all the others. But in our crazy, sugar-coated post-modern world, that’s not really how we see things any more. To [[Taxonomy|taxonomise]] is to [[Narrative|narratise]], is to commit to a certain ''[[paradigm]]''. To narratise is, arbitrarily, to prefer one story over all others, with no logical grounds for doing so.<ref>[[Paradigm]]s are incommensurable, in other words: you cannot judge one in terms of another, and nor are there naturally-occurring “neutral” criteria independent of both by which they may be compared: all criteria for any judgment are a product of some paradigm or other.</ref>
As with all [[Taxonomy|taxonomies]], these major categories carve nature in an idiosyncratic way — not to get all post-structuralist on you, but a way that is inevitably rooted in the western intellectual tradition in which Dewey, universities and their libraries operate. They produce arbitrary ''dis''-juxtapositions: Why is Logic (part of {{tag|Philosophy}}) nowhere near Mathematics (a part of Natural Science) or even Language? Why do Religion and Philosophy — intimately connected in many ways — have ''two'' categories, but all of Natural Science only ''one''? And so on.  
 
But we have to physically arrange our libraries ''somehow'', and that forced Dewey into an intellectual commitment to ''some'' kind of order, privileged over all the others. But in our crazy, sugar-coated post-modern world, that’s not really how we see things any more. To [[Taxonomy|taxonomise]] is to [[Narrative|narratise]], is to commit to a certain ''[[paradigm]]''. To narratise is, arbitrarily, to prefer one story over all others, with no logical grounds for doing so.<ref>[[Paradigm]]s are incommensurable, in other words: you cannot judge one in terms of another, and nor are there naturally-occurring “neutral” criteria independent of both by which they may be compared: all criteria for any judgment are a product of some paradigm or other.</ref>


This has a consequent effect on how one thinks about the world: if you want to find the book you're looking for, you must accept the prevailing taxonomy (what good is using another taxonomy, however suitable, if it means never being able to find the book you are after?)  
This has a consequent effect on how one thinks about the world: if you want to find the book you're looking for, you must accept the prevailing taxonomy (what good is using another taxonomy, however suitable, if it means never being able to find the book you are after?)  

Navigation menu