The Christian Bias in Dewey Decimal Classification: Issues, Challenges, and the Need for Inclusive Library Cataloging

You raise a very valid point about the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system, particularly within the 200s (Religion) section. The DDC has long been criticized for the way it disproportionately centers Christianity in the organization of religious texts. This imbalance can feel exclusionary to non-Christian individuals and presents a challenge when seeking comprehensive information about other world religions or non-theistic belief systems. Let’s explore some of the issues you've raised and the broader context, as well as what’s being done about it.

Issues with the DDC and the Religion Section

The 200s of the DDC are intended to encompass the study of religion, and it's supposed to be a place for all major religious traditions. However, as you pointed out, a substantial portion of the section, particularly from 220-289, is heavily Christian-centric, covering everything from Christian theology to Christian practices, religious leaders, and more.

This imbalance becomes even more apparent in the following ways:

• The largest portion of the 200s focuses on Christianity: The subdivisions such as 220 (Bible), 230 (Christian theology), 240 (Christian practices), and so on, represent a large chunk of the religion section, making it feel overwhelming and disproportionate in comparison to other religions.

• Concepts of religion (210-219), as you noted, are intended to encompass general ideas and the study of religion as a human phenomenon, but the overwhelming focus is still on Christian perspectives in many cases.

• Non-Christian religions: In the DDC system, world religions, especially those outside the Abrahamic tradition (Judaism, Islam, etc.), are lumped into the narrower 290-299 range. For instance, Hinduism (294) is grouped alongside Buddhism (294.3), and Indigenous religions (299) has an incredibly broad and diverse array of traditions included.

What Makes This Challenging

• Lack of diversity in the classification system: For those who are not Christian, the system can feel inherently biased and, at worst, dismissive of the rich diversity of global religious traditions. For someone wanting to learn about Hinduism, Buddhism, or Judaism, the overwhelming dominance of Christianity in the Dewey system can feel alienating, especially in educational settings where these resources are supposed to be accessible to all.

• Difficulty in accessing non-Christian perspectives: When looking for information about philosophy, psychology, or world religions, non-Christian individuals may find it harder to locate comprehensive resources that reflect a more pluralistic or inclusive view of the world. The DDC system can unintentionally reinforce a Christian-centric worldview.

Is There a Movement to Change the DDC for Religion?

While there isn't a unified, large-scale petition or singular advocacy group specifically aiming to overhaul the DDC for the Religion section, the issue has been discussed and criticized by various individuals, institutions, and scholars in the fields of library science, religious studies, and multicultural education. Here's what is being done or could be done to address these concerns:

1. Critical Discussions and Academic Critiques

Many religious scholars, educators, and librarians have criticized the Christian bias inherent in the DDC system. Some universities and libraries have started to adapt or modify the system locally to better reflect diverse religious traditions and to be more inclusive. This includes:

• Creating custom classifications for world religions and non-Christian belief systems.
• Developing alternative frameworks for cataloging religious texts that allow for a more equitable treatment of all religious traditions.

2. Alternative Classification Systems

Some libraries and institutions are beginning to look beyond the Dewey system and adopt other classification methods that offer a broader, more inclusive approach. For instance:

• The Library of Congress Classification (LCC) system, while not entirely free from bias, has a slightly different approach to the categorization of religious texts, and some institutions may prefer it over the DDC system.
• International classification systems may be more nuanced in how they treat religious materials, with greater attention to religious diversity.

3. Inclusive Cataloging Practices

Some libraries have begun working on local cataloging practices that reflect the needs of their specific communities. For example, large academic libraries or public libraries in multicultural areas might:

• Add more specific subject headings for different world religions.
• Use non-theistic classifications (e.g., under philosophy, anthropology, or social studies) for materials that deal with belief systems like Buddhism, Taoism, or atheism.

4. Public Awareness and Conversations in the Library Community

There is growing awareness within the library community of the need to be more inclusive. Library associations and conferences often discuss cataloging challenges related to inclusivity, and some advocate for multicultural literacy in library services. However, large-scale changes to systems like the DDC often require a concerted effort from library professionals and decision-makers within educational systems.

Is There a Petition for Change?

Currently, there isn’t a widely recognized or formal petition to overhaul the DDC system for religion. However, your frustration and that of others is shared by many in the field of library science and religious studies. If you're interested in advocating for change, here are a few actions that could help bring attention to this issue:

• Reach out to library associations: Groups like the American Library Association (ALA) or international equivalents could be helpful allies in raising awareness about the issues with the DDC's treatment of religious subjects.
• Organize discussions in your library or community to advocate for more inclusive cataloging systems.
• Connect with religious studies departments at universities or academic libraries, as they may already be involved in efforts to diversify the classification system.
• Start a petition: If you feel passionate about the issue, you might consider starting an online petition or campaign that calls for more balanced treatment of world religions in the Dewey system.

Conclusion

While there’s no large-scale petition or universally recognized movement to overhaul the DDC specifically for the religion section, the concerns you raised are important and widely recognized in library and academic circles. The Dewey Decimal Classification system’s overwhelming focus on Christianity in the 200s section does create barriers for non-Christian individuals and makes it more difficult to access diverse religious and spiritual perspectives. Libraries and professionals in the field of religious studies have begun to address these issues through localized changes, alternative classification systems, and ongoing conversations about inclusivity. It is through these collective efforts that we may see meaningful change in the future, ensuring that libraries are truly representative of the diverse beliefs and knowledge systems in the world today.