Reparative Description at Art Institute of Chicago Research Center: Home

Cataloging an item that arrives in the library requires catalogers to review and describe the material with the end goal of enabling end users to discover and use the material. One tool cataloguers use for this purpose is subject headings. A subject heading helps identify what the item is about. Like a majority of academic libraries across the country, here at the Ryerson and Burnham Libraries, we use the Library of Congress subject headings as our primary controlled vocabulary. A controlled vocabulary is an agreed-upon list of terms used to recall materials on the same subject. Using a controlled vocabulary makes it easier to share information between libraries and other institutions, and ensures there’s as much consistency as possible from library to library.

Assigning a book a subject heading does more than determine on which shelf the book will sit. It illuminates what the library believes the book to be about–and moreover, what vocabulary terms we use to describe that aboutness. It is an imperfect yet important system, and like most systems in our country, it has its roots in a history–and a present moment–that marginalizes communities and minimizes lived experiences. 

Critical cataloging, then, is the act of examining the descriptive language we use through a social justice lens: what inequities are being upheld within the Library of Congress subject headings? What narratives are we perpetuating through our use of outdated and harmful subject headings? How can we repair the inequities that exist in our metadata, and how can we establish a practice that upholds our dedication to equity and inclusion, without erasing an uncomfortable history?

Reparative description, similarly, seeks to repair the inequities within historical metadata. Together, critical cataloging and reparative description aim to contextualize historical language for library patrons while taking steps to ensure the present language paves the way for a more inclusive future. 

As library workers, we understand the weight language holds. As an art institution, we know the importance of details–no matter how small, everything contributes to the larger story we are trying to tell. We recognize that language is contextual. We believe it demands continual, dynamic reconsideration in the present. As we try to foster the exchange of ideas, and inspire an expansive and inclusive understanding of human creativity, we approach this project with cultural humility: acknowledging our own biases as individuals and seeking to learn about other cultures and communities directly from the people within them.

It is this cultural humility that guides us through this project and leads us to this statement: We do not–and cannot–speak for every individual who is a part of the LGBTQ+ community. Queer people are not monoliths or paragons. A person who is a part of the LGBTQ+ community sits at the intersection of many other identities and communities–nationality, ethnicity, class, religious beliefs, disabilities, and beyond. It would be reductive to deny the rich diversity that composes the LGBTQ+ community–a diversity that strengthens us. As we continue to move forward with critical cataloging and reparative description, we commit ourselves to engaging with the communities whose experiences are centered–or decentered–in the catalog, and continuing to research best practices regarding language and representation. This is an ongoing process that calls for nuance and room for complexity. 

Cataloging takes the imperfect language of English to the impossible task of categorizing with certainty; we do the best we can with the tools we have. We don’t let the pursuit of perfection steer us away from the steady work of doing good.