One of the topics I’m getting really
interested in lately is all about tribes, which is expected to be covered under
301 Sociology and Anthropology, but Dewey also advices to “class social
problems and social welfare in 361-365”. This is less than satisfactory,
because most works on tribes are usually about their problems in adjusting to
the pressures of the modern world, and it would be awkward to have only
descriptive works under 301 and analytical works under 361-365. Further, for
aspects of society not provided for in 302-307, they want us to push on to the
aspect, e.g. general history 900. This results in a substantial dispersion of
works on tribals and tribal history into different corners of the library.
Let’s start with a fairly general work on
say “The Tribes of India”. There is a number 301.7 Nonliterate societies, but
that is not what we are looking for; moreover, with the passage of time, tribes
are no longer going to remain solely “non-literate”, or the even more
judgemental descriptors “backward” or “primitive” and so on. Indeed use of the
number 301.7 for “types of societies” was discontinued in DDC 20. Where then
would we class a work on the tribes in general, say on the ethnology of tribes
of a region or a specific tribe or community?
The thing is that 302-307 provide for a
range of “specific topics in sociology and anthropology”: 302 Social
interaction, 303 Social processes, and so on. Obviously, a general work on the
tribes would include all these several aspects, which could at best be aspects
of the general description of tribes (or of a tribe). We need a separate number
for “tribes”, to which these aspects could be attached, but unfortunately there
is no provision in DDC for attaching humanities numbers as facets, such as there
is for attaching Science subjects 500-599 (which can be attached through the
standard subdivision 015).
Possibilities for “Tribals” as a subject suggest
themselves under 305 Social groups, 306 Culture and institutions, or 307
Communities. 305 has an instruction “class here culture and institutions of
specific groups”, but it would be somewhat inappropriate to have to decide
where tribals go as a group. Under 305.512 Principles of stratification, is 305.5122 Caste systems, which is where general works on castes in India (or even castes and tribes) can go. There are classes specified by level: “Upper
class”, “Middle class (Bourgeoisie)”, and even “Lower, alienated, excluded
classes” under 305.2 onwards. There is a class for 305.565 “Culturally disadvantaged persons”.
There is even a class under 305.568 Alienated and excluded classes, for “Dalits”
(305.5688), which refers to scheduled castes, but nothing which specifically
refers to tribes or indigenous or traditional peoples.
There is, however, 305.8
Ethnic and national groups, with the ‘class here’ instruction for “indigenous
ethnic and national groups [formerly 306.08]”; “ethnology, ethnography”; which
is potentially a suitable slot, with 305.8009 provided for Historical,
geographic, persons treatment, hence 305.800954 “Tribes of India”. Of course,
this would not really be restricted to tribes, since other ethnic groups would
also have to be accommodated here. A more specific slot would be provided by 305.805-.89
Specific ethnic and national groups, which takes numbers from Table 5 Ethnic
and National Groups, thus providing a separate slot for each indigenous group
(tribals) and for larger non-tribal groups. For a large jurisdiction like
India, for instance, the population would be split along linguistic and quasi-racial
lines: Table 5, -914 South Asians (peoples who speak, or whose ancestors spoke,
Indic languages, Indo-Aryans); -948 Dravidians (which includes many tribal
groups like Toda, Gond, Kurukh according to the languages spoken), and
Scytho-Dravidians (including Mahratha, Sindhi); -95 South Asians who speak, or spoke,
languages closely related to East and Southeast Asian languages, with a
specific number -9595 Mundas (which would presumably cover speakers of Gadaba,
Ho, Mundari, Santhali, etc., constituting the major tribes of central-east
India). Then there is Table 5, -9911 Aeta, Andamanese, Semang. This scheme is
seen to follow language classes rather than ethnic, and it would therefore
cause some ambiguity in the case of tribal or ethnic groups that have adopted
another language, e.g. Indo-Aryan dialects in place of the original Dravidian
or Munda.
It would be interesting to note that the abandoned
number “[formerly 306.08]” was used in DDC 20 for “unassimilated indigenous
racial, ethnic, national groups”, which actually would have provided a separate
location for the groups we recognize as tribal, as against more ‘advanced’
groups that we would probably call ‘castes’. The Manual of DDC 20 accordingly
had some explanation of the choice between 306.08 and 305.8: “Use 305.8… for
specific racial, ethnic, national groups which interact more or less freely
(whether in a dominant, nondominant, or intermediate position) with the rest of
society. Use 306.089 only for indigenous groups living in distinct communities
or ‘tribal areas’ not fully integrated into the economic and social life of the
nation in which they are (often involuntarily) incorporated. …If in doubt,
prefer 305.8”. DDC 22 dispenses with this explanation as well as with the bifurcation,
which hearkens back to the time when traditional or remote groups with their
own culture were considered ‘primitive’. In line with the removal of such seeming
stigmas, the two are coalesced into one number, 305.8. We do not have to make
the painful judgement of where a group is along the line of ‘development’.
However, because many old libraries would
have classified ethnic groups in 306.08 under the older DDC versions, we would
have to remember to search in both locations, 305.8 and 306.08 for works on
traditional or ethnic communities and tribals. To further complicate matters,
however, there is another number expressly for tribals, under 307.7 Specific
kinds of communities: this is 307.772 Tribal communities. This carries a note
“Class tribal communities considered in context of culture and institutions of
indigenous ethnic and national groups in 305.8”. The utility of 307.772, as far
as I can make out, is for works that
deal with the generalities of tribal communities. However, it may be used by a library
for works on specific tribal communities, such as “Gonds of Andhra Pradesh”, by
using suffixes from Table 5 and Table 2. One would have to make a considered
choice between 305.8 and 307.772, so that gradually there will be the single
location for such works.
A final caution is that works with a
historical flavour may be sent to the 900’s, especially works on native American groups (tribes), where special numbers are provided for “Ethnic and national
groups”, such as 970.004 (with suffixes from Table 5), and 970.1 for North
America, 980.004 (with suffixes from Table 5) for South America, and generally
with any number under 930-990 History
using the (special) standard subdivision 004 Ethic and national groups (with
suffix from Table 5 for specific groups). General works on the native Indians
are often classed in history with these numbers, rather than under ethnology
305.8. Incidentally, Table 5 for American Indians has further subdivisions by
languages from Table 6, and of course geographical subdivisions could also be
added, useful where a tribe or Nation has been widely dispersed..
Once again, the bottom line is, where we
would like to group our books physically. I would ideally like to have all the
volumes on Indian sociology together, which suggests that I should use the
location facet 0954 first, and then add ethnic facet from Table 5 (I believe
that can be done using two zeroes instead of one after the geographical location subdivision).
Scanning my shelves, I find there is a confused jumble: older accessions are
generally under 306.08 (which will have to be relocated under DDC 22 to 305.8),
general books on tribal culture and affairs tend to be at 307.772, and as I
said, books on American Indians are at 970. In the library in my institute,
again, books on tribal matters and on individual communities and groups are
scattered among all these numbers (and others that may have a few works on,
say, marriage customs, or census data, or social change, and so on). In a way,
this chaotic condition reflects the considerable ambiguity of the term ‘tribe’
itself: after all, at the bottom, we are all tribals of a sort, but overlaid
with cultural and social mechanisms to deal with the fact that we are living in
huge conglomerations of diverse types and lineages.
On considering the alternatives, I think I
will be standardizing on three locations: 305.5122 for caste system, 305.5688
for works dealing with scheduled castes (dalits) in general; 305.8’00954 for works on general ethnography
(e.g. castes and tribes of India; society in India), followed by specific
national and ethnic groups using 305.805 to 305.89. If possible,
I feel it would be good if accounts of specific castes could follow immediately
after 305.5122 and 305.5688, but the Table 5 numbers may be somewhat limited in
this respect, being more specific in terms of tribes or indigenous ethnic
communities.
If DDC is going to be revised, why can't tribes be included under Racial ethnic, national groups (305.8)? Then we wouldn't have to define tribe or castes etc.
ReplyDelete