A 2022 essay claims that changes in descriptive language, or “alternative vocabulary” as described in the essay, is problematic. There’s a certain point, that a change in descriptive terminology should not be confused with a substantive change in history or even necessarily historiography. The claim ignores, however, that for us in libraries and archives, the issue is not historiography but our current descriptions. These descriptions are not static, they are created after the fact and managed by us and in our systems, and in fact beyond selection of contents in a collection, the language to describe and discover materials is all that we can indeed control. It’s about what Hope Olson calls the “power to name,” which Olson calls a specific domain of librarians and archivists. If we can make our descriptive languages (which can always only be in the present) more sensitive, accurate, or even attentive to the present moment, then it is our job to do it. Fine with me if historians think it’s just some window dressing, but even if we’re “just” changing language, it can be impactful not only in that materials are described more accurately and ethically, but also to promote changing discourse in the spirit of promoting the ability of users to find and discover things in our collections. And if these changes reflect consultation with communities and source groups who may want changes, or have different common language than we do, then updating descriptive language is certainly not only to make “us” feel better.
The essay goes on to observe that “language refers not to an historical object or concept but to itself; the given term or phrase does not produce a more ethical historical framework but instead reflects the semantic process by which such a framework is sought. Put simply, these correctives can refer to us more so than they refer to the historical subjects about whom we think and write.” This is exactly the point regarding disocovery. It is more useful to describe materials with correct and current language (current, that is, for current users in a given time and place). For librarians and archivists, as people who control description and classification, it’s absolutely imperative and within our obligations to make changes that are sought or requested by people or groups who are connected to and represented in the records. At the end of the day, the goal is to change language for “us” (here, now) never to distort the “aboutness” of the things being described.
Comments