In this post, I’d like to highlight a couple of exhibits approved at EPC Meeting 145 earlier this year: EPC 145-S32.1 Radicalism and EPC 145-S32.2 Christian nationalism. They were entwined enough that they might have been a single larger exhibit except for quirks of timing. The former was completed before work on the latter began.
EPC 145-S32.1 began in response to classifiers in Europe and the US asking for a clearer place to class works on far-right or radical right-wing ideologies. Political ideologies aren’t subdivided by left-right spectrum in DDC, partially due to how that spectrum differs, sometimes wildly, across countries. A natural place for ideologies labeled right wing is 320.52 Conservatism, but as some of these classifiers brought up, far right ideologies can diverge from conservatism, especially on the idea of “caution in effecting social change”, to quote our definition note.
Investigating this question, we noted that 320.53 was something of a catch-all for radical ideologies, though its former caption of “Collectivism and fascism” didn’t make that entirely clear. The exhibit brought radicalism from the class-here note to the caption, so now you’ll find 320.53 Radicalism, collectivism, fascism in WebDewey. We also authorized two new subdivisions, for left-wing and right-wing radicalism.
What makes a political ideology radical? The DDC does not seek to answer that, only to provide a place for works about ideologies considered radical. We also figured “radical” was rarely the most salient way to describe an ideology, and put in notes to suggest another number be used when applicable.
Meanwhile, EPC 145-S32.2 modestly expanded 320.55 Religiously oriented ideologies, which previously only had a single subdivision for Islamic ideologies. This exhibit began as an attempt to provide a place for Christian nationalism. We ended up drawing heavily from existing treatment of political Islam in doing so, identifying both social theological (261.7) and political ideology (the new 320.553) classes depending on disciplinary treatment.
We also decided to be a bit cautious, leaving Christian nationalism in an including note at both numbers, as it’s just one political ideology drawing from Christianity. There was enough literature to justify some development here, but not so much that we can’t afford to wait a bit. Better to have the topic in standing room now and later move it to a new number than putting it in a class-here note now and later deciding it’s getting conflated with other ideas.
Take a look at these changes in WebDewey, or in print-on-demand beginning in 2025, and let us know what you think. And for those of you about to celebrate US Thanksgiving—may politics come up at the dinner table no more than you want, even (especially?) if that’s none at all.
Recent Comments