Who Killed the Subject Code?

Power and Change in the US Cataloging Community

“…96 Looking over the reasons for the failure of the library community to adopt a code, he found some blame for LC, for ALA ("although the code was discussed at several SAC meetings, this group did not follow through in an effective manner"), for online catalogs (and the illusion that keyword searching eliminates the need for bibliographic control), for himself (poor health made him unable to draft a proposed code), and most of all for "professional ignorance, apathy, and negativism." 97 Despite the setbacks he encountered, Studwell never wrote any more bitterly than this.…”

“…For all his hope, however, Studwell acknowledged that "ignorance, apathy, and negativism" on the part of librarians had all but crushed his aspirations. 3 Although Studwell strove mightily to persuade the library community to adopt his idea, his efforts were ultimately fruitless.…”

“…88 By the summer, he had concluded that LC, like many large institutions, was affected by its bureaucratic culture: it suffered on the one hand from reluctance to adopt bold new measures for fear of criticism, and on the other from a resistance to outsiders' participation in decision-making. 89 In his own writings, however, Studwell provides evidence that he may have imparted his own wishful thinking to the likely outcomes of the process underway at LC:…”

“…95 In it, Studwell-while refusing to categorically accept that no subject heading code would ever be created-responded to Stone's assertion that the movement was virtually dead by conducting an inquest. Looking back on his efforts at reform, Studwell took heart from the numerous changes in LCSH (not limited to the subdivisions conference, but including changes in individual headings, cross-references and structure) that his colleagues and he had spurred LC to adopt, and he noted that other authors continued to call for standardization of LCSH, even if not explicitly on Studwell's terms.…”