Content uploaded by Melodie Fox
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Melodie Fox on Mar 13, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Knowl. Org. 40(2013)No.4
M. J. Fox and A. Reece. The Impossible Decision: Social Tagging and Derrida’s Deconstructed Hospitality
260
The Impossible Decision:
Social Tagging and Derrida’s
Deconstructed Hospitality
Melodie J. Fox* and Austin Reece**
*University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, School of Information Studies,
PO Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA, <msjoblad@uwm.edu>
**Marquette University, Department of Philosophy,
PO Box 1881, Milwaukee, WI 53201, <austin.reece@marquette.edu>
Melodie J. Fox is a doctoral candidate at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s School of Information Stud-
ies, where she also earned an MLIS, and is a member of the Information Organization Research Group there.
She also holds a master’s in English from the University of Illinois-Chicago. Her research interests include the
relationship between epistemology and subject access, with a particular interest in the categorization of race
and gender.
Austin Reece is currently a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at Marquette University. He holds a master's in con-
temporary European philosophy from University College Dublin and a bachelor's in philosophy from Boston
College. His research interests include philosophy of religion and ethics.
Fox, Melodie J. and Reece, Austin. The Impossible Decision: Social Tagging and Derrida’s Deconstructed
Hospitality. Knowledge Organization. 40(4), 260-265. 14 references.
ABSTRACT: Social tagging has been lauded for providing a voice of the user community, free of restrictions
dictated by knowledge organization standards for subject access. Tagging allows many perspectives to be repre-
sented, but at what cost? Using deconstruction, Derrida argues that absolute hospitality is required to ensure
justice for access and inclusiveness; however, the consequence becomes that the host becomes hostage to the
other. In this ongoing research, we explore the Derridean concept of hospitality as it relates to social tagging,
examining the consequences of unconditional inclusiveness, the process of discerning constraints to hospital-
ity in order to interpret different kinds of “otherness”—or what Derrida calls the “impossible” decision—and
what mitigation means, using the social tagging environment to illustrate.
Received 9 May 2013; Accepted 9 May 2013
1.0 Introduction
The recent explosion of epistemological research in
knowledge organization (KO) signifies a transition from a
universalist paradigm as envisioned by modern classifica-
tionists such as Dewey, Sayers, Richardson, and Bliss, to a
postmodern paradigm, one where the social and contextual
nature of knowledge is acknowledged. In the new para-
digm, researchers imagine myriad user- or discourse com-
munity-centered knowledge organization systems (KOS’s)
rather than the singular, objectivist ‘god’s eye view’ classifi-
cations that ostensibly mirror reality (Mai 2004). An obsta-
cle for the postmodern interpretation of knowledge or-
ganization is bibliographic control: How can KOS’s be in-
clusive but remain organized for retrieval? How can sys-
tems avoid oppressing through conceptual or structural
violence? Whose reality is the classification reflecting? One
solution has been to supplement formal KOS’s with social
tagging to provide a forum for users’ voices. To explore
the ethical implications of this pairing, we look to post-
structuralism, and specifically Jacque Derrida’s deconstruc-
tion of the concept of hospitality, as it applies to social
tagging. As a clarification, we refer to the traditional defini-
tion of hospitality, not the concept of hospitality as it is
currently used in classification, i.e., structure that easily ab-
sorbs new concepts. In a previous work, we reviewed a se-
https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2013-4-260
Generiert durch IP '172.22.53.54', am 13.03.2023, 16:50:08.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
Knowl. Org. 40(2013)No.4
M. J. Fox and A. Reece. The Impossible Decision: Social Tagging and Derrida’s Deconstructed Hospitality
261
lection of ethical frameworks, including the Derridean in-
terpretation of hospitality, for applicability to KO. We pre-
sented a model of ethical principles that information pro-
fessionals can use as a framework for decision-making (Fox
& Reece 2011, 381). One of the criteria chosen for this
model was hospitality with mitigation. In this ongoing re-
search, we explore the Derridean concept of hospitality
more closely, examining the consequences of uncondi-
tional inclusiveness, the process of discerning constraints
to hospitality in order to interpret different kinds of “other-
ness”—or what Derrida calls the “impossible” decision
(Derrida and Dufourmantelle 2000, 75)—and what mitiga-
tion means, using the social tagging environment to illus-
trate. First, we will provide a brief description of decon-
struction in order to help understand how Derrida arrives
at his concept of hospitality. Then, we will describe how
deconstructed hospitality relates to knowledge organiza-
tion in general and social tagging specifically, using exam-
ples from LibraryThing and Flickr. Finally, we will discuss
the notion of discernment and to what degree that mitiga-
tion is evident or not in social tagging environments and
the consequences of such mitigation.
1.1 Deconstruction and différance
Derrida’s interpretation of hospitality is deconstructed,
and therefore a rudimentary understanding of decon-
struction is necessary. Derrida suggests that everything,
including human consciousness and language, is “decon-
structible,” so that deconstruction happens everywhere
whether or not we can see it (Kearney 2004, 167). De-
construction requires a certain way of “reading” the
“text” or “context.” By “text,” Derrida does not mean
merely a piece of writing contained in a physical medium
like a book. All experience, anything that “is,” is struc-
tured by a kind of textuality (Derrida 1976). The root
form of “text” comes from the classical Latin textus, or
“that which is woven” (OED). Anything present that
gives us something to view is woven together. What
seems to provide a minimal “sameness” is always already
dependent on an element of “difference.” This depend-
ence of presence on absence, sameness on alterity [other-
ness], ultimately defers or postpones the possibility of
grasping something in its entirety. This double sense of
differ/defer inspires Derrida (1988) to coin the neolo-
gism “différance” to describe the workings of textuality.
Différance “cannot be reduced to the stable determination
of that which is ‘different;’ or, in other words, it cannot
be unproblematically reduced to the range or field of dif-
ferences which it originally makes possible” (Wortham
2010, 29). Despite his broad idea of “text,” Derrida’s ca-
reer was defined by close readings of actual texts. Critch-
ley and Mooney (1994, 443) summarize his style as “dou-
ble reading,” by “first repeating what Derrida calls ‘the
dominant interpretation’ and then opening a text up to
the blind spots or ellipses within [it].” Derrida’s double
reading simultaneously opens the dominant interpretation
of a text to its repressed other.
Deconstruction has been recommended and used by
Olson (1995; 1997; 2002) as a methodology for scrutiniz-
ing both knowledge organization standards and the bi-
nary oppositions that exist both in KO principles and
more widely in LIS. Olson (1997, 181) recommends de-
construction “for identifying and questioning underlying
theoretical assumptions” in both the principles of knowl-
edge organization and in the structure and components
of knowledge organization systems. Following Lather,
she operationalizes deconstruction to the following three
steps:
1. Identifying the binary;
2. Reversing/decentering the binary;
3. Dissolving the binary (Olson 1997, 182).
The result of deconstruction is that the constructed qual-
ity of concepts is laid bare, the oppressed other is re-
vealed, and the opposition between them dissolved so
that neither aspect of the binary is privileged, and a more
ethical relationship can be formed. As Derrida states,
“Deconstruction is not an enclosure in nothingness, but
an openness towards the other” (cited in Kearney 2004,
173).
1.2 Hospitality, hostility and knowledge organization
In the dominant or traditional interpretation of hospital-
ity, the sovereign master of the “home” sets the rules and
conditions of a guest or stranger (xenos) entering and abi-
ding in the home. As the owner of the property, the sov-
ereign is allowed to “police the threshold” and decide
what is proper and improper, who is in or out. In relation
to one’s self and autonomy, Derrida argues that who or
what is other must have their singularity respected so that
their difference is not coerced and coopted by any system
of control. When considering concepts rather than peo-
ple, a phenomenon is, by definition, that which appears
and reveals itself to human consciousness, whether
through perception, conception or imagination. An
enigma, by contrast, remains hidden and concealed, bar-
ring itself from the reaches of the human mind in its at-
tempts to know. The other signifies the enigmatic in all its
puzzling opacity and is thus anti-phenomenological. In
other words, the other is impossible to know because any
method of discernment is inadequate to the enigma.
Who or what is enigmatically other? The other obligates us
from the outset; there is always an other before whom or
https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2013-4-260
Generiert durch IP '172.22.53.54', am 13.03.2023, 16:50:08.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
Knowl. Org. 40(2013)No.4
M. J. Fox and A. Reece. The Impossible Decision: Social Tagging and Derrida’s Deconstructed Hospitality
262
to whom one must answer and respond. Only in this an-
swering can the subject take shape. To put it in a slogan:
subjectivity is responsibility to the other. The self is always al-
ready beholden to the other. Genuine hospitality must be
absolute and unconditional. Ideally, every other must be
welcome across the threshold into the system/category.
In reality, everyone is seen as a potential threat or men-
ace, so we always set limits on who is welcome. However,
every time a constraint is put in place, a door closes for
someone. Such closure should be regarded with suspi-
cion, as it removes the possibility of inclusiveness. In
some cases, though, what is precisely outside the law, rule,
or code is what is ethical or right in a truer sense. With
the risks in mind, Derrida argues that only unconditional
hospitality opens real world possibilities for inclusion and
justice (Derrida and Dufourmantelle 2000).
In knowledge organization, the standards that govern
bibliographic control constitute the laws that “police the
threshold,” controlling everything including vocabulary,
structure, category borders, aboutness, and “other” interpre-
tations of meaning and content. Standards practice what is
considered a necessary form of censorship to keep out
misspellings, subjectivity, non-dominant interpretations, or
other differences. As Olson (1997, 187) warns, “Applying
universal standards risks excluding Others.” Derrida argues
that this approach co-opts methods of violence: concep-
tual, ethical, and sometimes physical (Derrida and Du-
fourmantelle 2000). The enactment of the sovereign’s right
of power over the stranger/guest/other reinforces a hierar-
chy or system of power and demands that the xenos submit
to those limits or be excluded. A well-known example is
DDC’s 200 class, where Christian topics occupy most of
the class, and the rest of the world’s religions—including
the largest, Islam—are crammed into 290. To be included
is to submit to conditions. Hospitality, which typically car-
ries a genial connotation, quickly morphs into hostility
when deconstructed, namely, into xenophobia. Though
xenophobia seems extreme, many examples can be found
in past and present bibliographic standards, and are identi-
fied in such works as Berman’s (1993) Prejudices and Antipa-
thies, Olson’s (2002) The Power to Name, and in industry or
government classifications (Bowker and Star 1999).
A radical passivity and vulnerability of the host/home is
inherent in the process of inclusion and exclusion. Inside
and outside become inextricable—one is both host and
hostage; one is both guest and enemy. Things are never cer-
tain or safe; binary logic doesn’t capture the reality of hos-
pitality. A genuine risk exists that a gracious host/sovereign
will become hostage to a guest that acts in violation of the
conditions of the home. The unanticipatable arrivant can
explode norms and defy rules, for better and for worse,
which illustrates nicely the ambiguous nature of an “out-
law,” so to speak. This threat of becoming a hostage turns
the once-welcoming threshold to stone and closes off en-
try. Mutual exclusivity, for one, constitutes a stone thresh-
old that cannot be breached by outlaws.
2.0 Social tagging: Unconditional hospitality
Social tagging, while flouting bibliographic control, can be
considered an ethical addition to KO in that it practices un-
conditional hospitality to the other as recommended by Der-
rida. For example, on the website LibraryThing
(www.librarything.com), where virtual “books” are tagged,
the website’s authors attempt to show how they are subvert-
ing the rules of the library world: “Tags are a simple way to
categorize books according to how you think of them, not
how some library official does.” The result is an unregulated
mishmash tag cloud of personal (“borrowed from Janel”;
“*L”), descriptive (“hardcover”), genre (“short stories”),
subject (“scarecrows”), affective (“horrible”), and task-
oriented tags (“to-read”), open to any perspective or whim.
Additionally, LibraryThing is hospitable to foreign words
and phrases, numbers, and sentence-long tags. Photo-
sharing website Flickr (www.flickr.com), on the other hand,
emphasizes the social and classificatory aspect rather than
the personal: “You can give your uploads a ‘tag,’ which is
like a keyword. Tags help you find things which have some-
thing in common.” Tags on Flickr can only be applied once,
and only 75 unique tags can be applied to each photo,
whereas LibraryThing tags are unlimited.
Because of Derrida’s mandate for ultimate hospitality, a
concept becomes a shifty thing, suffering from permanent
incompleteness. Similarly, taggers provide the voice of the
other as desired by the host; however, they may misrepre-
sent the content of a work, by mistake or with intention;
misspell; provide conflicting, offensive, or incoherent in-
formation, which eliminates the possibility of stable
“sameness” or consensus of “aboutness.” Violence occurs
at the edge of categories, if any categories exist, because
of the personal, subjective, and unregulated nature of tags.
Dominant and non-dominant viewpoints can be rendered
indistinguishable, leaving it to the self or subject to deter-
mine. What do we make of the conflicting tags for Dan
Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, such as “crap” (45 instances as
of 25 April 2013) and “good” (5 instances). Is The Da
Vinci Code “Christian” (13 instances) or “Anti-Christian” (8
instances)? The following two tags of The Hunger Games il-
lustrate both enigmatic opposition and a violation of nor-
mative tagging rules: “I’m not sure how to describe it…but
it’s one of the best books I’ve ever read,” or “it is totally
without any redeeming quality. It is about 12 children
picked to kill each other until only one is left alive.”
So then, in cases of conflicting information, which is
the other? Derrida states that every other “reciprocally con-
taminates” every other it comes into contact with so that
https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2013-4-260
Generiert durch IP '172.22.53.54', am 13.03.2023, 16:50:08.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
Knowl. Org. 40(2013)No.4
M. J. Fox and A. Reece. The Impossible Decision: Social Tagging and Derrida’s Deconstructed Hospitality
263
neither emerges unscathed (Kearney 2004, 171). The in-
finite task is to minimize the harm that comes from con-
tamination in the form of subordination and prejudice,
or, the dissolution of the binary. This “contamination”
occurs when approaching the other with unfamiliarity, fear,
and uncertainty. Unless that other is answered to, the fear
remains, contaminating the self with suspicion, anger, or
distain. Otherwise harmless tags can be treated with ap-
prehension and ultimately xenophobia. The unknown
and unfamiliar can be anything: a personal tag, a tag in a
foreign language, a tag expressing the opposite opinion
held by the subject, or a tag that does not follow the “ru-
les” of tagging. For instance, the term kaunokirjallisuus
occurs in nearly 10,000 instances on LibraryThing. For
those unfamiliar with the word, trepidation can accom-
pany the encounter with this tag not only because of its
unfamiliarity, but also its frequency. To reduce the fear,
“answer to” this other, and dissolve the binary, kaunokirjal-
lisuus, as other, must be approached and examined. Once it
is determined that it simply means “fiction” in Finnish,
the xenophobia and suspicion decrease. It could be as
simple as translating a foreign word to remove the uncer-
tainty, accepting a differing opinion, realizing a mistake
has been made or researching an acronym.
At times, unconditional hospitality can hold the host
hostage with intention. On Flickr, for example, the 20
“hot tags” for the 24 hour period prior to April 5, 2013,
included modestdamadresses, shortdamadresses, mater-
nitydamadress, cheapdamadress, juniordamadress, plus-
sizedamadresses, dressesunder100, etc. The tagged photos
have nothing to do with dresses, but alongside the photos
advertisements for dresses display prominently. Clearly the
hospitality allowed by the photographers was being ex-
ploited by a commercial xenos, unless they were complicit.
Additionally, no agency exists on LibraryThing for those
who are more apt to be held hostage by hospitality: au-
thors. Their vulnerability allows opportunity for both risk
and reward. What authors wants their work to garner the
tags “drivel” or “god awful waste of time?” Yet the risk is
that the work might also be tagged “brilliant” or “loved
it.” For the site, the risk of unconditional hospitality is to
be considered a site that attracts spam or where a negative
or commercial vibe prevails.
3.0 Discernment: The “impossible decision”
The main concern, then, is the task of discernment, or the
process of deciding who or what is allowed to cross the
threshold precisely when the ideal is to let every other come.
If others are granted agency and humanity, then the type of
rational discernment necessary in this situation would need
to be attuned to those others as subjects that can always be
unpredictable. Every other must respond to all others with
hospitality bent on perfection, ceaselessly interrogating and
challenging its own concepts and categories to minimize
harm and let the other be. This is the ethical exigency to be
responsible to the other even if it requires a limit to what we
desire, namely, control, security, and a future we can calcu-
late and predict. In the context of social tagging, concrete
hospitality would need to be based on consent rising from
local perspectives that aim for openness and “common”
agreement (an endless task), and not rigid norms being im-
posed from above that claim to be “universal” (which may
lead to an insurrection of users who find their agency re-
stricted and their kind of other-ness excluded). As Derrida
argues, there can be no “transcendental criteriology”
(Kearney 2004, 169). By this, he means that the criteria
must originate microlocally, not externally, as it does in
knowledge organization standards.
The tagging sites engage in the act of discernment, or
set the rules for hospitality. When it comes to explicit state-
ments of hospitality, sites tend to speak out of both sides
of their mouths. For example, the terms of use state, “Li-
braryThing has no speech code. You can dispute ideas and
words without limitation,” but then goes on to give “Good
Advice” and “Other Rules” which exemplify the “dis-
cernment” or mitigation of the host. Similarly, Flickr asks
users to “Do play nice. We're a global community of many
types of people, who all have the right to feel comfortable
and who may not think what you think, believe what you
believe or see what you see. So, be polite and respectful in
your interactions with other members.” Asking users to be
respectful both limits and accepts the full representation of
viewpoints. This guidance tends to apply mostly to re-
views, as the tags themselves do not appear to be moni-
tored. With no flagging mechanism for tags, no tag is privi-
leged, other than through frequency. Members of Flickr
may report such activity as “phishing” or “Spam-o-rama,”
but the onus is on users to report and a final decision is
made by the site, a controlling system.
To look at some concrete examples of nondiscern-
ment, LibraryThing tags include what can be considered
profane and offensive tags, such as “shitty,” or “boring as
fuck,” and “cunt.” In Flickr, for instance, the tag “nig-
ger,” has been applied to 8,000 photos without apparent
censorship. In terms of Derridean hospitality, censorship
would close off entry to other uses of such words by
those—despite disopprobrium in dominant society—
with colloquial, historical, or “reclaimed” usages. They
may be considered other to the majority, but not to all.
The dominant and non-dominant usages and other con-
textual, personal, and cultural details make up the textus
of the tag. Therefore, the effort required and threshold
of hospitality, or the ceaseless interrogation, of the users
that encounter such incidents determines the fate of the
violators. To understand the full context of the tag-
https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2013-4-260
Generiert durch IP '172.22.53.54', am 13.03.2023, 16:50:08.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
Knowl. Org. 40(2013)No.4
M. J. Fox and A. Reece. The Impossible Decision: Social Tagging and Derrida’s Deconstructed Hospitality
264
interpreted-as-offensive, one must patiently pursue all the
strands of potential meaning that exist heteronomously
to the subject’s perspective. This requires careful and
open-minded reading and the bracketing out of the as-
sumption that one knows in advance exactly what was
meant by the tag.
LibraryThing offers methods of mild mitigation in its
“tagmash” and “tag combination” features. Tagmashes
combine tags to make them more accurate. For example,
books listed with the tag 日本語, which means “Japanese,”
are actually written in English, but they are about the Japa-
nese language. Therefore, a “related tagmash” is “Japanese”
and “Language.” In this way, LibraryThing attempts to
“correct” the users’ tags without disturbing them. Users can
also suggest “tag combinations,” which allows for variations
in form of the same concept. The proposed combinations
are posted on a page and members can vote whether to
combine them or not. This makes the likely accurate and
useful assumption that such tags as “coudl not put down”
and “could not put down” indicate the same concept. Ac-
cording to unconditional hospitality, they are two, as they
represent two potentially different concepts. Members vote
and must meet an 8-vote advantage threshold in order for
tags to be collapsed together. While some combinations
seem failsafe, such as “cat breeds” and “Feline Breeds,” as
of 25 April, still six members voted against the change
(with nine votes for). Though it is a democratic process, is it
hospitable? Derrida would say no—any votes against make
the decision impossible as a door-closing constraint.
Similar examples of categorical violence can be found
on LibraryThing. For example, for the book The Hunger
Games, as of April 2013, 454 attempts to convey the con-
cept of “post-apocalyptic” subsumes 25 unique tags, in-
cluding “post apocolypic” and “post-apocalptic,” yet while
we can assume that those two tags, along with others like
“post apocalyptic” and “post-apocalyptic” are the same
concept, at what point do the concepts differ? Where are
the borders of the category? Are “post-apocalyptic fiction”
and “post-apocalyptic books” the same concept?
Flickr allows members to set limits on who can tag their
photos, which restricts hospitality. Similarly, on Library-
Thing, an account can be made private, disallowing the
other to interlope into one’s personal tags and removing the
social aspect, a form of xenophobia. In some cases, dis-
cernment is necessary. On LibraryThing, “to-read” is
tagged 572,795 times by 7,990 members (as of April 25,
2013). So, when searching for the books tagged as “to-
read” for personal purposes, the “to-read” lists for another
7,989 users would be retrieved as part of the same cate-
gory unless the search is restricted to a personal library.
Similarly, on Flickr, 3,846,694 photos were tagged with
“me” and 258,050 of “Grandpa” (April 25, 2013). Without
the exclusionary practice of search limit options, the re-
trieval results would be overwhelming and inaccurate for
the particular subject searching for “me.”
2.4 Extreme discernment
The tagging environments examined here practice only
minimal forms of discernment, which allow greater in-
clusivity of viewpoints, as well as the opportunity to be
social and anti-social at the same time. In contrast, library
standards practice an extreme form of discernment in
standardization. The difference in discernment can be
clearly seen between LibraryThing and the Library of Con-
gress Subject Headings. Because of the difficulties of deter-
mining “aboutness” with fiction, typically fiction does not
garner subject headings in most libraries; however, the
Library of Congress does assign subject headings for
some popular works. To illustrate this contrast, the Li-
braryThing tag cloud for The Da Vinci Code contains
thousands of unique user tags in multiple languages,
whereas LC, a decidedly non-hospitable environment ac-
cording to Derrida’s rubric, assigns six precoordinated
headings in English:
Leonardo, da Vinci, 1452-1519 – Appreciation –
Fiction;
Art museum curators – Crimes against – Fiction;
Secret societies – Fiction;
Cryptographers – Fiction;
Grail – Fiction;
Paris (France) – Fiction; and
Mystery fiction (Library of Congress).
The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) are more
objective, but missing much detail. Despite the contro-
versy the book raised with the Catholic Church, the
LCSH headings make no mention of religion. With tags,
omissions caused by time, budget, and a desire for objec-
tivity could be balanced to aid searching and to fulfill the
advisory function of a catalog, particularly with works of
fiction, where the “aboutness” of a work is multifaceted
and subjective.
The hospitality of social tagging is of particular value
in other venues, as well. In visual information retrieval,
tagging can assist in description of the content or sub-
jects of art or photographs, particularly when the art is
contemporary or abstract, or if the description would be
difficult or sound ridiculous. Would a museum’s informa-
tion professional assign Damien Hirst’s The Physical Impos-
sibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, unsophisti-
cated terms such as “dead shark?” Users may be able to
supplement the professional terminology with their own
descriptions of indescribable, though in another context
may be considered other.
https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2013-4-260
Generiert durch IP '172.22.53.54', am 13.03.2023, 16:50:08.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.
Knowl. Org. 40(2013)No.4
M. J. Fox and A. Reece. The Impossible Decision: Social Tagging and Derrida’s Deconstructed Hospitality
265
3.0 Conclusion
The gulf evident between tag clouds and controlled vo-
cabulary demonstrates the limits of both hospitality and
extreme discernment. The tag clouds are messy, loud,
multicultural, inclusive, and obscene: more reflective of
reality than the knowledge organization systems that pur-
port to reflect it, but could be accused of being chaotic,
inefficient, and relativistic. Derrida does not simply re-
verse the binary to privilege the unconditional form
of hospitality over and above the traditional-conditional
form of hospitality. Deconstruction celebrates ambiguity
inherent in a concept, despite the risk involved, and the
throng of concepts represented by tags demonstrates
this. At the heart of the experience of hospitality is the
concept of trust. As Aquinas (1981) argues, trust requires
that we make virtuous presumptions about others’ wills.
In other words, we can never know with certainty, in ad-
vance, how others, even trusted others, will act—or tag—
which means we must hope that they will do the right
thing. Both Flickr and LibraryThing attempt to coach in
this direction with their provisional guidelines and mini-
mal methods of mitigation.
This epistemic uncertainty illustrates the risk involved
in any relationship of trust. The perfection of trust, of
hospitality, according to Derrida must face this risk will-
ing to suffer harm rather than commit preemptive acts of
violence. The perfection of trust and hospitality must be
continually articulated and perpetuated so as not to re-
main an abstract ideal. Is the hospitality allowed in social
tagging enough to counteract the violence of biblio-
graphic control? Or does bibliographic control’s extreme
discernment mitigate the unconditional hospitality of
tagging? One cannot know in advance. The method of
deconstruction, precisely to avoid missing the enigmatic
other altogether and becoming a hostile and inferior inter-
pretation of the other can only indicate or point in a pre-
liminary fashion. Thus, deconstruction serves as a revis-
able way of pointing, of gauging the other’s preliminary
sense, while at the same time minimizing an uncritical
lapse into some distorted conception of the other or be-
lief in a universal. This ‘pointing’ is ultimately performa-
tive and should lead to a transformation of one’s relation
to the other. One must always negotiate with conditional
forms of hospitality and conditional forms need to re-
main open to the absolute form so as not to devolve into
unjust systems of power and control. To not violate so-
cial trust with commercial interests, to not erode the
community of users with personal prejudice—to make
impossible decisions a little more possible.
References
Aquinas, Thomas. 1981. The summa theologica (trans. Fa-
thers of the English Dominican Province) Westmin-
ster, Md.: Christian Classics.
Berman, Sanford. 1993. Prejudices and antipathies: A tract on
the LC subject heads concerning people. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland & Co.
Bowker, Geoff C. and Star, Susan. L. 1999. Sorting things
out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Critchley, Simon and Timothy Mooney. 1994. Decon-
struction and Derrida. In Kearney, Richard ed., Conti-
nental philosophy in the 20th century. New York: Routledge.
Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of grammatology, translated by
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. 1st ed. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins UP.
Derrida, Jacques. 1988. Letter to a Japanese friend. In
Wood, David and Bernasconi, Robert, eds., Derrida and
differánce. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP.
Derrida, Jacques and Dufourmantelle, Anne. 2000. Of
hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle invites Jacques Derrida to re-
spond, translated by Rachel Bowlby. Stanford, Calif.:
Stanford UP.
Fox, Melodie J. and Austin M. Reece. 2011. Which ethic?
whose morality: An analysis of ethical standards for
the organization of information. Knowledge organization
39: 377-83.
Kearney, Richard. 2004. Debates in continental philosophy:
Conversations with contemporary thinkers. New York: Ford-
ham UP.
Mai, Jens-Erik. 2004. Classification in context: Relativity, re-
ality, and representation. Knowledge organization 31: 39-48.
Olson, Hope A. 1995. Qualitative ‘versus’ quantitative re-
search: The wrong question. In Olson, Hope A. and
Ward, Denni s B. eds., Connectedness: Information, systems,
people, organizations; Canadian Association for Information Sci-
ence, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference / Association
canadienne des sciences de l'information, travaux du 23e congrès
annuel. Edmonton, Alberta: School of Library and In-
formation Studies, University of Alberta, pp. 40-9.
Olson, Hope A. 1997. The feminist and the emperor’s
new clothes: Feminist deconstruction as a critical
methodology for library and information studies. Li-
brary & information science research 19: 181-98.
Olson, Hope A. 2002. The power to name: Locating the limits
of subject representation in libraries. Boston: Kluwer Aca-
demic.
Wortham, Simon Morgan. 2010. The Derrida dictionary.
New York: Continuum.
https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2013-4-260
Generiert durch IP '172.22.53.54', am 13.03.2023, 16:50:08.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig.