Home > Blog The Log of a Librarian > The Taxonomy of Absence (01)

The Taxonomy of Absence (01)

The Silence in the Catalogue

When Other Knowledge Systems Don't Fit the Index

This post is part of a series that reviews decolonialism in libraries, archives and other similar spaces, from the perspective of the Global South and the margins, and how colonialism affects collections, staffing, services, activities, policies, and results. Check all the posts in this section's index.

Introduction

Libraries, archives and museums are built to organize knowledge and memory, to make it searchable, accessible, and preserved across time.

But they are not neutral spaces. They structure documents and contents in a certain way, determining what is recognized, who is cited, and which ways of knowing remain peripheral or entirely absent.

Scientific institutions have long shaped research in the tropics, yet the organization of this knowledge reflects deep asymmetries. The classification systems that libraries, archives and museums rely upon emerged from European intellectual traditions. These systems assume that knowledge is fixed, textual, and hierarchically arranged. And they struggle with (or just resist) epistemes, ways of knowing, that are dynamic, oral, and relational.

The result is that indigenous knowledge systems, ecological understandings embedded in stories, or biological taxonomies that reflect deep interconnections between species and landscapes often do not fit.

If knowledge is not indexed, it cannot be found. And if it cannot be found, it is often assumed to be absent.

Classification as a System of Power

Cataloging and classification are often seen as technical processes, yet they have profound epistemic consequences. The structure of a document collection reflects assumptions about knowledge: what is fundamental, what is secondary, what is scientific, and what is folklore.

Histories that were transmitted orally are placed under mythology rather than history. Medicinal plant knowledge that has guided healing for centuries is categorized under ethnobotany rather than pharmacology. Indigenous land stewardship techniques that shape biodiversity conservation are not recognized as science but are framed as cultural traditions.

This is not an accidental oversight. The knowledge that does not conform to dominant classification models remains outside formal systems, treated as anecdotal, informal, or pre-scientific.

The Silences of Biodiversity Research

Libraries, archives, museums and similar institutions hold the field notes of early scientific expeditions, the records that shaped taxonomies, and the maps that defined ecological research. These materials document biodiversity in the tropics (and elsewhere), yet they also reveal the structural omissions within the scientific narrative.

Many of these early materials contain references to local guides, unnamed informants, and indigenous experts whose contributions remain uncredited. Taxonomic descriptions provide Latin names but rarely acknowledge indigenous classifications. Scientific articles build upon ecological knowledge that was observed in local practice, yet they strip away the historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts from which that knowledge emerged.

Document collections are not just repositories — they constitute a mechanism that determines what is remembered and what is forgotten. Information that does not fit the scientific frameworks of the time is either left unrecorded or buried in marginal annotations. These silences are not just gaps in the discourse; they reflect deeper patterns of epistemic exclusion.

Decolonizing the Catalogue: Rethinking Classification

Expanding classification systems to accommodate indigenous or local knowledge is not enough. The structure itself must be rethought. Systems built on taxonomic separation struggle to incorporate data that is relational. If a plant's significance is tied not only to its species but to its role within an ecosystem, a healing tradition, or a cultural practice, where does it belong in a classification system that demands discrete categories?

Libraries, archives and museums have historically privileged written records over oral traditions, reinforcing the invisibility of knowledge that is transmitted through speech, ritual, artistic or embodied practice. Addressing this imbalance requires not just new metadata fields, but a deeper interrogation of why certain forms of knowledge are considered valid documents while others are not.

Attribution practices also require reconsideration. Indigenous and local knowledge is often extracted for research but is rarely cited as a legitimate source in itself. Scientific authorship models privilege individuals over communities, making it difficult to acknowledge collective and intergenerational ways of knowing. Recognizing non-Western contributions means moving beyond token acknowledgments toward a restructuring of how authority is defined.

In Search of Epistemic Justice

Libraries, archives and museums shape the way knowledge and memory are structured, accessed, and legitimized. The challenge is not simply to include marginalized information, but to question the systems that have made it marginal in the first place.

Decolonizing libraries and equivalent spaces is not just about expanding collections or adding new subject headings. It requires asking deeper questions about how classification, access, and authority are constructed. If knowledge systems have been excluded because they do not fit within existing frameworks, then the frameworks themselves must be transformed.

The question is not just what needs to be added.

The question is whether libraries, archives and museums are ready to recognize knowledge on its own terms, rather than forcing it into systems that were never designed to hold it.

About this post

Text: Edgardo Civallero.
Publication date: 04.03.2025.
Picture: "The evolving catalog". In American Libraries [Link].