Things to read on paper

This idea that an ideal anarchic system of cataloging would be chaotic is misguided. To quote Proudhon, "anarchy is order." I'd be curious to hear how you think that traditional forms of cataloging are "hierarchical."

Well, "Hierarchical" in the library/cataloging world means :

Hierarchical force
The principle that the attributes of a class as defined in the heading and in certain basic notes apply to all the subdivisions of the class and to all other classes to which reference is made.

Hierarchy
The arrangement of a classification system from general to specific. In the DDC (dewey decimal classification - a three volume set with thousand of subjects and their corresponding numerical designations), the length of the notation and the corresponding depth of indention of the heading usually indicate the degree of specificity of a class. Hierarchy may also be indicated by special headings, notes and centered entries

There are whole associations, namely OCLC & the Library of Congress, that evaulate and assign Dewey Classifactions and Library of Congress numbers. You can see more here.

Also you might want to look at Anachist Librarians, Rudolf Rucker, info on Jenna Friedman and Radical Reference, Changes and Grumbling.

I'm familiar with anarchist librarians and Rudolph Rocker. And your definition of hierarchy in the library sense is what I imagined it would be.

Here's what I was trying draw out. What is the practical connection between the librarian's notion of catalog hierarchy and the anarchist criticism of social and political hierarchy? The connection is insignificant, I think. I don't see anarchist librarians spending a lot of time postulating non-hierarchical cataloging schemes. Because anarchism is a social philosophy, anarchists aren't really concerned about combating the idea of hierarchy wherever it appears. Rather, anarchists are interested in combating social hierarchy because it thwarts the inherent rights of individuals and classes, as they see them anyway.

I think this notion that an ideal anarchist cataloging system would be "chaotic" doesn't come from anarchism at all, but rather is a product of the influence of a generic aesthetic of rebellion among the young "radical" mileau -- an aesthetic that's more grounded in consumer rebellion than in radical politics or social movements.

See right there, you have already thought about it more than most practicing librarians and even harder than most radicals who are making the wiggling motions that they think look like A) radicalism and B) cataloging.

There has been some grumbling about the class, social, and racist/gender-biased/etc stucture as it has been applied and incorporated into the the various catalog schedules. But these grumblings have not generated much actual change in the practice. In part, because it would require an amazing amount of work to recatalog existing items already assigned their classist or racist call numbers.

I agree that when librarians, especially, deploy the term of anarchist or radical, they mean it in the most superficial and lamest ways. But that has less to do with anachary being misunderstood or misapplied, as it does to the overwhelming laziness and inattention of the group throwing the term out there. Afterall, we are librarians because we failed at other professions or more basically, life.

If by using it in a lame way, you mean by using one of its definitions, which is a synonym for chaos (and I'm not pointing that at r.john, I know you were clarifying, I'm just borrowing your "lame.") I'm sorry not all librarians immediately think of things in terms of politics, but I felt it was the best term I could come up with for the opposite of Dewey and Library of Congress structures, which, by their very definitions, are hierarchical. I enjoy using loaded words. Sue me.

If you want to take issue with my understanding and application of chaos theory, you're more than welcome.

Chaos Catalogging offers a beginning of a discussion.