Empathy in Metadata
Language can be a weapon. Throughout history, societies have created and used vocabulary specifically designed to dehumanize, disenfranchise, and alienate marginalized groups. Archivists, librarians, and museum professionals who work with historical materials have a unique responsibility. We can describe materials in ways that preserve access to painful histories without reinforcing the violence of their original context. This blog explores potential biases in archival description and suggests ways to approach the work with more empathy, care, and justice.
Bias in Archival Language
Historical documents often reflect the prejudices of their creators, but our descriptions of those materials don’t have to repeat or reinforce those biases. Archivists can create a meaningful separation between what the document says and how we describe it. Our role is not to sanitize history, but to contextualize it in a way that is truthful and respectful. We do not need to repeat slurs or biased language to make these materials accessible. Instead, we can note that harmful language appears and explain why.
Archival description is inherently subjective. Every description reflects the choices and perspectives of the person writing it. Even seemingly neutral metadata like color, subject, or format is shaped by cultural understanding and individual experience. There is no such thing as a completely neutral archive, because all collecting decisions, descriptive practices, and institutional policies reflect values.
Practicing Radical Empathy
In their foundational article, "From Human Rights to Feminist Ethics: Radical Empathy in the Archives," Michelle Caswell and Marika Cifor propose a framework for archival work grounded in empathy. They ask us to consider whether our descriptive language respects the communities invested in the records. Radical empathy means caring not only about users but about creators, subjects, and fellow archivists. It requires us to center care, humility, and justice in every part of our work.
Reparative Description
Reparative description refers to efforts that correct or update metadata to address exclusion, misrepresentation, or harm. The Society of American Archivists defines it as the remediation of practices that silence or mischaracterize marginalized people. The Sunshine State Digital Network emphasizes that conscious editing is an essential act of inclusion: without it, many individuals and communities remain invisible in our systems of knowledge.
Naming the Missing
Whose stories are missing from your metadata? Biographical notes, finding aids, and catalog records often center people in power. Archivists can contribute to more equitable history-telling by researching and naming people who have been excluded. Controlled vocabularies like the Social Networks and Archival Context, or SNAC, allow archivists to add names and relationships to national authority files, expanding the record for future researchers.
For example, SNAC includes an entry for the Public Universal Friend, a genderless religious leader from early America. This person defies many of our standard descriptive assumptions, especially around gender and naming. Including individuals like the Friend in our metadata challenges us to think critically about how we describe people who do not fit conventional categories.
Portrait of the Public Universal Friend by J.L.D. Mathies.
Gender and Naming Practices
Descriptions of women and gender-diverse individuals often reflect assumptions and omissions. One way to address this is to go beyond honorifics like "Mrs." and research actual names whenever possible. At one institution, the archivist created alternate name fields for nuns who reverted to their birth names in the 1960s and 1970s. This allowed records to reflect the full lives of the individuals and improved historical accuracy.
Avoid deadnaming. If someone has changed their name, especially due to a gender transition, archivists should respect and use the name they chose for themselves. While it may sometimes be appropriate to mention former names to clarify a record, archivists must avoid reinscribing harm through careless or disrespectful metadata.
Anti-Racist and Inclusive Descriptive Practices
Sometimes our descriptive standards conflict with the humanity of the people we are describing. This is especially true when describing enslaved people. Archivists should consider the person's legal and civil status, use language preferred by the communities in question, and avoid valorizing oppressive figures or institutions. Passive voice can obscure agency and responsibility. Metadata should reflect the truth of a person's life and the conditions in which they lived.
Self-Determination and Community Consultation
People have the right to name themselves. Archivists should honor this self-determination whenever possible. This includes using the specific names of Indigenous nations and recognizing that reclaimed language within a community is not appropriate for outsiders to use in description. Cultural sensitivity must be informed by consultation with stakeholders and subject-matter experts.
Describing Disability and Medical Conditions
Disability language is complex. Some communities prefer people-first language (e.g., "person with a disability") while others prefer identity-first language (e.g., "disabled person"). There is no universal right answer, but archivists should avoid outdated or offensive terminology. When materials contain harmful language, it can be acknowledged and contextualized without repeating it in descriptive text.
Content Warnings and Transparency
Content warnings can prepare users for encountering difficult material. These are not acts of censorship. Rather, they allow users to approach archival materials with understanding and care. Warnings can address graphic violence, discriminatory language, and emotionally disturbing content. Contextualizing language allows us to preserve the historical record without repeating its harms.
Staying Current and Learning From Others
Controlled vocabularies often struggle to keep up with the rapid evolution of inclusive language. National associations, cultural organizations, and community stakeholders can help archivists remain informed. Collaboration and consultation are key to ethical description. Metadata should not only reflect institutional priorities but also honor the communities represented in our collections.
Thoughtful Description Is Inclusive Description
Empathy in metadata is about recognizing what we don't know, seeking input, and welcoming feedback. When cultural knowledge or lived experience is outside our own, we should consult and compensate experts. Inclusive description includes attention to accessibility, language, format, and context. The reading room itself should feel like a welcoming space, not one of suspicion or exclusion.
Redescription and Iteration
Metadata is not fixed. Finding aids can change. Description can and should be revisited, especially when it contains outdated or biased language. Small redescription projects can have a big impact. Seek out opportunities for collaboration, accept suggestions graciously, and understand that improving inclusivity is an ongoing process. Progress is made step by step.
Accessibility in Description
Accessibility means more than just ramps and captions. It includes alt text, detailed image descriptions, transcription of audio and video, and making reading rooms and digital platforms welcoming and usable for all. It also means acknowledging language barriers and doing our best to meet users where they are.
Looking Forward
Inclusive and reparative description takes time and intention. We should welcome being called in, be open to feedback, and honor the knowledge of people with lived experiences represented in our collections. Bringing empathy to metadata is not about perfection. It is about making thoughtful choices, staying humble, and committing to continual improvement.
Watch the Webinar
Want to explore these ideas in more depth? Watch our recorded webinar on Empathy in Metadata, where we share strategies, challenges, and real-world examples of inclusive descriptive practices in libraries, archives, and museums.
