LCC was developed on the basis of the collections ofLibrary of Congress thus reflecting this specific collection.Major principles of this system are its basis in “literarywarrant” and enumeration of classes (as opposed to fac-eted systems). Vanda Broughton (2004, 143) wrote aboutit: “It is quite hard to discern any strong theoretical princi-ples underlying LCC.” Some formulations by S. R. Ranga-nathan (e.g. 1951) also suggest that such “traditional” sys-tems seem to lack a theoretical foundation (in his eyes asopposed to his own approach). The LCC and UDC re-flected in the past much better current scholarly knowledgecompared to DDC (but the UDC scheme in particular hasnot generally been updated, cf. Hjørland 2007a)
This paragraph correctly notes LCC's reliance on literary warrant and It’s lack of an explicit theoretical foundation, but it fails to acknowledge the deeper structural biases embedded in the scheme. LCC is not merely theoretically thin, it is epistemologically partial; reflecting the worldview, priorities, and discipline hierarchies of the institution that produced it.
Hope Olson and others have shown that LCC’s claim to universality masks hierarchical and binary structures that privilege dominant cultural perspectives. For example, the Fine Arts schedule privileges “fine art” over “craft,” reinforcing Western, patriarchal, and colonialist value systems.