10:30 is Early for a Walk Back
Even though I've been writing a metric fuckload all semester, I haven't written many actual papers, as opposed to reading responses. In fact, I've only written one. We're doing research projects/early research on our thesis (I'm researching historical work-times), and before doing the actual essay, we had to write a review of secondary sources on our subjects. The essay is pretty rigidly structured, but I tried to put my own spin on the stuff we were supposed to address (what questions have historians asked about the subject, what arguments have been made, what methods were used, etc.) The original has footnotes, but lj can’t handle them. Maybe I’ll put up some of my 2 page weekly historiography responses.
Also, I put up my most recent Soc response. We have to write these one pagers every week or so, and they consist of writing a discussion question and then answering it. I liked this one because it allowed me to slam Weber in a very concise way.
How do historians generate truth from the past? This question looms omnipresent as one considers the multiple perspectives on the history of work-times in industrialized nations during the latter portion of the 20th century. Indeed, it will be demonstrated that different historians will often ask different questions concerning this past. This diversity of questions will usually lead to a diversity of historical methods in order to satisfactorily answer the questions originally proposed. Related to the selection of particular methods is the adoption of particular sources to perform these methods. This employment of a variety of methodological approaches and sources tends to create a variety of interpretations concerning the significance and meaning of historical “facts”. However, it should be noted that the influence of questions, methods, and interpretations is not exclusively unidirectional. Thus, the different perspectives conveyed in Working Time in Transition, The Overworked American, Labor’s Time, Work Without End, and Modern Times, Ancient Hours are a reflection of the different perspectives of the authors themselves and the consequent interactions of their different perspectives, questions, methods, sources, and interpretations.
Different questions have been asked by historians of the work-time paradox. Jonathan Cutler’s main line of investigation explores the factors that ended agitation for a 30 hour week at 40 hours pay among United Auto-Workers members, specifically Local 600 during the 1930’s, 40’s, and 50’s. On the other hand, Hunnicutt’s Work Without End, analyzes the same time period and asks what historical forces and factors benefited the work reduction movement. Indeed, Basso asks “as a whole and on a worldwide scale, in what direction is working time going, and why?” Furthermore, Working Time in Transition seeks answers to questions concerning the historical costs and benefits to employers, employees, and unions over the introduction of increasingly variable and non-standard work hours in eight industrialized nations. Finally, Juliet Schor’s work inquires as to whether there is a link between over-work and over-consumption. Thus, different historians tackle the historical riddle of work-times by pursuing different lines of questioning.
More precisely, Cutler’s book traces not only the actions of union leaders but also how they co-opted and finally silenced work reduction agitation. Indeed, Cutler quotes David Brody to propose the primary question addressed in Labor’s Time: “Who would deny what [the leadership of the CIO] made abundantly clear in the public record? But why did they succeed?” Hunnicutt specifically asks, how, why, and when did they weaken, as well as what factors and forces hampered the movement, and how, why, and when did they strengthen? Moreover, Hinrichs suggests two primary questions concerning the “social balance sheet” measuring the effects of increasingly non-standard work times, specifically, “will the gain in leisure time involved inevitably be at the expense of the quality of leisure time?” and “whether the benefits and costs associated with increased leisure are enjoyed and borne by the same people”. Indeed, Basso asks the first of the previous two questions in the course of his introduction. Similarly, in the process of her inquiry concerning the possibility of a link between over-work and over-consumption, Schor asks the further question “What do we mean by work and leisure” in order to more precisely measure work-times. Thus, there is a wide amount of variety in the generation of historical questions.
Indeed, pursuit of divergent lines of questioning often leads to employment of divergent methods of historical inquiry. Consequently, Basso’s study is primarily quantitative and focuses on historical work-time trends among industrial workers during the later half of the 20th century. This specificity of focus is not exclusively a result of Basso’s prediction of industrial work for the future of nearly two hundred million people living in the rapidly industrializing third world, but also because he views the industrial work paradigm and industrial labor relations as the primary model for all work paradigms and labor relations and especially as this paradigm and these relations relate to work-time. Unlike other books, discussion of the methods employed in Working Times in Transition is difficult as a consequence of the book’s being a collection of essays by multiple authors rather than a unitary monograph by a single author. However, one could generally classify the method employed by all authors of Working Time in Transition as an analysis of the changes in political economy generated by divergence from standard models of work and the relation of this political economy to total work times. Indeed, as a consequence of Schor’s exploration of the categories of work and leisure, Schor’s method is primarily an analysis of the changing social constructions and interactions of production and consumption over time. Moreover, Hunnicutt defines his historical method as “to do what historians do best. Tell the story”. In addition, as a consequence of Hunnicutt’s rejection of purely economic explanations for the stagnation of American working hours following the 1940’s, Work Without End is a highly narrative and intellectually-focused approach to the work reduction movement. Finally, Cutler’s inquiry into the successes and failures of UAW work reduction militancy mixes a narrative historical method with sociological analysis by examining the chronological progression of work-reduction militancy in each chapter, with exegesis of a different socio-political component of the UAW and Local 600 in each chapter. Consequently, the selection of historical methods is a reflection of the questions a historian is attempting to answer.
Related to the methods of historical inquiry employed by each author is selection of sources for engagement in the process of executing these methods. Consequently, Basso prefers unofficial records over corporate/government compiled data because of the latter’s undercounting of so-called “shadow hours”, creating a deficit in calculations as high as 22.3% in Italy. Moreover, Basso places greater trust in work-hour calculations for shorter periods of time because the number of hours worked per day as opposed to per year reflects a clearing understanding of both “how much one works” and “the place work has in one’s life”. Furthermore, The Overworked American employs a method that rejects sources relying upon subjective definitions of work and leisure and instead accepts a dichotomized objectivity that classifies time spent as “work” if it is either remunerated time or time spent engaged in household chores, while leisure is simply defined as non-work. Indeed, Hunnicutt focuses his narrative on sources concerning the work-times of male industrial workers living in the Northeast during the 1930’s and 40’s, although other workers, the 19th century, 1900-1920, and the period following the main narrative to the present and are also briefly discussed. Finally, Cutler’s narrative account of UAW factional politics derives evidence primarily from contemporary factional newspaper articles and articles in the mainstream business press. Cutler accounts for the bias and lack of disinterested of these articles by explaining, “Biased newspaper coverage can be quite useful so long as one reads against the grain of bias”. Thus, the sources chosen by historians are a consequence of both their historical techniques and the questions they ask.
Moreover, individual historian’s methods ands sources, and by extension, their questions influence the interpretations of the history of work times. Indeed, by specifically examining the relation of work/production and leisure/consumption, Juliet Schor concludes that changes in consumption patterns and levels have sustained a vicious work/spend cycle in which decreased leisure time creates a need for less time intensive, yet more consumption-based tactics of leisure. Thus, in the process of exploring the importance of the work/spend cycle, Schor discovers that this cycle is not spontaneously generated by the consumption desires of workers; rather, the cycle is reproduced by consumption, but imposed upon workers because “a company does not offer [the choice between time and money] to its employees but unilaterally decides to maintain existing hours and give a pay increase instead”. Modern Times, Ancient Hours employs different methods and asks different questions than Schor and thus critiques her conclusions by pointing out her narrow focus on the United States and rejecting her assertion that over-work is an economically irrational method of capitalist production. Thus, by examining historical work-time trends among industrial workers, Basso concludes that over-work is the most economically efficient strategy for the generation of capitalist profits and answers his earlier question concerning the direction of work-times by asserting, “It is the ‘American’ trend that is gaining the upper hand - the trend towards heavier and longer working time”. This relation of method to conclusions is seen in the other secondary sources as well.
Indeed, the relation of method to conclusions seems obvious in many secondary sources. Thus, by examining the political machinations of factions with the UAW and Local 600, Cutler explains the victories and defeats of work reduction militants by correlating increased competition among factions with the increased adoption of work reduction stances by factional leaders seeking to gain political support among rank and file workers. In addition, by focusing on intellectual currents and governmental policy concerning northeastern, male factory workers, Hunnicutt comes to the conclusion that certain groups’ intellectual associations of leisure with unemployment, as well as government efforts to ensure a growing economy following the Great Depression were the primary factors in the demise of the work-reduction movement. Finally, the concluding essay of Working Time in Transition builds upon the previous chapters’ histories of work-time political economies and states, “In some settings the liberatory potential of new temporal arrangements is clearly evident, if not always dominant. In most, however, the new flexibility has become implicated in old and new forms of inequality, marginality, and managerial control”. Thus, the methodological focus on political economy, has led to a conclusion in terms of political economy. Consequently, the histories of work-times exhibit an undeniable connection between historiographical methods and conclusions.
It is important to note that conclusions often influence methods, and this is no less the case for the five books currently under discussion. In Work Without End, Hunnicutt omits investigation of the micro-politics of unions in order to reach his conclusion concerning the primacy of macro-political and intellectual factors for understanding the work-time reduction movement. In addition, Cutler’s attribution of work-time reduction successes and failures to union factionalism has led him to eschew the focus on intellectual trends employed by Hunnicutt. Moreover, the conclusion that work-times are transitioning to a more flexible political economy has lead Working Time in Transition to only include essays concerning nations in which this increased flexibility has manifested itself. Indeed, Schor examines non-remunerative work within the home in order to demonstrate how average work-times have increased as women moved into the paid workforce and consequently began to bear the double-burden of external and domestic work. Finally, Basso demonstrates his theoretical bias in his decision to privilege calculations of work-times by the day instead of year: “The choice of one unit of measurement rather another gives us very different pictures of things. It is thus not fortuitous that defenders of the market economy are so partial to annual, or, at most, weekly working hours, while critics of the market economy have always focused their attention on the working day”. Clearly, the flow of influence is reciprocal between conclusions and methods.
In evaluating the pre-existent historiography of work-times, it is useful to consider some possible questions that could grant a more complete understanding of the issue. First, can some technological advances be more conducive to the reduction of capital costs as opposed to labor costs? Next, what effects have international politics had on work-time trends? Finally, are the internal structures and mechanisms of a primarily service economy different in their influences on work-times than an economy primarily constituted for industrial production? By examining these questions, future histories of work-times will build upon the significant work performed by previous historians.
The examination of secondary sources demonstrates how every history is a product of particular processes of selection concerning questions, sources, and methods, and the relation of these selections to each other as well as to conclusions. Thus, the five histories considered each exhibit foci and evaluations specific to their methodological starting points and individual author’s curiosities. Consequently, by investigating comparative historiographies, a student of history gains a more developed understanding of the need for multiple perspectives when studying history. More precisely, study of the process by which data from the past is transformed and organized into history allows for a greater understanding of not only the history under discussion, but the very nature of historiography itself. Indeed, evaluation of relevant, previous historical work is highly instrumental to fresh analysis of a historical issue.
Soc Response
Do Said and Appiah convincingly reject Weber’s conception of power and/or his prediction of the historical trends of the 20th century?
Not only do Said and Appiah both convincingly reject Weber’s conception of power, Appiah also rejects Weber’s predictions concerning trends towards universal rationalization for the future. Said’s primary critique of Weber rests upon Weber’s characterization of “The Orient” as a monolithic entity set up in binary distinction with the “Occident”, with the former being characterized by irrationalism and the latter with rationalism. Indeed, without this binary, the very notion of rationality is inconceivable and falls apart. Moreover, Said demonstrates that this idea of “rationalism” is a product of material conditions, as Marx also suggests. Moreover, Appiah draws attention to how Weber’s “rationality” has not become as prevalent as originally suggested by putting forward the example of religious fundamentalism as a strong, yet irrational historical actor at the end of the 20th century. Thus, Weber’s conception of power is conclusively proven irrelevant by Appiah and Said.
Also, I put up my most recent Soc response. We have to write these one pagers every week or so, and they consist of writing a discussion question and then answering it. I liked this one because it allowed me to slam Weber in a very concise way.
How do historians generate truth from the past? This question looms omnipresent as one considers the multiple perspectives on the history of work-times in industrialized nations during the latter portion of the 20th century. Indeed, it will be demonstrated that different historians will often ask different questions concerning this past. This diversity of questions will usually lead to a diversity of historical methods in order to satisfactorily answer the questions originally proposed. Related to the selection of particular methods is the adoption of particular sources to perform these methods. This employment of a variety of methodological approaches and sources tends to create a variety of interpretations concerning the significance and meaning of historical “facts”. However, it should be noted that the influence of questions, methods, and interpretations is not exclusively unidirectional. Thus, the different perspectives conveyed in Working Time in Transition, The Overworked American, Labor’s Time, Work Without End, and Modern Times, Ancient Hours are a reflection of the different perspectives of the authors themselves and the consequent interactions of their different perspectives, questions, methods, sources, and interpretations.
Different questions have been asked by historians of the work-time paradox. Jonathan Cutler’s main line of investigation explores the factors that ended agitation for a 30 hour week at 40 hours pay among United Auto-Workers members, specifically Local 600 during the 1930’s, 40’s, and 50’s. On the other hand, Hunnicutt’s Work Without End, analyzes the same time period and asks what historical forces and factors benefited the work reduction movement. Indeed, Basso asks “as a whole and on a worldwide scale, in what direction is working time going, and why?” Furthermore, Working Time in Transition seeks answers to questions concerning the historical costs and benefits to employers, employees, and unions over the introduction of increasingly variable and non-standard work hours in eight industrialized nations. Finally, Juliet Schor’s work inquires as to whether there is a link between over-work and over-consumption. Thus, different historians tackle the historical riddle of work-times by pursuing different lines of questioning.
More precisely, Cutler’s book traces not only the actions of union leaders but also how they co-opted and finally silenced work reduction agitation. Indeed, Cutler quotes David Brody to propose the primary question addressed in Labor’s Time: “Who would deny what [the leadership of the CIO] made abundantly clear in the public record? But why did they succeed?” Hunnicutt specifically asks, how, why, and when did they weaken, as well as what factors and forces hampered the movement, and how, why, and when did they strengthen? Moreover, Hinrichs suggests two primary questions concerning the “social balance sheet” measuring the effects of increasingly non-standard work times, specifically, “will the gain in leisure time involved inevitably be at the expense of the quality of leisure time?” and “whether the benefits and costs associated with increased leisure are enjoyed and borne by the same people”. Indeed, Basso asks the first of the previous two questions in the course of his introduction. Similarly, in the process of her inquiry concerning the possibility of a link between over-work and over-consumption, Schor asks the further question “What do we mean by work and leisure” in order to more precisely measure work-times. Thus, there is a wide amount of variety in the generation of historical questions.
Indeed, pursuit of divergent lines of questioning often leads to employment of divergent methods of historical inquiry. Consequently, Basso’s study is primarily quantitative and focuses on historical work-time trends among industrial workers during the later half of the 20th century. This specificity of focus is not exclusively a result of Basso’s prediction of industrial work for the future of nearly two hundred million people living in the rapidly industrializing third world, but also because he views the industrial work paradigm and industrial labor relations as the primary model for all work paradigms and labor relations and especially as this paradigm and these relations relate to work-time. Unlike other books, discussion of the methods employed in Working Times in Transition is difficult as a consequence of the book’s being a collection of essays by multiple authors rather than a unitary monograph by a single author. However, one could generally classify the method employed by all authors of Working Time in Transition as an analysis of the changes in political economy generated by divergence from standard models of work and the relation of this political economy to total work times. Indeed, as a consequence of Schor’s exploration of the categories of work and leisure, Schor’s method is primarily an analysis of the changing social constructions and interactions of production and consumption over time. Moreover, Hunnicutt defines his historical method as “to do what historians do best. Tell the story”. In addition, as a consequence of Hunnicutt’s rejection of purely economic explanations for the stagnation of American working hours following the 1940’s, Work Without End is a highly narrative and intellectually-focused approach to the work reduction movement. Finally, Cutler’s inquiry into the successes and failures of UAW work reduction militancy mixes a narrative historical method with sociological analysis by examining the chronological progression of work-reduction militancy in each chapter, with exegesis of a different socio-political component of the UAW and Local 600 in each chapter. Consequently, the selection of historical methods is a reflection of the questions a historian is attempting to answer.
Related to the methods of historical inquiry employed by each author is selection of sources for engagement in the process of executing these methods. Consequently, Basso prefers unofficial records over corporate/government compiled data because of the latter’s undercounting of so-called “shadow hours”, creating a deficit in calculations as high as 22.3% in Italy. Moreover, Basso places greater trust in work-hour calculations for shorter periods of time because the number of hours worked per day as opposed to per year reflects a clearing understanding of both “how much one works” and “the place work has in one’s life”. Furthermore, The Overworked American employs a method that rejects sources relying upon subjective definitions of work and leisure and instead accepts a dichotomized objectivity that classifies time spent as “work” if it is either remunerated time or time spent engaged in household chores, while leisure is simply defined as non-work. Indeed, Hunnicutt focuses his narrative on sources concerning the work-times of male industrial workers living in the Northeast during the 1930’s and 40’s, although other workers, the 19th century, 1900-1920, and the period following the main narrative to the present and are also briefly discussed. Finally, Cutler’s narrative account of UAW factional politics derives evidence primarily from contemporary factional newspaper articles and articles in the mainstream business press. Cutler accounts for the bias and lack of disinterested of these articles by explaining, “Biased newspaper coverage can be quite useful so long as one reads against the grain of bias”. Thus, the sources chosen by historians are a consequence of both their historical techniques and the questions they ask.
Moreover, individual historian’s methods ands sources, and by extension, their questions influence the interpretations of the history of work times. Indeed, by specifically examining the relation of work/production and leisure/consumption, Juliet Schor concludes that changes in consumption patterns and levels have sustained a vicious work/spend cycle in which decreased leisure time creates a need for less time intensive, yet more consumption-based tactics of leisure. Thus, in the process of exploring the importance of the work/spend cycle, Schor discovers that this cycle is not spontaneously generated by the consumption desires of workers; rather, the cycle is reproduced by consumption, but imposed upon workers because “a company does not offer [the choice between time and money] to its employees but unilaterally decides to maintain existing hours and give a pay increase instead”. Modern Times, Ancient Hours employs different methods and asks different questions than Schor and thus critiques her conclusions by pointing out her narrow focus on the United States and rejecting her assertion that over-work is an economically irrational method of capitalist production. Thus, by examining historical work-time trends among industrial workers, Basso concludes that over-work is the most economically efficient strategy for the generation of capitalist profits and answers his earlier question concerning the direction of work-times by asserting, “It is the ‘American’ trend that is gaining the upper hand - the trend towards heavier and longer working time”. This relation of method to conclusions is seen in the other secondary sources as well.
Indeed, the relation of method to conclusions seems obvious in many secondary sources. Thus, by examining the political machinations of factions with the UAW and Local 600, Cutler explains the victories and defeats of work reduction militants by correlating increased competition among factions with the increased adoption of work reduction stances by factional leaders seeking to gain political support among rank and file workers. In addition, by focusing on intellectual currents and governmental policy concerning northeastern, male factory workers, Hunnicutt comes to the conclusion that certain groups’ intellectual associations of leisure with unemployment, as well as government efforts to ensure a growing economy following the Great Depression were the primary factors in the demise of the work-reduction movement. Finally, the concluding essay of Working Time in Transition builds upon the previous chapters’ histories of work-time political economies and states, “In some settings the liberatory potential of new temporal arrangements is clearly evident, if not always dominant. In most, however, the new flexibility has become implicated in old and new forms of inequality, marginality, and managerial control”. Thus, the methodological focus on political economy, has led to a conclusion in terms of political economy. Consequently, the histories of work-times exhibit an undeniable connection between historiographical methods and conclusions.
It is important to note that conclusions often influence methods, and this is no less the case for the five books currently under discussion. In Work Without End, Hunnicutt omits investigation of the micro-politics of unions in order to reach his conclusion concerning the primacy of macro-political and intellectual factors for understanding the work-time reduction movement. In addition, Cutler’s attribution of work-time reduction successes and failures to union factionalism has led him to eschew the focus on intellectual trends employed by Hunnicutt. Moreover, the conclusion that work-times are transitioning to a more flexible political economy has lead Working Time in Transition to only include essays concerning nations in which this increased flexibility has manifested itself. Indeed, Schor examines non-remunerative work within the home in order to demonstrate how average work-times have increased as women moved into the paid workforce and consequently began to bear the double-burden of external and domestic work. Finally, Basso demonstrates his theoretical bias in his decision to privilege calculations of work-times by the day instead of year: “The choice of one unit of measurement rather another gives us very different pictures of things. It is thus not fortuitous that defenders of the market economy are so partial to annual, or, at most, weekly working hours, while critics of the market economy have always focused their attention on the working day”. Clearly, the flow of influence is reciprocal between conclusions and methods.
In evaluating the pre-existent historiography of work-times, it is useful to consider some possible questions that could grant a more complete understanding of the issue. First, can some technological advances be more conducive to the reduction of capital costs as opposed to labor costs? Next, what effects have international politics had on work-time trends? Finally, are the internal structures and mechanisms of a primarily service economy different in their influences on work-times than an economy primarily constituted for industrial production? By examining these questions, future histories of work-times will build upon the significant work performed by previous historians.
The examination of secondary sources demonstrates how every history is a product of particular processes of selection concerning questions, sources, and methods, and the relation of these selections to each other as well as to conclusions. Thus, the five histories considered each exhibit foci and evaluations specific to their methodological starting points and individual author’s curiosities. Consequently, by investigating comparative historiographies, a student of history gains a more developed understanding of the need for multiple perspectives when studying history. More precisely, study of the process by which data from the past is transformed and organized into history allows for a greater understanding of not only the history under discussion, but the very nature of historiography itself. Indeed, evaluation of relevant, previous historical work is highly instrumental to fresh analysis of a historical issue.
Soc Response
Do Said and Appiah convincingly reject Weber’s conception of power and/or his prediction of the historical trends of the 20th century?
Not only do Said and Appiah both convincingly reject Weber’s conception of power, Appiah also rejects Weber’s predictions concerning trends towards universal rationalization for the future. Said’s primary critique of Weber rests upon Weber’s characterization of “The Orient” as a monolithic entity set up in binary distinction with the “Occident”, with the former being characterized by irrationalism and the latter with rationalism. Indeed, without this binary, the very notion of rationality is inconceivable and falls apart. Moreover, Said demonstrates that this idea of “rationalism” is a product of material conditions, as Marx also suggests. Moreover, Appiah draws attention to how Weber’s “rationality” has not become as prevalent as originally suggested by putting forward the example of religious fundamentalism as a strong, yet irrational historical actor at the end of the 20th century. Thus, Weber’s conception of power is conclusively proven irrelevant by Appiah and Said.