和谐的叛乱

IF 0.7 Q4 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Labour-England Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI:10.1215/15476715-8114745
Shaun S. Nichols
{"title":"和谐的叛乱","authors":"Shaun S. Nichols","doi":"10.1215/15476715-8114745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Exceptionalism has long defined our understanding of the rise of progressive politics in the early twentieth-century United States. While industrialized European nations blazed the path of social democracy, in the United States, it is argued, “progressivism” merely legitimized middle-class cultural hegemony, social engineering, and the subversion of working-class power. In this era, however, social reform was a distinctly state-led phenomenon, only rarely taken up by the federal Congress. As such, by analyzing labor protest at the level of the state—in this case, Washington—a different interpretation emerges. American “progressivism” was neither exceptionally repressive nor of little interest to labor. In fact, espousing a language of progress, the common good, and the duty of the state to promote “social harmony,” Washington workers actively drew on “progressive” ideas in their struggles to tame the excesses of industrial capitalism. This ideology of “labor progressivism” became the foundation for unprecedented working-class power.","PeriodicalId":45843,"journal":{"name":"Labour-England","volume":"17 1","pages":"47-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Harmonious Insurrections\",\"authors\":\"Shaun S. Nichols\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/15476715-8114745\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Exceptionalism has long defined our understanding of the rise of progressive politics in the early twentieth-century United States. While industrialized European nations blazed the path of social democracy, in the United States, it is argued, “progressivism” merely legitimized middle-class cultural hegemony, social engineering, and the subversion of working-class power. In this era, however, social reform was a distinctly state-led phenomenon, only rarely taken up by the federal Congress. As such, by analyzing labor protest at the level of the state—in this case, Washington—a different interpretation emerges. American “progressivism” was neither exceptionally repressive nor of little interest to labor. In fact, espousing a language of progress, the common good, and the duty of the state to promote “social harmony,” Washington workers actively drew on “progressive” ideas in their struggles to tame the excesses of industrial capitalism. This ideology of “labor progressivism” became the foundation for unprecedented working-class power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Labour-England\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"47-72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Labour-England\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-8114745\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labour-England","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-8114745","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

例外主义长期以来一直定义着我们对20世纪初美国进步政治兴起的理解。虽然工业化的欧洲国家开辟了社会民主的道路,但有人认为,在美国,“进步主义”只是使中产阶级的文化霸权、社会工程和对工人阶级权力的颠覆合法化。然而,在这个时代,社会改革是一种明显由国家主导的现象,很少被联邦国会采纳。因此,通过分析州一级的劳工抗议——在本例中是华盛顿——会出现不同的解释。美国的“进步主义”既不是特别压抑,也不是对劳工没有什么兴趣。事实上,华盛顿的工人们信奉进步、共同利益和国家促进“社会和谐”的义务,在驯服工业资本主义过度行为的斗争中积极借鉴了“进步”思想。这种“劳动进步主义”的意识形态成为前所未有的工人阶级权力的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Harmonious Insurrections
Exceptionalism has long defined our understanding of the rise of progressive politics in the early twentieth-century United States. While industrialized European nations blazed the path of social democracy, in the United States, it is argued, “progressivism” merely legitimized middle-class cultural hegemony, social engineering, and the subversion of working-class power. In this era, however, social reform was a distinctly state-led phenomenon, only rarely taken up by the federal Congress. As such, by analyzing labor protest at the level of the state—in this case, Washington—a different interpretation emerges. American “progressivism” was neither exceptionally repressive nor of little interest to labor. In fact, espousing a language of progress, the common good, and the duty of the state to promote “social harmony,” Washington workers actively drew on “progressive” ideas in their struggles to tame the excesses of industrial capitalism. This ideology of “labor progressivism” became the foundation for unprecedented working-class power.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Labour-England
Labour-England INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: LABOUR provides a forum for analysis and debate on issues concerning labour economics and industrial relations. The Journal publishes high quality contributions which combine economic theory and statistical methodology in order to analyse behaviour, institutions and policies relevant to the labour market.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Discrimination toward the visually impaired and quota policies in the labor market The impact of a multifaceted program on fragile individuals. Evidence from an RCT in Italy Issue Information Fiscal financing with labour markets frictions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1