faler, paul g. e. p. thompson and american history

7/23/2019 FALER, Paul G. E. P. Thompson and American History

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/faler-paul-g-e-p-thompson-and-american-history 1/7

Society for History Education

E. P. Thompson and American History: A Retrospective ViewAuthor(s): Paul G. FalerSource: The History Teacher, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Nov., 1994), pp. 31-36Published by: Society for History EducationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/494285 .

Accessed: 11/05/2011 20:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=history. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for History Education is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

History Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=history

http://www.jstor.org/stable/494285?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/494285?origin=JSTOR-pdf




E.

P.

Thompson

and

American

History:

A

Retrospective

View

Paul G. Faler

University

of

Massachusetts

at Boston

EDWARD

THOMPSONBOTH INSPIRED

AND

UNDERMINED he

writing

of American

working

class

history.

He broadenedand

reinvigo-

rated

a

narrow

and sterile

field,

and

provided

a

new

way

of

viewing

American

labor

history.

In an unforeseen

way,

however,

he also

contrib-

uted to its demise.

Lest

we

exaggerate

his

personal

nfluence,

let us

first

remember too the work of Herbert Gutman and David Montgomery.

Their

provocative

studies

in

American labor

history

complemented

the

work of

Thompson.

Much

of the

best

work

in

the field shows their

imprint

as well

as that

of

Thompson.

We

also

need to remindourselves of the

setting

in

which

Thompson's

work

appeared,

he 1960s.

His

considerable

nfluence

was

partly owing

to

the

atmosphere

in

which The

Making of

the

English Working

Class

appeared.

A

political

and culturalrevolution was

occurring

n

America,

rending

the

American social

fabric

and

raising

rebellion

against

forces

that hadlong been in place.Race, war, class, andculture,especially sex,

music and

drugs,

became

the

explosive

mixture hatwould blow

apart

he

established

order.

Enmity

and

conflict,

partly

along

class

lines,

became

The

History

Teacher

Volume 28 Number

1 November 1994

@The

History

Teacher



32 Paul

G. Faler

important

eaturesof America

n the

1960s. That

upheaval

orever

changed

America.

The term

watershed

admittedly

s

overused,

but the

1960s

were

a truewatershed n 20th

century

America.

Thompson'sblending

of class

and

culture,

exposing

the

connecting

links

of

economic,

political

and

social

change

in the

England

of the late 18th and

early

19th

centuries

seemed

the

best

way

to

grasp

the

true nature

of

America

as well.

There

seemed

a

correspondence

between

the

present

and the

past.

Just

as we

experienced

simultaneously

the cross currents

of

politics,

class,

and

culture,

we were

drawn

to

a scholar

who

approached

he

past

with the

same breadth.

There

were

specific

ways

in

which

Thompson

nfluenced

he

writing

of

working

class

history

n the UnitedStates.First,he broadened he

scope

or

purview

of

labor

history.

Before

Thompson,

abor

historians

had centered

their

attentionon

trade

unions;

abor

history

was

essentially

he

history

of

organized

workers.

Therewas

considerable

mphasis

on

unions

andfedera-

tions: their

evolution, factionalism,

deological

differences, strikes,

and

political

activities.

The

periodization

f labor

history

was determined

y

the

rise

and

fall of

federations:he NationalLabor

Union,

the

Knights

of Labor

and its

rival,

the American

Federation

f

Labor

AFL);

the

sudden

appear-

ance

of the

Industrial

Workers

of the World

IWW)

as

a

radical

alternative,

and

finally

the

appearance

f the

Congress

of Industrial

Organization

CIO).

Moreover,

he

scholars

who wrote much

of

this

labor

history

were often

economists

rather hanhistorians.

ollowing

n the tradition f the founders

like John

R. Commons

and

Selig

Perlman,

hey

viewedworkers

primarily

s

wage

earners.

Labor

history

was a

part

of industrial elations.

n

this version

of

history,

working

people

were

synonymous

with

organizedwage

earners.

Thompson

did not

renounceor abandon

he

work

of

labor

economists;

he

provided

a

prodigious

amount

of informationon laborsocieties

and on

wages,

hours,

and

conditions of

work.

But he

also

enlarged

and broad-

ened laborhistoryto includeworking people outsidethe labor societies

or

early

trade

unions.

For

those

of us

who

were

historians

ratherthan

economists,

he

provided

a

model

to

emulate,

to

inspire

and

challenge.

He

offered what some

young

scholars ike

myself

believed

was

sorely

lack-

ing

in the

history

of

working people

in

America

which was too

narrow,

too economic

in

scope,

too much

tied to trade

unions and

organized

workers.

The breadth

of

Thompson's

work

derived from his notion

and use of

class.

It

was

crucial

to his

history.

He

specifically

renounced

he

concept

of class as an economic category,a groupof people definedby occupa-

tion

or stratum

of wealth.

Instead

he

employed

a

broader term

and

argued

that

class

was

a

relationship

hat was best

discernible

over time

and

evident

in all the areas

in which

people

within the

system

of



E. P.

Thompson

and American

History:

A

Retrospective

View

33

productive

relations

confronted each other.

Most

important

he

looked

for

the

ways

in which

the

class

experience

was

expressed

in

cultural

terms,how a sense or consciousness of class was

expressed

in the ideas,

traditions,

language,

and

customs

of the

people undergoing

both the

experience

of industrialization nd class at the same

time.

Others

may

find in

Thompson's

work

more

important

essons

and

models,

but for me

it

was

the

interweaving

of class and culture

that

was

the

most

attractive

and instructive.

Class was

a social

term;

abor

merely

an

economic one.

The latterwas

narrow

and

limited;

class

was as broadas

the

experience

of

man as

a social

creature. Labor

history

under

Thompson's

influence

would be

enlarged

to

encompass

all those facets

of

society

that both

affected,andwere influencedby, working

people.

Influencedby him,our

approach

became

a fusion

of

labor and

social

history,

a term

that better

captured

the fuller dimension

to

which we

aspired

in

our

scholarship.

Class

analysis

would

be a

way

to examine

and understandhe

experience

of

workers

n

American

history.

In

addition

to

his use of culture

to

understand

class,

Thompson

also

showed

a

compassion

for his

subjects

that

impressed

many

of us. His

approach

was

probably

best stated

in

his often

quoted

vow to avoid

in

his

history

the

enormous

condescension

that

posterity

had shown

English working people, particularly hose who flocked to millennial

sects

and Methodist

chapels.

Though

he

also

saw

them

as

deluded

participants

n

a chiliasm

of

despair

or

a

Methodism

thathe viewed

as

religious

terrorism,

he

also accorded

respect

to

those

humble converts.

He

aspired

to

represent

hem to

posterity,

to

let

them

speak

through

him

to

those

in

the 20th

century

who wished

to

understand

them.

This

profession

of

objectivity

for outcasts on

the

margins

of

society

was

an

attractive

and

worthy

ideal.

In

The

Making of

the

English

Working

Class,

Thompson

put

into

scholarlyandliterary orma magnificentexampleof the kindof history

we wanted

to write.

But

in the late

60s,

we were

unprepared

o under-

take

a full

scale

history

of American workers.

We needed

first

to

understand

he

parts

that would

compose

the

larger

work.

In

1968,

I

set

out

to

apply

some

of the

insights

I

had

learned rom

Thompson,

Gutman,

Montgomery

and

others.

I

would do a

case

study,

an

account of the

early

industrial

revolution

in the

community

of

Lynn,

Massachusetts

from

colonial

times

to

the Civil War.

Along

the

way,

I

also

learned

that

others

had

embarked

on similar

studies

of

working

people

in

other

towns and

in other tradesand industries.In a sense ours was an undertaking hat

aimed

toward

a fuller

account

of the

American ndustrial

revolution

and

the

experience

of

working

people.

We

hoped

that within a decade

one

of

us

would write

The

Making

of the American

Working

Class.



34 Paul G. Faler

Paradoxically,

he

ambition

was

wreckedon the

rock of

class,

the

new,

broader

cultural definition

of

class that

Thompson

had

emphasized.

There was a fatal flaw in

Thompson's

model. As we followed

working

people

from

the

work

place,

we

found

ourselves

following

divergent

paths.

There

were

many

instances of

the

class consciousness and coher-

ence

that

Thompson

had found.Buttherewas

considerable

divergence

as

well,

more than

could be

acknowledged

and still

subsumed within

a

concept

of class.

To

extend

the

metaphor,

as

we

followed

wage

earners from their

common

work

place,

the

work

place

diminished

in

importance

as the

defining,

central

experience

n

their lives. We

became

painfully

aware

of

their

deep

seateddifferences,even hostilitytowardone another,often to

the

point

of

uniting

with middle and

upper

class elements

against

other

workers.

We had

once intended

o

merge

the

economic and the

cultural,

labor

history

and social

history.

Now we

found that

they

diverged.

I think

we

had

once

hoped

that

The

Making

of the

American

Working

Class

would be

based

on

many pieces

of

a

large puzzle.

Studies

of

particular

groups

and case studies

would at

some

point converge

and we would fit

the

pieces

together.

Instead,

the

pieces

no

longer

fit. The

fragments

no

longer

belonged

in

the same

puzzle:

Race,

gender, ethnicity,

skill

and

culturebecamepowerfulcompetingsources of identityandloyalty.The

field

of

labor

and

social

history began

to

fragment

and

splinter

until,

ultimately,

the

grand

picture

we

sought

became

a

collage

of

distinct,

unjoinable

pieces.

American

history

was like American

society

itself in the

1960s

and

thereafter.The

same

splintering

process

was

occurring.Ironically,

our

own

experience

made us

acutely

conscious of

the

great

rifts

within

American

society.

Moreover the

rifts

were

just

as evident

in

the

past

as

they

were in

the

present.

Ironically,

Thompson's

emphasis

on

culturehad

the unforeseenresult of conductingus into a realmin which differences

and tensions

within

the American

working

class

were

endemic

and

deep.

Where

Thompson

had

sought

a

culturaldimension

or

class,

in

the

United

States culture

undermined

he

very

concept

of

class.

In

the end

we

could

no

longer

use the term

working

class since it

lacked

the

cultural

coher-

ence,

integrity,

and

identity

that

Thompson

had found

in

England.

I recall

the troubled

concern

among many

of

us

in

the

1970s as our

grandgoal

of a

history

of an American

working

class

recededfrom view.

Several

conferences

convened

to

assess

the state of our

work,

take

stock

of ourknowledge,andtryto reassemble he scatteredpieces. We sought

synthesis

but

found

only

fragments.

The

more

we learned about each

fragment,

he more

separate

anddistincteach

became,

and the

less

related

to

any

other.



E.

P.

Thompson

ndAmerican

History:

A

Retrospective

iew

35

Moreover,

the

breadthand

completeness

that

Thompson

put

forth,

on

closer

analysis,

had a limit

of

its

own. As a

graduate

student at the

University

of

Wisconsin,

I recall a chance

meeting

with John F. C.

Harrison,

himself

English

and an

outstanding

social historian

whose

work

on 19th

centuryEnglish

workers

Thompson

cited

favorably

several

times.

We discussed

Thompson.

I

mentioned how much

I

liked The

Making of

the

English Working

Class.

Harrison

said

it

was

indeed

a

fine

book

but,

after

all,

not a

history

of the

English working

class.

It

was,

rather,

a

history

of the radical radition

within the

English working

class.

Class

and class

conflict,

struggle

and

strikes,

oppositional

culture,

these

were the

features

of

history

that

Thompsonemphasized.

In

retrospect,

Thompson's

Marxismwas both a

strength

anda weak-

ness,

as

it has

been,

too,

for

many

of us who write

labor

and social

history.

Like

Thompson

we tended o

neglect

workers

who were

not

class

conscious,

who remained

aloof

from

unions or

who,

in

strikes,

either

stayed

at

work

or,

God

forbid,

become strikebreakers.

think it of mixed

resultthat

much

labor

history

has

been

written

by

Marxists

or

partisans

of

labor

unions.

On the

one

hand,

their

ideology

has

created

a

great

interest

in

the

working

class.

Without them

we

would know much

less

than

we

do.

But,

at

the

same

time,

we have

a

distorted

history

that

emphasizes

conflict and omits or gives slight attentionto unity and cooperation

across

class lines.

Politically,

for

example,

we know a

good

deal more

about

the few

workers

n

American

history

who were socialist

or commu-

nists

than

aboutthe much

larger

number

who were

Republicans.

We

give

disproportionate

ttention

o

people

like ourselves

to

people

who

speak

and

act

as we believe

we

would have done.

Ultimately

our

motive should

be

to

understand

he

people

we

study

and

not,

by

our

inquiry,

o

approve

their

actions.

So

Thompson's

legacy

was

a

mixed one.

With

his notion

of

class

as a

social term he inspiredand stimulatedthe study of working people in

America

in a new

way.

But,

in

the

end,

his

definition

of class made

the

term untenable.

The

merging

of class

and culture

proved

the

undoing

of

class.

His interest

in class made

for

inclusiveness,

bringing

in

working

people

from

beyond

the

trade societies.

In

America,

the

application

of

this mandate

brought

within

the

purview

of labor

historians

groups

that

earlier

historians

gnored.

In that

respect,

Thompson's

example

enhanced

the

field

and

gave

us a fuller

picture

of

American

working

people.

But

it

was

precisely

in the

non-economic

areas

that

a

common

cultural

dentity

orclass consciousnesswas lacking.

Moreover,

ust

as John Harrisonobserved

in

his

comment

on the

bias

in

Thompson's

work,

there

was a

limit to the inclusiveness

of our own

histories of

workers.

We extended

class

beyond organized

workers to



36 Paul G. Faler

include

minorities

and ethnic

groups,

but

ignored, misrepresented,

or

downplayed

other

groups

or

ideological

reasons.

My

own

work since

the

1960s convinces me thatthe 19th

century

nativist movementin Massa-

chusetts,

for

example,

was,

to

a

great

degree,

a

working

class movement

and thus deserves

a

place

in a

history

of

working people.

The brick

makers

n

Charlestown,

Massachusettswho

destroyed

the Ursuline con-

vent

in 1834

were

working people.

In later

years, working people

were

predominant

n

many parts

of the Ku Klux Klan

in

the

1920s

and in

George

Wallace's

party

n

the

1960s.

The

largest

wildcat

strike n

Ameri-

can

history

occurred

n

1943

when

25,000

auto

workersstruck

against

he

employment

of blacks

at a

Packard

plant

in Detroit.

In

my

own

lifetime,

the most intense class consciousness

among

workers hatI haveobserved

occurred

n Boston

in

1974-75

during

he

anti-busing

movement.Even

if

one

views

all

these

actions

as

wrongheaded,

as

delusions,

as

expressions

of misdirected

resentment,

hey ought

to be

acknowledged,

addressed,

and

explained

with

that

respect

that

Thompson

nvoked.

A

history

of the

American

working

class seems more remote

han

ever.

Here

perhaps

s one of

the

best

illustrationsof the

relationship

of

present

to

past.

Race and

gender,

not

class,

have become the focal

points

of

study,

as

they

have become

the dominant ources

of

identity

n

many

of our own

lives and in Americaas a whole. As consciousnessand expressionsof

class

diminish,

interest

in

the

working

class diminishes

as

well.

Many

who once

worked

n

the field have moved

on to otherareas.The field

is as

deserted as

America's factories.

Labor

history

is

the

rust bowl of the

profession.

But

we

might

at

least

salvage

something

from

Thompson's

legacy.

History

is

not

class

struggle,

but neither s

it

racism

or

patriarchy.

Social

class

is

still

useful

in

understanding

America's

history,

even

if not

in the

way

we once

thought--or hoped.

faler, paul g. e. p. thompson and american history

Documents