WORK IN PROGRESS: A STUDY OF EVOLVING CLASS 185 ANALYSIS

Mark Anderson labor history, with its Marxian structure, rose anew as one of these methods.

“New Labor History” began in the 1960s, and was the first major out- After World War II, U.S. labor history continually changed, reflecting the growth of social history. Its practitioners initially saw themselves in conver- Academy’s adaptation to decolonization’s reordering of global political and eco- sation with the Consensus School, but came to be defined against the “Old nomic relationships. Initially, labor history was neglected. During the late 1940s Labor History” of the Commons School.2 As part of social history’s effort and the 1950s, the Academy’s conservatives resisted changes in the emerging to build scholarship from “the bottom up,” New Labor studied people in op- world by embracing the Cold War, whose ideology pushed history away from the position to the old school’s study of institutions. Social history birthed other class-based analysis of the New Deal and toward an analysis of a class-less Amer- new histories (race and gender, for example) that sought out new agents, new ican society. In the absence of class and class antagonism, history left the study archives, and new ways of understanding the past. That search revolutionized of labor to other disciplines and became dominated by the Consensus School. perceptions of ontological formation. Postmodernism’s critique of Enlight- enment ideas gave rein to radical post-structuralist separation from econom- The Consensus School proved insufficient to answer questions in a ic-based ways to analyze history, but Marxian New Labor History was not world wracked by revolution and rebellion. In the struggle to understand the part of the flowering of postmodern scholarship of the 1980s and 1990s. turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s, a new labor history provided ways to frame issues that helped to understand a more rigorous inspection of change over Postmodernism built a substantial body of new scholarship on for- time. By the 1980s, history turned to new subjects and postmodern theory gotten, ignored, or maligned people, as new research paradigms evolved. to better investigate human experience. The new theory discarded econom- Without examining economic systems of power, however, the place of agen- ic causality, and with it labor history, until the turn of the century. The fin cy became blurred. Class was reintroduced into history to help contextualize de siècle saw a synthesis of methods that reincorporated labor to more ful- power relationships and complicate analysis of causation. Labor history re- ly contextualize increasingly scrupulous study. Labor and its examination of emerged in the new century as class analysis within a new historical tradition class conflict proved an axial source for both narrow and broad analysis of that incorporated multi-methodological approaches to the study of history. power relationships from the Consensus School through postmodern history. Old labor history, known as the Wisconsin or Commons School, de- The Consensus School was strongly identified with the work of Rich- veloped at the turn of the twentieth century. This school studied the actions ard Hofstadter. His generation’s rewriting of existing histories called many of institutions, law, and elites. It was, properly speaking, not history but a time worn assumptions into question. Students of the Consensus School, who branch of economics. John Commons was a labor economist at the Universi- were increasingly working -class because of both the GI Bill and civil rights ty of Wisconsin-Madison and the construction of economic knowledge was successes, internalized that critical orientation. Concurrently, ideas about race, his primary goal. He and his students developed a mighty archive of Amer- gender, and ethnicity that relied on an extinct world order became increasingly ican labor history through exhaustive research on unions and law as part of problematic. Attempting to account for the end of nation-state colonialism af- their project to “contest classical economics in the academy and…its perni- ter World War II, social history acknowledged the disparity in power relation- cious message that collective action by workers constituted an inadmissible ships and explored this idea with an increasing variety of methods.1 As a result, 2 Melvyn Dubofsky, “Starting Out In the Fifties: True Confessions of a Labor 1 David Brody, “The Old Labor History and the New: In Search Of an American Working Historian,” Labor History 34 (1993): 474. Class,” American Historical Review 78 (1973): 114. 186 Mark Anderson WORK IN PROGRESS 187 interference with the free play of the market.”3 Their archive is still essential Hofstadter “helped to introduce ‘complexity’ to the study of history”6 New to the study of working people today. His students were trained to see in- Labor historian Melvyn Dubofsky claimed that he came to labor history stitutions, such as unions, legislatures, and government programs, as the ac- through reading Hofstadter’s questioning of power relations.7 Hofstadter uti- tors in labor history. The Commons School viewed workers as objects acted lized a more critical and complex analyses of workers’ milieu, but in the end he upon by larger forces and “for all that they contributed to our knowledge was still researching “great men.” A watershed in finding the voice of working of the labor movement, left us otherwise nearly ignorant of the history of people came to American history through a British study of English workers. the American worker.” Nonetheless, they remained the authoritative view on the study of labor through the middle of the twentieth century, when the Edward Palmer Thompson was a British historian whose 1963 book, study of labor history was virtually abandoned by the Consensus School.4 The Making of the English Working Class, influenced the rise of New Labor His- tory. His book traced the creation of workers as a group and placed them into After World War II, Richard Hofstadter and the Consensus School a distinctly capitalist society through the actions of the workers themselves. assumed the mantel of guiding American history. Hofstadter rejected the Thompson drew on multiple sources of social influences to construct the lives thesis that fundamental class conflict determined American history, which of his actors. For example, he saw religion as a formative influence on workers was a radical shift from the Marxian thinking of the early twentieth centu- self-conceptions as workers whose interests diverged from employers. Also, ry. Although Hofstadter did not address labor history explicitly, his under- he explicitly tried to write a history created by workers: “I am seeking to res- standing of class formation, or the lack thereof, guided historians writing cue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the ’obsolete’ hand-loom weav- about negotiating power relationships. Under Hofstadter’s leadership, po- er, the ’Utopian’ artisan, and even the deluded follower of Joanna Southcott, litical action was seen through larger structures, like populism and pro- from the enormous condescension of posterity.”8 This was a radical change gressivism, and not through the conflict of workplace or union actions. from Commons, who was uninterested in the lives of workers. Thompson provided a template for U.S. historians interested in digging into the lives of Hofstadter believed that in the place of conflict, contending groups workers. It was his treatment of class, however, that was most transformative. “shared a belief in the rights of property, the philosophy of economic indi- vidualism, the value of competition ... [and] accepted the economic virtues Traditionally, class had been seen as a static category. For example, of a capitalist culture as necessary qualities of man.”5 Ironically, Hofstad- both Marx and Smith held that the “laborer” was an essential component of ter’s strength lied in challenging existing consensus on their uncritical inter- capitalism as an interchangeable widget. Thompson smashed the traditional pretations of America’s past. In The Age of Reform, Hofstadter problematized architecture of class by describing it as a fluid phenomenon under constant myths about contending groups, like the Populists. For example, he demol- creation. The theoretical category “class” became the workers’ daily partic- ished the popular notion of the yeoman Populist longing for a pre-market ipation in creating working class culture. By wresting that component from self-sufficiency. By criticizing previously accepted beliefs and more rigorous teleological orthodoxy, Thompson forever assured that critical analysis of ly interrogating sources, he raised questions about received knowledge of people’s lives would attend the study of capitalism and of social histories in American history. In his review of The Age of Reform, Alan Brinkley said that 6 Alan Brinkley, “In Retrospect: Richard Hofstadter’s ‘the Age of Reform:’ A 3 David Brody, “The Old Labor History,” 112. Reconsideration.” Reviews In American History 13 (1985): 474. 4 Ibid., 112. 7 Melvyn Dubofsky, “Starting Out In the Fifties.” 475. 5 Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It (New York: 8 E.P. Thompson, the Making of the English Working Class (New York: Vintage Books, 1966), Vintage Books, 1989), XXXVII. 12. 188 Mark Anderson WORK IN PROGRESS 189 general. He is considered a wellspring for New Labor History, and his fo- New Labor Historians contested authority over not only who represent- cus on the lives of historical actors was representative of Social History. ed, who spoke for, and who comprised the working class, but also how the story of the working class would be told. The story of slavery, for example, had tradi- Social History critiqued Consensus History’s thesis and its focus on tionally been about the institution itself, and generally contained the slave own- elites and institutions. Inspired by global decolonization and democratization ers’ or abolitionists’ point of view, since it was their materials historians relied on. in the U.S. academy, the post-World War II period saw a refinement of histori- Gutman, however, was interested in researching slaves, as opposed to slavery, cal study. New Labor History was a development of Social History. Social up- and how they constructed their lives. Using new organizational paradigms and heaval during the 1950’s and the early 1960’s sabotaged assumptions of consen- scrupulous re-examination of archived materials, he was able to tell slaves’ stories. sus, and re-directed inquiry towards the causes of that upheaval. Between the end of World War II and 1963, the number of women and blacks enrolled in One of Gutman’s organizational paradigms was “the family,” a mod- American universities doubled.9 With the influx of students from the G.I. Bill, el newly spawned by Social History, and a subject in its own right. Gutman the composition of students and graduates repositioned the axis of scholarly employed familial relations as a pathway to discover the way slaves lived and exploration away from conservative institutional themes and toward new mod- thought, and what social factors they participated in to construct their lives. els centered on questions about social change. History “from the bottom up” For example, Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman’s 1974 work attempted to answer questions provoked by changes in both society and in the Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Slavery, although using the new academy that had either not been addressed, or had produced unsatisfying work. technique of cliometrics, was written about the institution of slavery. In Slav- ery and the Numbers Game: A Critique of Time on the Cross, Gutman used re- This history “from the bottom up” created new labor history to an- cords of sales, childbirth, and slave marriages to show that the tendency to- swer new questions about social forces surrounding fundamental power rela- ward stable family structure among slaves was self-determined, rather than tionships. As social historians began sifting through archives, they discovered imposed by slave owners as was postulated in Time on the Cross.12 He the American worker and began to find other neglected actors and the ways asserted that slave owner influence was antithetical to slave fami- they shaped the American story. Among the vanguard of new labor histori- ly cohesion.13 To contest claims about slave upward mobility and ac- ans was Herbert Gutman. In 1971, Thomas A. Krueger wrote that Gutman cess to skilled jobs, Gutman cross-referenced data on free workers.14 was “outstanding; someday, he may do for the New Labor History what John R. Commons did for the old.”10 Krueger was right, as Gutman’s name came to Slavery and the Numbers reveals a sea change in how the concept of be synonymous with New Labor History.11 “worker” was understood. Even Thompson had limited his research to types 9 Chinhui Dae Juhn, Il Kim, And Francis Vella, “The Expansion Of College Education In The United States: Is There Evidence Of Declining Cohort Quality?” Economic Inquiry 43, 12 Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross: The Economics of (2005): 307; Thomas D. Snyder, ed. 120 Years of American Education: a Statistical Portrait (U.S. American Negro Slavery (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1974). Ironically, it was one of Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education the new histories prompted by Social History’s break with tradition. Admittedly Time on the Statistics, 1993). http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf Cross was produced as an economic history and owed much to the Old Labor History, the 10 Thomas A. Krueger, “American Labor Historiography, Old and New,” Journal of Social radical techniques used and the declaration that it was the new and scientifically definitive History, 43 (1971): 282. form of History, however, were both earmarks of the rebellious freedom of the new 11 Gutman was not graced with the word, “school” after his name as was Commons historical epistemene. or Hofstadter. This was indicative more of the moment, than of any perceived lack on 13 Herbert G. Gutman, Slavery and the Numbers Game: A Critique of Time on the Cross (Chicago: Gutman’s part. Authority was being contested through their milieu by the very research University of Illinois Press, 1975), 113. conducted by Gutman and other labor historians like Melvyn Dubofsky and David Brody. 14 Ibid., 49. 190 Mark Anderson WORK IN PROGRESS 191 of artisans and wage workers. The traditional tenets of Smith and Marx had tionships to production, and influenced their understanding of that rela- held slaves outside of capitalism and the “laborer” component essential to cap- tionship.19 Wilentz firmly grasped New Labor History’s prescription for italism. They both maintained that free wage labor was a part of capitalism and researching workers instead of institutions and placed those workers with- thus different than slavery. In Slavery and the Numbers Game, Gutman implies in a net woven of temporal shifts in cultural beliefs, paternalist structures, the interchangeability of free and slave labor participating in labor markets--a and technical innovations. It was New Labor History, but was it new enough? specific component of Smith’s and Marx’s definition of capitalism.15 Here is where we see a marker for radical change in history through the study of labor. Chants Democratic suffered from some old-time maladies. For exam- Gutman breaks down statistics on free white immigrant labor to show how ple, Wilentz defined the change he examined as “the emergence of modern previous data on slaves was erroneous.16 This presupposes an equality of place bourgeois society and the working class.”20 As we have seen in Gutman’s work, in economic agency that makes the slave and the free worker interchangeable by 1975 Thompson’s artisans had become an insufficient definition for who as representatives of the working class.17 While he did not explicitly challenge “workers” were. From Gutman on, the growth of history required more com- the Marxian foundations of labor history, Gutman participated in unsettling plexity in how the “working class” was defined. Furthermore, Wilentz saw the established canon. At the same time, other New Labor Historians con- nineteenth-century capitalism as responsible for “the destruction of planta- tinued to address traditional labor topics, collective bargaining for instance. tion slavery” and the reordering of “formal social relations to fit the bour- geois ideal of labor, market, and man.”21 If Gutman was working with an Robert Zieger’s 1977 book, Madison’s Battery Workers, 1934-1952: A unsettled distinction between slave and free white labor in a plantation society, History of Federal Labor Union 19587, for example, could be called traditional. Wilentz, writing ten years later, surely should have incorporated some quali- Writing about a union, rather than workers, Zieger emphasized a traditional fication for the mass of workers in early nineteenth century New York who view of organization from the top down.18 It clearly qualified as a new histo- were not, nor had ever been, artisans, to be part of working class formation. ry, however, for its use of oral sources, which push against an archive limited As Nell Irvin Painter pointed out, Wilentz also failed to “imbed race in his to official documents that had favored elite construction of history. It also analysis, which, given the place that racism occupies in American culture, is followed E.P. Thompson’s idea of rescuing unsuccessful and unsung workers necessary in labor history.”22 By 1984, history was changing fast: new sub- from obscurity. jects, new archives, and new theories were passing “new” labor history by.

As the title implies, Sean Wilentz’s 1984 Chants Democratic: New Although New Labor Historians challenged previous historical canon, York and the Rise of the American Working Class also paralleled Thompson’s the ferment of social history to which they belonged never ceased spawning work by exploring how artisan work transformed into wage labor, and new histories which eventually came to challenge the place of labor history. how artisans negotiated that change. Chants Democratic showed how mul- Influences from new radical disciplines, such as women’s and ethnic studies, tiple social forces—industrialization, republican ideology, ethnocentrism, and the rise of party politics—combined to create workers with new rela- 19 Robert Wiebe, “Chants Democratic,” American Historical Review 90, no. 5 (December 1985): 1265. 20 Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York and the Rise of the American Working Class (New 15 Herbert G. Gutman, Slavery and the Numbers Game. 47-71. York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 4. 16 Ibid. 49-50. 21 Ibid., 5. 17 Ibid. 49-50. 22 Nell Irvin Painter, “The New Labor History and the Historical Moment,” International 18 George Lipsitz, “Madison’s Battery Workers, 1934-1952: A History of Federal Labor Journal Of Politics, Culture & Society 2 (March 1989): 369. Union 19587,” Wisconsin Magazine Of History 62 (1979): 334. 192 Mark Anderson WORK IN PROGRESS 193 had shared labor history’s quest to tell the subaltern’s story, but they eventually sources of scholarship adopted the new paradigms and methodologies de- dislodged the Marxian scaffolding on which labor history was founded. The veloped by the new histories even when focused on ‘old’ labor issues such work of redefining whom history was about bumped up against the limitations as labor legislation and union organizing. Once new histories began shifting of the archives - both material and conceptual - and suggested new interpreta- the discipline’s locus away from elitist discourse, class re-emerged as an es- tions of existing evidence, as well as new sources. Rooted in a Marxian frame- sential ingredient in attempts to paint a more complete picture of the past. work, labor history began to wane in the 1980s as economic-based history gave way to new histories based on race, sex, psychology, environment, and religion. An example of a more recent labor historian is Jacqueline Jones. At In an annihilation of economics, these areas of study not only used new meth- the heart of her work she synthesizes newer epistemological paradigms that ods, but also embraced new ontological conceptions of knowledge. Central to focus on race, gender, and labor, but structures are absent. From there, she this new program were the postmodern ideas of discourse and deconstruction easily redefines not only who a worker is, but in what milieu they work. In A Social History of the Laboring Classes from Colonial Times to the Present, published Because traditional historical archives favored recording actions of in 1999, Jones presents “the worker” as anyone who participates in “any ac- only small numbers of elites from their own point of view, the archive it- tivity that leads to the production of goods or services.”24 Gone is the artisan self came into question. Using discourse and deconstruction to bring out the as an emblem of the worker. Gone, too, is the unskilled free wage worker, as histories of non-elites, historians of the late twentieth century re-examined well as the restriction of meeting at a delineated workplace. The phrase “any both traditional sources contained in the archive and the way sources were activity” finally incorporates all actual labor. But what is that labor for? Does used and interpreted. Two major impulses fueled this radical reorganization the disposal of labor condition its meaning? In American Work: Four Centuries of the discipline. First, new histories based on discourse revealed both how of Black and White Labor, Jones states that “jobs are never just jobs; they are much more there was to learn and the limits of the traditional archive. Sec- markers of great real and symbolic value.”25 Here we arrive at another car- ond, previous paradigms seen as regressive, such as white supremist, patri- dinal signpost - the intersection of worker agency and discursive meaning. archal, and hetero-normative, were rejected. Labor history, with the linger- Work’s “symbolic value” creates meaning for labor and the laborer within a ing specter of John Commons (an elitist and racist who, for example, held culture’s discourse. Jones builds on Fredrick Douglass’s statement about work that Asian labor undermined the value of white labor and was responsible determining how men are valued: “at stake was not work alone, slaves for for wage disparity), and with its Marxian structure, was powerless to defend example never looked for jobs, but [for] the legal and social status of work- itself against post-structuralism’s deconstruction of class or the linguis- ers.”26 This was what gave meaning to people’s work. Meaning resided in tic turn’s elimination of its agents.23 In the wake of the discourse crusade, text. Labor history could now rise on new scaffolding to build its arguments. labor history moved to the periphery to re-formulate its own raison d’être. Seth Rockman’s 2010 book, Scraping By, is a fine example of an explicit Work was done at the periphery, however. History is a complex labor history rising once again. He takes a less discursive approach than Jones conversation of many voices involved with its own negotiation of discov- yet keeps the freedom granted by newer labor history, no longer chained to the ery. At the turn of the twenty-first century, labor history was supported by antique dogma of Marxian structures. Rockman claims that women, children, its own bastions of labor and working class interests, such as labor jour- nals, union publications, and schools of labor and industrial relations. These 24 Jacqueline Jones, A Social History of the Laboring Classes From Colonial Times to the Present (New York: Blackwell, 1999), 1. 25 Jacqueline Jones, American Work, 13. 23 The “linguistic turn” is an idea that the past does not exist outside of our textual 26 Ibid., 13. representations of it. There is no “real past” that can be reported in “objective facts”. 194 Mark Anderson WORK IN PROGRESS 195 and unfree workers did most work in early Baltimore. Therefore, artisans repre- Conclusion sented a minority of workers who were peripheral to the lives of most workers, and their perceived self-interests.27 The street scrapers, laundresses, and resi- The descent from authority is the rise of complexity. A single shining dents of the almshouse Rockman studied did not march with artisan mechan- luminary monopolizing the final word in the discipline gave way to comple- ics in parades or share their aspirations of social intercourse with employers. menting and contending voices, dissecting neat and tidy narratives to produce Rockman also includes unfree labor at the center of working class formation messy, more satisfying history. Old labor history was so firmly associated with in order to complicate antiquated questions about slavery’s role in capitalism. John Commons that the Wisconsin School had an actual geographic center to its study and location of its archive. Herbert Gutman is the first name Rockman shows that slavery suited capitalism’s need for a flexible work referenced in discussions of New Labor History, but he saw himself as one force. To an employer, slaves-for-hire functioned on the same terms as free of many, and rightly so. No “School” was named after him, although his was wage labor. 28 Rockman argues that there is an absence of conceptual antago- the last emblematic name of a demarcated labor history. There was no newer nism between free and unfree labor in the process of labor commodification, version of labor history during the early 1980s as the page turned and ap- and the idea of slave bodies as capital made slavery compatible with capital- proaches to History became increasingly sophisticated and subtle in order to ism. From the contractor’s standpoint, the contracting of slaves functioned address forgotten or neglected vistas. Radical new organizational paradigms, identically to the hiring of free wage labor. The prosperity brought by devel- like women, families, and the senses, came to expand the discipline’s explan- oping capitalism in Baltimore was directly linked to the labor of those workers atory power and further rescue the subaltern from the enormous condescen- on the lowest rung of society. Free labor was no longer tied to paternalistic sion of posterity. Without labor to provide the vehicle for agency, and a way customs but was sold in a marketplace where unequal power relationships to contextualize central power relationships, analysis of new paradigms was allowed employers to extract work under predatory conditions. For slaves, insufficient. Class, relegated to obsolescence during the latter part of the twen- conditions of work found no improvement under capitalism and the added tieth century, became embedded in the historical analysis of these new radical prospect of an increase in the trade of bodies loomed on the horizon of eco- subjects in the twenty first century. An historical analysis of gender power nomic expansion. Rockman makes a very strong case for both the expansion relations, for example, lacks context without exploring the economic pressures of capitalism leveraged on the backs of workers, and for a growing capitalist and parameters associated with work. It is in the synthesis of class with emerg- system with slavery as a fellow traveler. He presented continuity without a ing new methods like gender analysis that better history will be written and the north/south, free labor/slave labor paradox. Using labor as an organization- future of labor as a vital method of historical investigation will be assured. al model, Rockman developed a greater understanding of American history.

27 Seth Rockman., Scraping By: Wage Labor, Slavery, and Survival in Early Baltimore (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 9. 28 Ibid66-7. 196 Mark Anderson WORK IN PROGRESS 197

Mark Anderson is a graduate student of 19th and 20th century U.S. BIBLIOGRAPHY History. His research interests include the history of the American West, the environment (resource exploitation, suburbanization and segrega- Brinkley, Alan. “In Retrospect: Richard Hofstadter’s ‘The Age Of Reform:’ A tion), Labor (tension between the global north and south, and the evolution Reconsideration.” Reviews in American History 13, (1985): 462-480. of capitalism), and the rise of neo-liberalism and the future of education. Brody, David. “The Old Labor History And The New: In Search Of An American Working Class.” American Historical Review 78, (1973): 531- 87.

Dubofsky, Melvyn. “Starting Out In The Fifties: True Confessions of a Labor Historian.” Labor History 34, no. 4 (Fall 1993): 473-478.

Gutman, Herbert G. Slavery and the Numbers Game: A Critique of Time on the Cross. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1975.

Harvey, David. The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982.

Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. —. The Progressive Historians: Turner, Beard, Parrington. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1968.

Johnson, Walter. River of Dark Dreams: Slavery and Empire in the Cotton Kingdom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.

Jones, Jacqueline. American Work: Four Centuries of Black and White Labor. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1998. —. A Social History of the Laboring Classes from Colonial Times to the Present New York: Blackwell, 1999.

Juhn, Chinhui Dae, Il Kim, And Francis Vella “The Expansion Of College Education In The United States: Is There Evidence Of Declining Cohort Quality?” Economic Inquiry 43, (2005): 303–315. 198 Mark Anderson 199

Krueger, Thomas A. “American Labor Historiography, Old and New.” Journal of Social History, Vol. 43 (1971): 277-285.

Lipsitz, George. “Madison’s Battery Workers, 1934-1952: A History of Federal Labor Union 19587.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 62 (Summer 1979): 334-335.

Painter, Nell Irvin. “The New Labor History and the Historical Moment.” The Inquisition International Journal Of Politics, Culture & Society 2 (March 1989): 367- Nobody expected it! 370. Now we laugh at them

Rockman, Seth. Scraping By: Wage Labor, Slavery, and Survival in Early Baltimore. Witches are the worst Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. She turned me into a newt Burn’em! Burn them up! Scott, Joan W. “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis.” The American Historical Review 91, No. 5 (Dec., 1986): 1053-1075. Monks are dirty too! With fellatio and farts Steinfeld, Robert J. The Invention of Free Labor: The Employment Relation in Marginalia fun English and American Law and Culture, 1350-1870. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991. Earthy solutions The derivative of faith Thompson, E.P. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage God be with our souls Books, 1966. -Olivia Ward Wilentz, Sean. Chants Democratic: New York and the Rise of the American Working Class. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Wiebe, Robert. “Chants Democratic.” American Historical Review 90, no. 5 (December 1985): 1265.

120 Years of American Education: a Statistical Portrait, ed. Thomas D. Snyder, Center for Educational Studies, Dept. of Education. 1993. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf