NEGOTIATING THE CREATIVE SECTOR: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE AND IMPACT OF AN ARTISTIC UNION IN A CULTURAL INDUSTRY A Study of Actors’ Equity Association and the Theatrical Industry DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Rachel Shane, B.S., M.S. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2006 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. Margaret Wyszomirski, Advisor ________________________ Dr. Wayne Lawson Advisor Graduate Program in Art Education Dr. Sam Short Dr. Alan Woods Copyright by Rachel Shane 2006 ABSTRACT Stage actors have long been an integral element of the cultural community in the United States. From vaudeville to the Broadway stage, actors have carved a niche for themselves in the theatrical landscape of the United States. Yet, little has specifically been written on the functionality of the primary theatrical actors’ association and union, Actors’ Equity Association. This dissertation examines the formation of the theatrical industry and the simultaneous development of Actors’ Equity Association as an institution within that industry. In doing so, the work makes connections between development of the industry and the role of Actors’ Equity Association on the field’s development. This interpretive historical inquiry sets the stage for the contemporary understanding of theatrical actors. The research is focused on unionism, the evolution of labor in the United States, the development of the theatrical industry, and the reactive and proactive behavior of Actors’ Equity Association. This case study investigates the development of a creative sector union and its role within an industry through three lenses: resource dependence, institutional isomorphism, and collective action. Each of the theories offers a different perspective for understanding Actors’ Equity Association and the theatrical industry in which it operates. It is argued ii the development of the theatrical industry is significantly linked to the collective action behavior of Actors’ Equity Association. Concurrently, resource dependence has helped shape Actors’ Equity as well as the larger theatrical field. Additionally, resource dependence and collective action have caused isomorphic change within the theatrical industry. iii This work is dedicated to actors, past and present, whose passion has shaped an industry. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincerest gratitude must be given to my advisor and chairperson, Dr. Margaret Wyszomirski. Throughout my time at Ohio State, Margaret challenged me to think differently about the world of art and policy. She taught me to question the world that I was sure that I knew, looking for new insights and understanding. I would also like to thank my committee members, Drs. Wayne Lawson, Sam Short, and Alan Woods, for their guidance, support, and enthusiasm for my research. I also wish to thank my Arts Policy and Administration peers and colleagues. Without their collegial spirit of intellectual exploration, vigorous debate, and academic integrity, this work could not have been completed. I wish to extend gratitude to Ashley Martin for graciously guiding the dissertation through the final procedural requirements on campus. A special thanks to my mother, Dr. Susan Shaw, and my friend, Dr. Carrie Vanderbrook, who provided inspiration and empathy throughout this doctoral pursuit. v The dissertation research was funded, in part, through a Presidential Fellowship for Faculty Development from the Savannah College of Art and Design. Additional funding was provided by the J. Monty Group and Susan Shaw. vi VITA 1998…………………………………………………..B.S., Theatre, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 1998-2001…………………………………………….Associate Director of Education, Delaware Theatre Company, Wilmington, Delaware 2001…………………………………………………...M.S., Arts Administration, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2001-2002…………………………………………….Managing Director, Elm Shakespeare Company, New Haven, Connecticut 2003-2005……………………………………………Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 2005-Present………………………………………...Professor, Arts Administration Savannah College of Art and Design Savannah, Georgia FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Art Education vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract. ii Acknowledgments. .v Vita. vii List of Tables. .xii List of Figures. .xiii Chapters: 1. Introduction . 1 1.1 Actors Equity Association . 2 1.2 Labor Unions . 3 1.3 Statement of Problem. .6 1.4 Overview of Dissertation. .8 2. Conceptual Framework. 12 2.1. External Control of Organizations. .13 2.2. Institutional Isomorphism. 19 2.3. Collective Action. .25 2.4. Research Framework. .33 2.4.1 Resource Dependence. .34 2.4.2 Institutional Isomorphism. .36 2.4.3 Collective Action. 37 3. Methodology. 40 3.1. Case Study. .42 3.1.1 Robert K. Yin. 42 3.1.1.1 Single Case Study versus Multiple Case Study Design . .42 3.1.1.2 Holistic versus Embedded Design. .44 3.1.1.3 Case Study Data Sources. .44 3.1.2 Robert E. Stake. .46 3.1.3 Yin versus Stake. .47 viii 3.2. Mixed Methodology. 48 3.3. Methodology Summation. 56 4. Industrialization, Monopolies, and Worker Rights: Late 1800s-1919. .62 4.1. The Economic, Political, and Social Environment in the United States . 63 4.2. National Labor Movement Developments. .65 4.2.1 Skilled versus Unskilled Labor. .66 4.2.2 The Violence of the Labor Movement. 67 4.2.3 Union Solidarity. 68 4.2.4 Labor and the Federal Government. 70 4.3. The Structure and Movements of the Theatrical Industry. .73 4.3.1 The Theatrical Syndicate. 73 4.3.2 The Shubert Brothers. 75 4.3.3 The Syndicate-Shubert Battle. .77 4.4. Collective Action Behavior of Theatrical Actors. 79 4.4.1 Early Attempts to Organize. 79 4.4.2 Creative Sector Influences. 83 4.4.3 The Unionization of Actors’ Equity Association. .85 4.5. Contextual Analysis . 92 4.5.1 Resource Availability, Control, and Use. 92 4.5.2 Institutionalization of an Industry and an Organization. .98 4.5.3 Early Signs of Professionalization . .105 5. Unionization, the Depression, and Government Action: 1919-1949. .109 5.1. The Economic, Political, and Social Environment in the United States. .110 5.1.1 Socialism and Communism . .110 5.1.2 Talking Pictures . .113 5.1.3 The Great Depression. .115 5.1.3.1 The New Deal. .117 5.1.3.1.1 National Industrial Recovery Act. .119 5.1.3.1.2 The New Deal Art Program. 121 5.1.4 World War II. .125 5.2. National Labor Movement Developments. .126 5.2.1 The National Labor Relations Act (1935) . .131 5.2.2 The Taft Hartley Act (1975) . 132 5.3. Collective Action Behavior of Theatrical Actors. 134 5.3.1 The Strike of 1919. 134 5.3.2 The Creation of the Equity Shop. 147 5.3.3 Unionizing the Film Industry. 162 5.4. The Structure and Movements of the Theatrical Industry. .167 5.4.1 Noncommercial Theatre . 168 5.4.2 The Federal Theatre Project. 174 ix 5.4.2.1 The Cradle Will Rock. .179 5.4.2.2 The Demise of the FTP. 181 5.5. Contextual Analysis . 182 5.5.1 Resource Availability, Control, and Use. 182 5.5.2 Isomorphic Change. .189 5.5.3 Actors’ Equity: Unionists or Actors? . 192 6. Commodification versus Public Purpose, Norms, and Professionalization: 1950-1969. 197 6.1. The Economic, Political, and Social Environment in the United States. .198 6.1.1 The Rise of Social Discord. .199 6.1.2 The New American Culture. 209 6.1.3 The National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities. .213 6.2. National Labor Movement Developments. .216 6.3. The Structure and Movements of the Theatrical Industry. .222 6.3.1 Broadway and the Road. 222 6.3.2 The End of the Shubert Empire. ..