PA U L D U R R E N B E R G E R
DIMITRA DOUKAS
215
216
this proposition beyond a suggestion, however, requires detailed quantitative as well as qualitative ethnography. We
cannot even claim to have studied a representative sample
of working-class whites. Our ethnographic and survey respondents were from historically similar but unrelated populations, working at the broad bottom of the nation-states
economic pyramid. We generalize beyond these populations only with care.
THE GOSPEL OF WORK
In his influential essay, The Gospel of Wealth (1889,
1900a), steel magnate Andrew Carnegie made his famous
social Darwinist assertion that the law of competition
governed social evolution: it may be hard on individuals
but, he declared, it is best for the race because it insures
the survival of the fittest in every department (1889:655).
Carnegie was arguing against the popular ideology of his
time that we call the gospel of work.
On the basis of self-sufficient, rural, agroindustrial production, the historical gospel of work melded a moral perspective with the political goal of broadly based prosperity.
Work was a sacred duty and a claim to moral and political
superiority over the idle rich (Doukas 2003; Gutman 1966;
Lazerow 1995). From the earliest days of the United States,
working-class producers of wealth, as they styled themselves, believed that they had a right to enjoy the fruits of
their own labor and not be dependent on an employer, as
they had been under British rule (Faler 1981; Ryerson 1978;
Wood 1991). De-emphasizing the religious aspects, U.S.
historians dubbed this view producerism (Kazin 1995).
Producerist arguments were behind the Whiskey Rebellion
of 1794 and the anti-Federalist successes of 1800 (Appleby
1984, 1992); the abolitionist economic arguments of the
1850s Republican Party (Foner 1970); the racially inclusive
Knights of Labor, a national political force of the 1870s and
1880s (Fink 1983); and the Peoples Party of the 1890s, the
most serious challenge to the U.S. two-party system thus far
(Goodwyn 1976).
Producerist working-man rhetoric has been co-opted
into nativist and fascist ideologies only by removing one
mainspring of the original.4 Producerism was anticapitalist. At the philosophical core of historical producerism was
the idea that labor, not capital, creates real wealth: capital, as the great producerist Abraham Lincoln once said, is
only the fruit of labor (Lincoln 1953:52). Producerism was
the language of 19th-century popular opposition to the
trusts, the disreputable ancestors of many of todays corporate giants (Bakan 2005; Doukas 1997; Lloyd 1894; Myers
1911; Tarbell 1966).
The fledgling corporate giants, their bankers, and their
political allies objected to producerist moral claims and,
starting in the 1890s, reached out with a new ideology that claimed, to the contrary, that capital, not labor, creates wealth and prosperity. Steel magnate Carnegie
was a leader of this cultural campaign. To the masses,
Carnegie (1900b) argued consumerism: the productivity of
217
3035 percent of local households received public assistance (Doukas 2003:23). County unemployment rates float
a point or more above the official national figure, but this is
deceptive. Because one hour of labor in the reported week
qualifies as employment (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
2007:7), this figure vastly overcounts the employed (Zweig
2000).
For half a century, the Valley was radically divided between WASPs and white ethnics, a segregated society
with unequal tracks of schooling and occupation, separate churches, separate cemeteries, and turf battles in the
schools and public parks. In historical context, the achievement of whiteness meant overcoming the ethnic order of
the early 20th century and was not accomplished until after
WWII (cf. Brodkin 1998). Labor unions were a major vector of this social transformation, particularly the Congress
of Industrial Organizations (CIO) campaigns of the 1940s
(Doukas 2003; Gerstle 1989). The United Mine Workers of
America (UMWA), with whom the Valleys remaining Remington workers affiliated in the mid-1990s, has been a leader
in organizing solidarity across raceethnic lines since the
1880s.
Working-class whites earn their livelihood with a mix
of public assistance, household provisioning (gardening,
part-time farming, hunting, and fishing), home-based and
other informal sector enterprises, part-time and temporary
service jobs, small businesses, a few remaining unionized
manufacturing jobs, and public sector work in schools and
government, the only secure jobs in the region (Doukas
2003). Times are hard, they say, yet women as well as men
continue, like historical producerists, to pride themselves
on hard work and hard-won skills.
Women are believed to be strong in the Valley. A feminist local historian explains this apparent gender egalitarianism as a legacy of family-farm agriculture, where both
spouses had to work shoulder to shoulder (Jane Spellman,
personal communication, September 1993). There were
bad women in local stories, but they were bad for the
same reasons men were bad: social climbing, hoarding, and
putting money before human kindness (Doukas 2003).
Hard work, frugality, and neighborliness are measures of respect and reputation in the Valley, where many
working people have survived an abrupt and bewildering
fall from middle-class security (Ehrenreich 1990; Newman
1988). Like their 18th-century forebears, working-class locals criticize elites for living off the work of others and not
working themselves.
Is this a special case or are class-specific, counterhegemonic values a more broadly distributed characteristic of
the working class as a whole? To answer this question, we
would need to know if producerist values have survived
or resurfaced elsewhere. Carefully conceived quantitative
methods can assess the distribution of ethnographically
identified patterns. Those workers who belong to unions
are one segment of the working class on which we have
quantitative data to make such an assessment.
218
PAIRED COMPARISONS
Durrenberger and Erem (2005a) expected that, as Newman (1988) suggested, working-class experience would invalidate the tenets of middle-class meritocratic individualism. Durrenberger (2001) could not find evidence of either
meritocratic individualism or the hypothesized alternative
structural thinking among the union members, although
one paired comparison test suggested individualist rather
than structural modes of thought.
The classic example of a paired comparison is the question of which kind of animal is larger:
elephant
goat
mouse
goat
mouse
elephant
Elephant
Goat
Mouse
is larger than
"
"
Elephant
Goat
Mouse
0
0
100
100
100
Race
Gender
Hard work
Talent
14%
55%
42%
86%
81%
83%
45%
19%
50%
58%
17%
50%
189
50
186
175
219
Work
Luck
Management
Luck
Management
102.0 s = 0
0.2 s = .15
73.0 s = .00
Natural
4.5 s = 0.03
85.0 s = 0.00
0.0 s = 1.00
UNION CONSCIOUSNESS
The survey assessed another conceptual domain, union
consciousness or awareness, the apprehension of two distinctive sides in labor relations. The vehicle was a triads
test that asks respondents to select which of three items
is most different from the others, indicating a conceptual
similarity in the other two. Durrenberger developed this test
during his studies of unions in Chicago, and it has proven
to be robust in a number of contexts (Durrenberger 1997,
2001, 2002; Durrenberger and Erem 1999b, 2005a, 2005b,
2005c).
Daily concerns are brought to management through
elected members called delegates in 1199P parlance.
Other unions call them stewards. Union locals hire representatives who help stewards or delegates when they
cannot resolve grievances themselves. Management hires
supervisors and managers to oversee the work process.
Union members may think of themselves as belonging to
a union side along with stewards and representatives, as
opposed to a management side of managers and supervisors. Alternatively, they may see themselves as not especially related to either union or management but simply as the lowest people in a hierarchy of statuses, as being close to management and alien from their union, or
other possible configurations (Durrenberger 1997, 2001,
2002; Durrenberger and Erem 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1999a,
1999b).
The triads test for all combinations of three management and union roles looks like this:
manager
delegate
other worker
manager
union rep
other worker
220
manager
supervisor
delegate
union rep
supervisor
supervisor
supervisor
delegate
union rep
other worker
other worker
union rep
manager
union rep
supervisor
manager
supervisor
delegate
other worker
other worker
delegate
Every line in which the respondent distinguished between union and management was scored 1. For instance,
in the first triad, a person who selected manager would be
assigned a score of 1. In the second triad, selecting manager would result in a score of 1. In the third line, supervisor would be so scored; in the fourth, manager and so
on. The highest possible score is 10. A score of 8 or higher
indicates union conscious. Lower than 8 indicates not
union conscious. If we examine the paired comparison
test results about causes of wealth in terms of union consciousness, we see a strong pattern of preferences. Table 4
shows the responses of those members who were not union
conscious. These totals translate into a hierarchy: (1) management (194), (2) work (186), (3) natural (169), and (4)
luck (56).
Work
Luck
Management
Natural
Work
Luck
Management
Natural
Luck
Management
Natural
Total
16%
57%
46%
84%
81%
79%
43%
19%
44%
54%
21%
56%
181
56
194
169
Work
Luck
Management
Luck
Management
Natural
51.0 s = 0
2.1 s = .15
41.0 s = .00
0.6 s = .44
37.0 s = .00
50.0 s = .00
Luck
Management
Natural
13%
54%
l36%
87%
79%
86%
46%
21%
55%
64%
14%
45%
Total
197
48
178
177
Work
Work
Luck
Management
Luck
Management
Natural
46.7 s = .0
0.6 s = .45
28.3 s = .00
6.2 s = .01
43.8 s = .00
0.8 s = .38
Choice of the first two items indicates concepts of collective power, choice of the third and fourth indicates individualistic concepts, and choice of the fifth suggests an even
playing field. Few counted the fifth as significant. Here, the
most significant comparison is between being willing and
able to strike and the negotiators skills.
We assessed this choice against choices for the question about the causes of wealth. For those who selected
the individualist of legal skill, there is no agreement on
causes of wealth, except for a slight preference for management over work (Chi square = 4.9 with 1 df, s = .03).
This represents, we suggest, a management model for the
production of wealth that does not lean toward either the
gospel of wealth or the gospel of work.
However, those who selected the collective option of
being willing and able to strike agreed that work is more
important than natural forces (Chi square = 4.35, 1 df,
s = .04). This suggests that those with a more collectivist
understanding of the power of their union also agree on
the gospel of work and reject the management model of
their more individualistic fellow workers.
The following diagram illustrates these relationships:
Legal skill (individualist)
Strike (collective)
management/work
work = natural
management = work
work/natural
random (luck)
management (management)
gospel of work (work)
gospel of wealth (natural)
221
management
gospel of wealth
gospel of work
222
Q1 Man.
Q1 Nat.
Q2 Wrk.
&
&
&
Q3 Man.
Q2 Nat.
Q3 Wrk.
Result
yes
no
no
&
&
&
Q3 Man.
Q2 Nat.
Q3 Wrk.
&
&
&
Q1 Man.
Q1 Nat.
Q2 Wrk.
no
no
yes
tualized idea from ethnography and tested for it quantitatively in other populations. With this methodological
combination (and adequate support), we could map with
some precision the extent of the counterhegemonic views
we have been tracking. We suspect it would be widespread
not only in the hinterlands we discussed but also in urban
and rural areas in which people rely on their own work for
their livings. We suspect the hegemonic gospel of wealth
may be more prevalent in suburbs and among those who
subscribe to the ideology of meritocratic individualism to
justify their managerial privilege (Newman 1988). Historical perspective allows us to identify cultural continuity and
transformation, and regional perspective permits us to concretize the multiple dimensions of identity in the actual
conditions of everyday life in which people gain their livelihoods and negotiate their identities.
The subordinates we studied are members of the dominant race, but we have found significant remnants of an
once coherent historical culture, rather than a white ideology. We have discussed data on union members. All
union members are workers but only a small minority of
workers are union members. Doukass ethnographic work
suggests that the gospel of work is not confined to union
members. If we were to predict the survival of gospel of
work values outside the rustbelt, in places where they
historically existed, we would have to include all races in
the once-populist South (Goodwyn 1976). We think this
pattern does not correspond to racial categories or political
labels such as Republican and Democrat. Considering the
geographic mobility of the U.S. working class, there is no
region we could eliminate from future study.
As Scott (1990) suggests, the etiquette of compliance
with power may hide ideological noncompliance. What
we have called the gospel of work is also hidden by differential access to national media (Ginsburg et al. 2003).
Blocking input from below surely enhances the appearance of successful hegemony, but anthropological analysis,
combining qualitative and quantitative methods, can cut
through appearances to the objective diversity of nonelite
perspectives.
DIMITRA DOUKAS
dimitra.doukas@gmail.com
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Jane, and D. Gorton
2006 Confederate Lane: Class, Race, and Ethnicity in the Mississippi Delta. American Ethnologist 33(2):288309.
Appleby, Joyce
1984 Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Vision
of the 1790s. New York: New York University Press.
1992 Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bageant, Joe
2007 Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from Americas Class
War. New York: Crown Publishers.
Bakan, Joel
2005 The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and
Power. New York: Free Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste.
Richard Nice, trans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Braverman, Harry
1974 Labor and Monopoly Capitalism: The Degradation of Work
in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brodkin, Karen
1998 How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about
Race in America. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
2000 Global Capitalism: Whats Race Got to Do with It? American Ethnologist 27(2):237256.
Carnegie, Andrew
1889 Wealth. North American Review CCCXCL (391):653664.
1900a The Gospel of Wealth. In The Gospel of Wealth and Other
Timely Essays. Andrew Carnegie, ed. Pp. 119. New York: The
Century Co.
1900b Popular Illusions about the Trusts. In The Gospel of
Wealth and Other Timely Essays. Andrew Carnegie, ed. Pp.
85103. New York: The Century Co.
Chandler, Alfred D., Jr.
1972 Anthracite Coal and the Beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in the United States. Business History Review 46:141
181.
Cole, Alyson M.
2007 The Cult of True Victimhood: From the War on Welfare to
the War on Terror. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Doukas, Dimitra
1997 Corporate Capitalism on Trial: The Hearings of the
Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, 190203. Identities
3(3):371401.
2003 Worked Over: The Corporate Sabotage of an American
Community. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Durrenberger, E. Paul
1996 Gulf Coast Soundings: People and Policy in the Mississippi
Shrimp Industry. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
223
224
Gramsci, Antonio
1976 Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Quintin Hoare and
Geoffrey Nowell Smith, trans. New York: International Publishers.
Greenhouse, Carol J.
1986 Praying for Justice: Faith, Order, and Community in an
American Town. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gutman, Herbert G.
1966 Protestantism and the American Labor Movement: The
Christian Spirit in the Gilded Age. American Historical Review
72:74101.
Harvey, David
1990 The Condition of Postmodernity: Enquiry into the Origins
of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Henry, Jules
1963 Culture against Man. New York: Random House.
Hofstadter, Richard
1955 [1944] Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston: Beacon.
Johnson, Paul E.
1978 A Shopkeepers Millennium: Society and Revivals in
Rochester, New York, 18151837. New York: Hill and Wang.
Joseph, Jonathan
2006 Marxism and Social Theory. New York: Palgrave.
Kazin, Michael
1995 The Populist Persuasion: An American History. New York:
Basic.
Lash, Scott, and John Urry
1987 The End of Organized Capitalism. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Lave, Jean
1988 Cognition in Practice. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Lazerow, Jama
1995 Religion and the Working Class in Antebellum America.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Levi-Strauss, Claude
1963 Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic.
Lincoln, Abraham
1953 [1861] Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861. In
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 5. Roy P.
Basler, ed. Pp. 3553. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Lloyd, Henry Demarest
1894 Wealth against Commonwealth. New York: Harper and
Brothers.
Lomnitz-Adler, Claudio
1991 Concepts for the Study of Regional Culture. American Ethnologist 18(2):195214.
1992 Exits from the Labyrinth: Culture and Ideology in
Mexican National Space. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Lukacs, Georg
1967 [1920] Class Consciousness. London: Merlin.
Lynd, Robert S., and Helen Merrell Lynd
1959 [1929] Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture.
New York: Harvest.
1982 [1937] Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts. New York: Harcourt.
Marchand, Roland
1986 Advertising the American Dream: Making Way for Modernity, 19201940. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Marx, Karl
1976 Collected Works: Karl Marx and Fredrick Engles, vol. 5:
184547. New York: International.
Montgomery, David
1993 Citizen Worker: The Experience of Workers in the United
States with Democracy and the Free Market during the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers, Gustavus
1911 History of the Great American Fortunes. Chicago: Charles
H. Kerr.
Newman, Katherine S.
1988 Falling from Grace: The Experience of Downward Mobility
in the American Middle Class. New York: Free Press.
2000 No Shame in My Game: The Working Poor in the Inner
City. New York: Vintage.
Nelson, Daniel
1980 Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Ortner, Sherry B.
1999 Some Futures of Anthropology. American Ethnologist
26(4):984991.
Perin, Constance
1990 Belonging in America: Reading between the Lines. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Roediger, David
1991 The Wages of Whiteness. London: Verso.
Ryan, Mary P.
1981 Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County,
New York, 17901865. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ryerson, Richard Alan
1978 The Revolution Is Now Begun: The Radical Committees of
Philadelphia, 17651776. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Savage, Lydia
In press Small Places, Close to Home: The Importance of Place
in Organizing Workers. In The Anthropology of Labor Unions.
E. Paul Durrenberger and Karaleah Reichart, eds. Boulder, CO:
University Press of Colorado.
Scott, James C.
1990 Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Silverman, Sydel
2007 American Anthropology in the Middle Decades: A
View from Hollywood. American Anthropologist 109(3):519
528.
Smith-Nonini, Sandy
In press With God on Everyones Side: Truth-telling and Toxic
Words among Methodists and Organized Farmworkers in
North Carolina. In The Anthropology of Labor Unions. E. Paul
Durrenberger and Karaleah Reichart, eds. Boulder: University
Press of Colorado.
Stack, Carol B.
1974 All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community.
New York: Harper and Row.
Tarbell, Ida
1966 [190204] The History of Standard Oil: Briefer Version.
David Chalmers, ed. New York: Harper and Row.
Trachtenberg, Alan
1982 The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the
Gilded Age. New York: Hill and Wang.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
2007 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics News, September 25,
2007. Electronic document, http://www.bls.gov/news.release
/pdf/laus.pdf, accessed October 12, 2007.
Varenne, Herve, ed.
1986 Symbolizing America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Veblen, Thorstein
1979 [1899] The Theory of the Leisure Class. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Wallace, Anthony F. C.
1980 Rockdale: The Growth of an American Village in the Early
Industrial Revolution. New York: Norton.
1988 St. Claire: A Nineteenth-Century Coal Towns Experience
with a Disaster-Prone Industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Warner, William Lloyd, J. O. Low, P. Lunt, and L. Srole
1963 Yankee City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Weller, Susan C., and A. Kimball Romney
1988 Systematic Data Collection. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Wolf, Eric R.
1999 Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
2001 Pathways of Power: Building an Anthropology of
the Modern World. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Wood, Gordon S.
1991 The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Vintage.
Zweig, Michael
2000 The Working Class Majority: Americas Best Kept Secret.
Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.