Head posters will write a summary and interpretation of at least one of this week’s readings:
- Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788-1850 (New York, 1984, 2004), Introduction and Chapters 1-2.
- Herbert Gutman, “Work, Culture and Society in Industrializing America,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (June 1973) 531-588.
In the comments to this post, head posters can post a response to individual chapters form Sean Wilentz’s Chants Democratic rather than all of his readings (Intro, Ch. 1-2) if they would like.
In the comments to this post, responders will post their response to head poster’s interpretation and pose 2 questions about the readings (including the primary sources) to the class.
In chapter one of *Chants Democratic*, Sean Wilentz analyzes the rise of the craft trades in New York City during the early republic. He examines how the interests and needs of the artisans and craftsmen evolved over time. Wilentz also analyzes the attitudes of entrepreneurs, small masters, and journeymen. Overall, the main purpose of this chapter is to lay the scene for the trades in New York City during this time and to prepare for a further analysis of how artisanship would decline due to the rise of capitalism. Chapter one ends with a reflection on the “artisan republic” while hinting at the “unsettling future” that would see the end of such a short-lived period of time (Wilentz 60).
One major critique I have of Wilentz’s work is that his analysis is primarily focused on men and it ignores the contributions/experiences of women and other demographics. Part of this is due to a lack of archival records on the subject. For example, in his section on journeymen, Wilentz notes that the “information on women’s work in New York prior to 1820 is very meager” (Wilentz 51). Similarly, Wilentz does not discuss slavery’s impact on New York City’s economy. Slavery is only mentioned briefly in chapter one even though slavery’s presence in the city is very important in later historiography (see Craig Steven Wilder’s *A Covenant with Color*). From the Wilentz reading, one might be lead to conclude that the largely male-dominated artisan trades were central to the economic, cultural, and social background of New York City during the early nineteenth century. However, this is not entirely the case. I suggest that Wilentz book be paired with other readings on the broader social and economic context of New York City during this time period. So far, *Chants Democratic* is a solid introduction to the artisan trades of the time; however, I do think it is less convincing when it comes to the broader issues of the period and has some major blindspots.
Although I agree with the notion that Wilentz’s analyzes fall short on women, I had a different take on his analysis being implicit. Wilentz starts his books with a rejection that during the industrialization era the work ethic was rooted in protestant work ethic, and that he claims that even pre-industrialization era work ethic was much more diverse. By the same token, he rejects the idea that the protestant work ethic had started to change during (mature) industrialization unlike President Nixon’s Labor Day speech in 1971. It was interesting to note that an Englishman manufacturer sees the essence of manufacturing vis-à-vis the essence of the nation during the War of Independence hence asserting the protestant work ethic not simply as a work ethic, but also as ethical guidance of everyday life. Benjamin Franklin ceases Saint Monday and Tuesday to be holidays and instead declares Sunday as a holy-day to spend time in church.
I think to answer the following questions would leade provoking discussions
1- What is the role of work-ethic in capitalism’s perseverance amid pandemic?
2- Is work-ethic rooted in a belief in general?
It seems to me that Wilentz’s analysis certainly would have benefitted from Boydston’s historiographical contributions in terms of highlighting the social, cultural, and political importance of women’s wage work. Her publication of “The Woman Who Wasn’t There” did come a little over a decade after Chants Democratic, but I’d be curious if there were other contributions examining women’s wage work/importance in the transition to capitalism during the time of Wilentz’s writing (this book was published in 1984). In that sense I agree with Jay and Sean’s argument that this is a historical blind spot in Wilentz’s story of the Artisan Republic, and this may expose the outdated elements of the book.
I am curious to see if the scope of historical subjects do widen, as it’s only the first two chapters. I also think that Wilentz’s statements on page 51 merit some attention. In this patriarchal society with an emerging cultural importance of markets, men’s economic independence was a hallmark trait of masculinity, so it makes sense that women’s labor was present and important, but made invisible. Wilentz writes, “Given this dearth of women’s wage work, and the powerful assumption…that the honorable artisan expected to be the family breadwinner, the family economy among married journeymen was almost certainly restricted to the outwork journeymen’s households. in which women helped their husbands and fathers with the work.” (51) This is an interesting, almost contradictory statement. If the outwork journeymen were working for piece wages, could their wives’ labor not be considered historically significant wage labor? Certainly not formally, but this doesn’t preclude that labor’s economic importance. Perhaps, then, Wilentz wouldn’t disagree with Boydston, but he framed the evidence in a different historiographic light. As Boydston points out in conversation with Wilentz, “In such times [of rapid social change], as Sean Wilentz has demonstrated in Chants Democratic, idealized identities are apt to be urged with particular (and particularly misleading) firmness: “artisan republicanism” prospered in York City just as the artisan system began to give way to the bastard shop.” (205) As she points out, the same dynamic could be observed with separate spheres ideology: “In the United States, the emergence of the ideology of separate spheres must be viewed at least in part as a hardening of the attitudes of certain groups against specific actual practices of gender they deemed particularly threatening during the political and economic revolutions.” (205)
Questions:
1. I’d be curious to dive deeper into how exactly the end of the War of 1812 brought the beginning of the end of the “artisan republic.” Wilentz set the scene in this way but does not elucidate the connection much deeper than that: what kind of transformation did the events of 1815 engender that set this historical process into motion?
2. Guttman invokes anthropologist Sidney Mintz’s definition of culture, one I’ve never heard before: “Culture is used; and any analysis of its use immediately brings into view the arrangements of persons in societal groups for whom cultural forms confirm, reinforce, maintain, change, or deny particular arrangements of status, power, and identity.” Keeping this definition in mind, how did artisans’ early political formations with the Democratic Society and beyond bring into view the tumultuous societal transformations of the post-Revolutionary era, the changing “arrangements of status, power, and identity”?
Happy Labor Day Weekend! I hope you all had a chance to rest and spend time with those you love (virtually or otherwise).
Sean Wilentz strives to “tell…history again in a more convincing way” (18), which he does through chronologically delving into class and labor relations in early nineteenth century New York. He begins with a teaser, a pivotal point of expected peace and prosperity after the Treaty of Ghent is signed in 1815. Instead of ushering in abundant well-paying work, Wilentz poses that it was actually the beginning of the collapse of the ‘artisan republic’. Over chapters one and two, Wilentz follows the separation of the artisan dynamics between masters, journeymen, and apprentices, showing the rise of “artisan republicanism” and the collapse of the “artisan republic”. (In society overall, he describes the riffs as being between the manual/unskilled laborers, the artisans, the merchants, and finally the British- detested by many.) Chapter one sees the beginning of industrialization in manufactories and the use of semiskilled workers. Premade clothing places stress on tailors, the transformation of apprenticeships into waged child labor, and the changing relationships between masters and journeymen, are all indicative of the coming transformation. Masters are by no means aristocrats, but they are better off than the journeymen, who often travel for consistent work and rely on alcoholic rituals to gain a semblance of control over their workplaces. The division of masters and journeymen only increases with time, as journeymen continue as journeymen without graduating stably to master status. Wilentz also delves into the political and religious factors of working life in New York- showing the pride workers had for their trades and increasingly in their republic, while not quite subscribing to the morally pure life the affluent religious folks wanted for everyone. (Religion here is seen as another class division, with different categorizations being popular with different levels of wealth. Where the affluent paid their pew fees and prayed, masters and journeymen created societies for communal support and political engagement. Methodism may be the exception, allowing anyone to engage, 80-81.) The central theme seems to be the increasingly dissonant relationship between the ideal artisan republic (where everyone can work their way up the hierarchy to competency) and artisan republicanism.
I appreciated the variety of angles Sean Wilentz uses to look at the developing class consciousness within the artisan community in New York, 1788-1850. From wages earned, control over workplaces, family sizes, political beliefs, religion, and ritualistic displays (parades/emblems/etc.), he sure gave me a lot to summarize in my first paragraph, especially since many of his points are rarely concise. After reading this, I felt secure in accepting Wilentz’s interpretation; his work was informative, thorough, and well-cited. The first chapter was a good introduction to the structure of master/journeyman/apprentice. It laid the ground well for what was a tougher second chapter. I know Sean Wilentz is writing for historians who are familiar with the terms he is using, but reading this with a historical knowledge based almost exclusively within the Scranton Public School District’s curriculum, I found myself pausing and rereading a number of times trying to understand who was supporting whom and why. When the chapter moved on to religion and emblems/parades and the increasing division between journeymen and masters, I was pretty thrilled. One critique: women and girls were rarely mentioned and the reasoning behind it was flimsy. It felt like they would be mentioned and then brushed off with, “sorry, no data available”. My final critique is one that comes up all the time when I read academic texts: this is stuffy and inaccessible. I get that the author has to play the game to be respected in the field, but what good is that doing if the information is also playing into a system that furthers divisions between those who appreciate this and those who find it too difficult to read?
**I thought I had already posted this (albeit just before class), but now I don’t see it so a) sorry it’s late and b) sorry if it’s posted twice*
While I agree with the critique that Wilentz was too focussed on a certain subdivision of society, certainly woman’s labor — even if only within the home — needs to be considered, I did find this text to be a very dynamic, thorough breakdown of the growth of the industrial working class as an identity in America. In particular, I appreciate how deeply he considered the master and entrepreneurial classes’ response to industrialism. In this light, we’re able to understand how certain roles in pre-capitalist America participated in the growth of the working class and the emerging capitalist class. Even if, as some say ‘the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,’ it’s rarely clear who inherits the power as one ruling class gives way for the next. Wilentz makes clear just how complicated this transition as social and economic relationships at all levels were devastated.
From both readings, what do we recognize from the trajectory of working class identity in the middle class identity of the 20th century?
Which do we begin to recognize first: the modern working class identity or the capitalist class?
Where, in many ways, I agree with Jay’s critique that Wilentz”s focus is rather narrow, I don’t necessarily have a problem with his approach. In concentrating on organized labor, centered around the crafts, he clearly shows the adjustment of the craft system in the wake of the economic changes that were an outgrowth of the rise of industrialization, advances in trade, and above all in the country’s embrace of capitalism an federalism. Wilentz clearly aims to stick to the small percentage of workers employed in the crafts, and he does an excellent job at it. The pains he takes to describe the lives of journeymen and role within the social structure is thorough and entertaining. I’m not sure Wilentz was looking to make a more comprehensive book, but have to say that focusing on organized labor without understanding workers as a whole only gives a piece of labor history. One must read further. The Gutman and Ulrich articles help out in that regard.
Question 1: How did a journeyman become a master? Was it solely an issue of having the means to start a shop, or were there other obstacles (accreditation, licenses, limits on number of masters) as well? The relationship between masters and journeyman seemed a little under-explored to me.
Question 2: There is a lot of discussion of drinking and loose morals as being to blame for poor work habits. Gutman states that poor work ethics among male workers gave rise to greater employment of young women and children in regard to factory work, as owners assumed they had stronger morals. Is there any evidence that young women and children were more productive, or just willing to work for greatly reduced wages? To assume that some groups have a superior work ethic over others should be backed up by some data.
I agree with both Jay and Sean that Chant’s Democratic is a thorough, well researched, and comprehensive history of early New York City artisans. The way Wilentz was able to weave definitions of the differing classes of artisan with their social, political, and religious leanings painted an incredibly full picture of the way this specific class transformed from the late 18th century into the early 19th century and the struggles they faced. I’m fascinated by the ways in which class contempt exists for the artisans and within their ranks. I especially appreciated the way the introduction showed us the specific beliefs Wilentz was both operating from and attempting to challenge in order to allow me as the reader a deeper understanding of his writing. The ways in which different classes of artisan participated in the political process and specifically how they amassed power was very interesting and mirrors the ways in which labor unions are a powerful force in New York City politics today. I agree with both Sean and Jay that the lack of examination of the ways in which women and people of color influenced this time in American history is particularly shameful, especially considering we have already read works that refute Wilentz’s argument that data about this doesn’t exist. This experience has helped me to remember that no matter how well researched historiographical writing is, it likely comes from a white, male perspective and should be understood as such.
Questions:
1) In other readings like “The Woman Who Wasn’t There” and the primary source “Lowell Mill Girls,” we see many examples of times when women were leading labor movement strikes and other actions. Though it is likely that not many women were Masters or Journeymen, Wilentz does say that women and children began working as unskilled or semi-skilled laborers in the larger crafting workshops. I’m curious if the trend we have seen elsewhere is true during this time period in New York as well, and if it is not why that might be.
2) Many of our readings have brought up the defining American trait of individualism. In Chants Democratic Wilentz touches on the discrimination artisans faced from the merchant and upper classes, but it seems to me that artisans more so than that other workers and bosses of this time, fulfill this American ideal. It would be interesting to know how the upper classes will eventually appropriate this trait in order to justify their exploitation of the working class in the future.
I think that Jay and Sean are both on point with their analysis and summarization of the historical contents in the
article written by Sean Wilentz, “Chants Democratic”. The article covered a lot of background history on the Artisan craftsmanship of making out a living in a most simplistic and creative way.however ,somewhere along the reading I got the impression that the author was trying to convey how the transformation of non-industrial to industrial movement
occurred, and what prompted the change. The start of a new era of industrialization began to take on a different type of work reproduction. Although the Artisan at an era in time were considered the elite of workers due to their craftsmanship , once the system progressed to manufacturing , their trade began to diminish when their beautiful work of the likeness of city life could be produced in a factory setting. In connection to the article by Herbert Gutman, ” Work, Culture, and Society ,the author also focuses on the start of work ethics protocol in the transformation that took on many other boundaries, for example the need for owners to start a work ethics protocol to control and monitor the many migrant and unskilled work force ” the so-called non-elite” that became a part of laboring work force which began the shape of the labor movement.
1) Are NYC workforce considered the elite or non-elite of the city work society?
2) How will the Pandemic affect work place policies ?
Sean and Jay’s interpretation of the introduction and Chapters 1 and 2 of Wilentz was spot on, describing how the craft trades impacted New York City labor and it evolved over time. This was an interesting read and I especially liked how the author was very detailed in laying out the groundwork to help frame his piece in how the “craft trades” started to transition into different roles, (especially the backstory in the introduction) changing the structure of the workforce. He described in his book “real-estate speculators turning into entreprenuarial contractors”, hiring men (pg.32) and how apprenticeship started to change and “contributed to the decline of old artisan labor relations”. It made me wonder about some of the craft trades that exist today and I thought about shoemakers and tailors. These are one of the old trades that has stood the test of time even in this technological age. Most of the time, these are family owned businesses that have been passed down from generation to generation along with the knowledge and skill. The book described how the tailors and shoe makers converged in lower Manhattan on Maiden Lane, William Street and Greenwich Street and you can find quite a few of them there to this day. I also found an interesting article in the National Herald, talking about a shoe repair shop that opened back up during Covid.
https://www.thenationalherald.com/community_general_news/arthro/greek_owned_minas_shoe_repair_survived_9_11_reopens_after_covid_lockdown-580347/.
I did see that there was a concern that women were rarely mentioned in the chapters, which I would agree with, from what we were assigned to read, but I do not know if they were mentioned in any other chapters in the book. But generally, when it comes to labor history, women are rarely brought to the forefront anyway. I also would have like to read more on how children played a part in labor history because I feel that they at times have been forgotten as well. Children were exploited and expendable back in those days, and rarely did they have anyone speak up for them and a lot of them risked their lives as well. What are your thoughts on the roles of children in the labor movement? Do you think that it is a viable question? What more about women’s roles would you like to hear about generally?
I’ve gone back and forth on the idea that Wilentz ignored the role that women played in creating the American working class. I had the thought that his writing excluding women reflected the society he was portraying, in that women were simply not a part of the artisan and journeyman classes. But then, I refer back to the Jeanne Boydston article we read about women’s labor and am reminded of the surplus value created by women’s domestic work in New England and find it hard to conceive of that Wilentz excluded women from the conversation for the most part. I think this for two reasons. In the transition to a wage labor-based economy, Wilentz went to lengths to describe the feast or famine lifestyle many journeymen and artisans faced, with many being paid wages of between $6 to $10 a week and expenses for a family of five between $6.50 and $7. It’s in this section that Wilentz conveniently admits that the data on women’s work was paltry, which could be excusable if he weren’t also trying to give an incredibly detailed look at the life of an average journeyman’s family. That is my issue, that Wilentz is simultaneously detail heavy yet leaves out the people who might take up the slack on a family of five in surplus value. I think this book could be a lot more engaging if he made the choice between either focusing on details like how an average family might survive in the pre-industrial economy or writing about the working culture at large that gave rise to labor unions and the labor movement. He could have done the latter in a way that told a more complete story of both women and men selling their labor. That said, I was really entertained by stories of early strikes like the New York Bread Company (who knew bread would be such a hotbed of labor militancy?!)
Questions
1. What is the line that we should draw in history analysis between accurately representing a patriarchal culture and simply not researching enough of the complete story?
2. What was it like to be class conscious in the pre-industrial period as a journeyman or artisan in NYC? How close or far away was it from traditional Marxist thinking?
Jay and Sean interpretation of Sean Wilentz “Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working class” is clear and concise as to what Sean Wilentz want to tell the story of the growth of New York City during the early 1800’s. I do agree that Sean Wilentz does paint a great picture of the rise and fall of artsman and craftman, but I think that he is depicting a time of where society saw men as the only ones to hold the craft and pass it alone to others. I do agree with both Jay and Sean that Wilentz does not give justice to women, children and slaves credit for the work they have contributed to society and the beginning of unionism. I also think that due to the epoch period there is a transformation of class and religion, where white men were the ones controlling all aspects of society.
Questions:
1. On page 33 of chapter 1, there is mentioned that craft veterans and master craftsmen were concerned that the apprentice were not as concerned in learning the craft and that they were given only simple work to do. I know this is a stretch, but am wondering if these same concerns that the master craftsmen felt can have a correlation to how miners, car makers feel that there is no place for their craft in society today? Are we seeing a transformation on the job market that certain skills are no longer valuable as it has been in the past?
2. Similar to Hollis Evey second question, with the rich given the most tax breaks during this time, how is this setting up for the working class to be continued to be exploited, for example Amazon?
“Chants Democratic” by Sean Wilentz was a difficult read for me, and it had a lot of information and I got lost multiple times reading the chapters. I did get that he was trying to show how early artisanal work shifted to more manufacturing work with semiskilled workers and wage labor. I am still a little confused about the different classes structures. The interesting part about the readings were on workethic and how as shifts in work started happening from hierarchal structure to more wage labor the more specific work ethic conditions became imposed. I have never thought of workethic as a factor to control the workforce but I appreciated that point. And I agree with Sean and Jay, the chapters only had white male perspectives, Jay mentioned Craig Steven Wilder’s *A Covenant with Color* and its a great book about how slavery and race were big part of what New York is today. I agree it would be great pair the reading with other perspectives as well.
Questions:
1) Work ethic continues to be used as a tool to push anti union sentiments, I conitinue to hear many people say union workers/staff are lazier because the union protects them (i don’t agree with it) , or the idea that an efficient/hardworker is someone with a good workethic. Can this ingrained concept of good or bad workethic be changed?
2) I had the same question as Sean, how did journeyman become master? Was there a training time frame like work 5 yrs as a journeyman and the you become a master or was it specific craft they needed to master to become a master or was it different based on what type of artisan community it was.
I share the head posters critiques that Chants Democratic is definitely not a comprehensive guide to the economy and society of pre-industrial New York City, but rather a glimpse into the specific window of the artisanal economy. But what a glimpse he provides! Guttman’s essay explicitly states that he is focusing his study on white American males, and paired with the Wilentz book’s implicit focus on white American males obviously makes a disturbing trend in historical scholarship on this topic. They were written in 1973 and 1984, respectively, so I hope this scholarship is expanding its scope. (I haven’t yet read the Ulrich piece, though intend to before class)
I appreciate how Wilentz structures his first chapter. It reads like an economic ethnography, evaluating each “class” (at least within the artisan system) and how they were adapting to a changing society, and how the pressures of increased production and investment and, frankly, a growing city in a more connected world, would find them. Throughout the first chapter, Wilentz details the loose transition from craft-harmony to class-harmony. Those with power can solidify their power in rapidly-changing circumstances. And those without have little recourse. At least at first.
Questions:
In many of our readings, We’ve seen brief mentions of those with greater power and cultural capital focus on the vices or shortcomings of workers. How much is this capital trying to maximize the value of its labor force versus anti-immigrant xenophobia? And how much do these toxic forces go hand in hand?
Wilentz laments the lack of data into the role of women in the artisanal economy, but we’ve seen copious histories incorporating data from Lowell, MA and other places where the workforce and labor politics were primarily driven by women. Taking Wilentz claim at face value, why does this data divide exist? What are some of the differences in how these cities were organized that would account for this difference?
Chants Democratic was an interesting read to me because it outlined how capitalist got their start and how politics plays a major role in keeping capitalists strong. The higher classes of course made political decisions and the lower class had no say. It is interesting because as a fellow New Yorker reading about capitalism in its early stages in New York I can see how it capitalism will always be relevant. Individuals think of democrats as the party that gives back to the poor in a sense, but it is clear, that has not always been the democratic agenda. The elitist/capitalist agenda prevails and although the poor may be the majority capitalists will always remain successful.
1. When do the non-elite class begin to rise up from their status and start to fight against the capitalist agenda?
2. As clear by the readings politics has never been in favor of the poor but we vote politicians in to office. When do constituents say enough is enough?
While I agree with the critique that Wlientz was too focussed on a certain subdivision of society, certainly woman’s labor — even if only within the home — needs to be considered, I did find this text to be a very dynamic, thorough breakdown of the growth of the industrial working class as an identity in America. In particular, I appreciate how deeply he considered the master and entrepreneurial classes’ response to industrialism. In this light, we’re able to understand how certain roles in pre-capitalist America participated in the growth of the working class and the emerging capitalist class. Even if, as some say ‘the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,’ it’s rarely clear who inherits the power as one ruling class gives way for the next. Wilentz makes clear just how complicated this transition as social and economic relationships at all levels were devastated.
From both readings, what do we recognize from the trajectory of working class identity in the middle class identity of the 20th century?
Which do we begin to recognize first: the modern working class identity or the capitalist class?