Search

3 results

8 - Holding On
from Part II - History, Politics, and Law
- By Timothy J. Minchin
Edited by Angela B. Cornell, Cornell University, New York, Mark Barenberg, Columbia University, New York
Book:

The Cambridge Handbook of Labor and Democracy

Published online:

25 January 2022

Print publication:

20 January 2022, pp 127-144
- Chapter
- - Get access
    
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    
    Log in Register
- Export citation
Summary

Opponents of unions have often portrayed them as a threat to democracy.Rather than speaking for workers, they contend, unions were a “special interest” or “third party” who took away workers’ voices, along with their hard-earned money.Reviewing labor’s post-World War II history – particularly the domestic record of the AFL-CIO since its foundation in 1955 – this chapter shows that unions were not a third party, but an important force for democracy.Throughout the post-World War II era, organized labor provided a voice for all working people, not just its members. Unions were a much-needed watchdog, consistently fighting for safer workplaces, higher pay, and workplace democracy. They also gave a stronger voice to working people in politics – and could bring them into the streets. Despite their imperfections, no other organization performed this role in quite the same way.

“Why not love our language and our culture?” National rights and citizenship in Khrushchev's Soviet Union
Krista A. Goff
Journal:

Nationalities Papers / Volume 43 / Issue 1 / January 2015

Published online by Cambridge University Press:

20 November 2018, pp. 27-44

Print publication:

January 2015
- Article
- - You have access
- PDF
- Export citation
This paper highlights campaigns for national rights among two non-titular communities in the Soviet Union and places them in local historical contexts. Drawing on archival sources and oral history interviews, the author not only delves into the campaigns themselves, but also explores broader debates about the nature of Khrushchev's Thaw and Soviet citizenship, which was far from an empty concept in the Khrushchev era. Petitioners invoked discourses that indicate both an awareness of national rights and an expectation of the state's obligation to protect them. Oral history interviews with surviving petitioners and community members support the notion that petition language can serve as a reflection of how petitioners viewed their place in Soviet society and interpreted the Soviet citizen contract.

4 - Periphery toward Center and Back
- By Charles Camic, Northwestern University
Edited by Roger E. Backhouse, University of Birmingham, Philippe Fontaine, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan
Book:

A Historiography of the Modern Social Sciences

Published online:

05 September 2014

Print publication:

22 September 2014, pp 99-143
- Chapter
- - Get access
    
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    
    Log in Register
- Export citation
Summary

Dividing the post-World War II era into three periods: 1945 to 1969, 1970 to 1999, and 2000 to 2012, this chapter describes the changing nature of scholarship on the history of sociology and the changing position of this scholarship in the discipline of sociology at large. To facilitate this description, it introduces the period divisions, data sources, and terminology, used in this analysis. The chapter clarifies the use of some terms to describe the historiography of sociology in the post-World War II era. It examines the practice and location of scholarship on the history of sociology in each of the periods identified. A historian of sociology comparing his or her subfield as it was in 1945 with conditions in 2012 would be struck, almost inevitably, by the prodigious growth and rich variegation of scholarship on the history of sociology.