The author thanks Ava Baron and Laura Levine Frader for their helpful comments on an early draft of this essay.

¹ Barrett, Michele, “Words and Things: Materialism and Method in Contemporary Feminist Analysis”, in Destabilizing Theory: Contemporary Feminist Debates, edited by Barrett, Michele and Phillips, Anne (Stanford University Press, 1992), p. 212Google Scholar.

² Michel Foucault maintains that through discursive rules, disciplines create their objects of analysis. See The Archaeology of Knowledge, translated by Smith, A.M. Sheridan (New York: Harper Colophon, 1972)Google Scholar; The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Vintage, 1973).

³ See Harding, Sandra, The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

⁴ In an important essay, Leonore Davidoff argues that a series of concepts, based on gendered assumptions, came to dominate sociology and history influenced by sociological theory. See “ ‘Adam Spoke First and Named the Orders of the World’: Masculine and Feminine Domains in History and Sociology”, in Vie Politics of Everyday Life: Continuity and Change in Work, Labour and the Family, edited by Corr, H. and Jamieson, L. (London: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 229–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Kent, Susan Kingsley, Sex and Suffrage in Britain, 1860–1914, (Princeton University Press, 1987), p. 5Google Scholar. As Richard Price notes: “Labour history has always privileged those who organized for and sought power in the public realm, be it industry or politics”. See “The Future of British Labour History”, International Review of Social History 36 (1991), pp. 249–260, esp. p. 252.

⁵ This is the case, as well, with the so-called “new institutionalism” advocated in British labor history by Jonathan Zeitlin. See: “ ‘Rank and Filism’ in British Labour History: A Critique”, International Review of Social History 34 (1989), pp. 42–61, and the separate critiques by Price, Richard and Cronin, James E., International Review of Social History 34 (1989), pp. 62–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the United States, see Brody, David, ”The Old Labour History and the New: In Search of an American Working Class”, Labor History 20 (1979), pp. 111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kimeldorf, Howard, ”Bringing Unions Back In (Or Why We Need a New Old Labor History)”, and comments by Kazin, Michael, Kessler-Harris, Alice, Montgomery, David, Nelson, Bruce, Nelson, Daniel and reply by Kimmcldorf, Howard, Labor History 32 (1991), pp. 91–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Buhle, Man Jo, ”Gender and Labor History”, in Perspectives on American Labor History: The Problems of Synthesis, edited by Moody, J. Carroll and Kessler-Harris, Alice (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1989), p. 67Google Scholar.

⁷ Leon Fink, ”Looking Backward: Reflections on Workers' Culture and Certain Conceptual Dilemmas within Labor History”, in J. Carroll Moody and Alice Kessler-Harris, Perspectives on American Labor History, pp. 13–14, 20; Perrot, Michelle, ”On the Formation of the French Working Class”, in Working Class Formation: Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States, edited by Katznelson, Ira and Zolberg, Aristidc R. (Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 71–110, esp. pp. 71–83Google Scholar; William H. Sewcll, Jr., ”Artisans, Factory Workers, and the Formation of the French Working Class, 1789–1948”, in Working-Class Formation, pp. 45–70; Lengcr, Friedrich, ”Beyond Exccptionalism: Notes on the Arttsanal Phase of the Labour Movement in France, England, Germany and the United States”, International Review of Social History 36 (1991) pp. 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a critique see Rancière, Jacques, ”The Myth of the Artisan”, and responses by Sewell, William H. Jr, and Johnson, Christopher J., International Labor and Working Class History 24 (Fall 1983), pp. 1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and responses by Edgar Leon Newman and Nicholas Papayanis, and the reply by Ranciere, Jacques, International Labor and Working Class History 25 (Spring 1984), pp. 37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a study that debunks the idea of an ideal prcindustrial artisanal culture, see Soncnschcr, Michael, Work and Wages: Natural Law, Politics and the Eighteenth-Century French Trades (Cambridge University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

⁸ For an overview that emphasizes the common themes in European and American labor history, sec Leon Fink, ”Looking Backward”.

⁹ For an excellent overview, see Richard Price, “The Future of British Labour History”. As several commentators have noted, the presence of a Marxist teleology is lurking within much working-class history, whether revisionist or not. See Richard Price, “The Future of British Labour History”, p. 254; Ira Karznclson, “Working-Class Formation: Constructing Cases and Comparisons”, in Working-Class Formation, pp. 3–46, esp. pp. 3–15; Kirk, Neville, “In Defence of Class, A Critique of Recent Revisionist Writing upon the Nineteenth-Century English Working Class”, International Review of Social History 32 (1987), p. 39Google Scholar. For a biting critique linked to the question of “exceptionalisms”, see Chakrabarty, Dipesh, Rethinking Working-Class History, Bengal 1890–1914 (Princeton University Press, 1989), pp. 219–230Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Joan W. Scott reveals how some of these themes are central to Thompson's, E.P.The Making of the English Working Class in Gender and the Politics of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), Chapter 4Google Scholar. For a critique of Scott's reading of Thompson, see Steinberg, Marc W., “The Re-making of the English Working Class”, Theory and Society 20 (1991), pp. 173–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ See Alexander, Sally, “Women, Class and Sexual Difference”, History Workshop 17 (1984), pp. 125–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alexander, Sally, Davin, Anna, and Hostcttlcr, Eve, “Labouring Women: A Reply to Eric Hobsbawm”, History Workshop 8 (Autumn 1979), pp. 174–181Google Scholar; Baron, Ava, “Gender and Labor History: Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future”, in Work Engendered: Toward a New History of American Labor, edited by Baron, Ava (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), pp. 1–46Google Scholar; Canning, Kathleen, “Gender and the Politics of Class Formation: Rethinking German Labor History”, American Historical Renew 97, 3 (06 1992), pp. 736–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davin, Anna, “Feminism and Labour History”, in People's History and Socialist Tlieory, edited by Samuel, Raphael (London: Routledgc and Kcgan Paul, 1981), pp. 176–181Google Scholar; Alice Kessler-Harris, “A New Agenda for American Labor History: A Gendered Analysis and the Question of Class”, in Perspectives on American Labor History, pp. 217–234. Scott, Joan W. broke new ground in her call to arms to make gender a central category of historical analysis in her important book, Gender and the Politics of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

¹² See Okin, Susan Moller, Women in Western Political Thought (Princeton University Press, 1979)Google Scholar. Nancy Fraser examines the way unrecognized assumptions about gender are embedded in the ideas of Jurgen Habermas. See Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), Chapter 6. Fraser, specifically critiques his concept of the public sphere and its necessary separation from the private sphere in “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy”, in Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Calhoun, Craig (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1992), pp. 109–142Google Scholar.

¹³ See Eley's, Geoff important discussion of gender and the construction of the public sphere in nineteenth-century Europe to which some of my ideas about the public sphere arc indebted, “Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century”, in Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by Calhoun, Craig (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992), pp. 289–339, esp. pp. 309–319Google Scholar. The public-private distinction has been a significant organizing framework for women's historians, although critiques of the idea of separate spheres have also characterized feminist scholarship. For an excellent overview, see Kerber, Linda, “Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman's Place: The Rhetoric of Women's History”, Journal of American History 75 (1988) pp. 9–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Revcrby, Susan M. and Helly, Dorothy O., “Introduction: Converging on History”, in Gendered Domains: Rethinking Public and Private in Women's History. Essays from the Seventh Berkshire Conference on the History of Women (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992), pp. 1–26Google Scholar, and the essays in that volume.

¹⁴ Pateman, Carole, “Feminist Critiques of the Public/Private Dichotomy”, in The Disorder of Women (Stanford University Press, 1989), p. 121Google Scholar. Pateman's work demonstrates that the liberal concept of “the individual”, while presented as a universal construct, is in fact, particular – masculine. See “The Fraternal Social Contract”, in The Disorder of Women, pp. 33–57, and her Social Contract (Stanford University Press, 1988).

¹⁵ Hall, Catherine, “Private Persons versus Public Somcones: Class, Gender and Politics in England, 1780–1850”, in White, Male and Middle Class: Explorations in Feminism and History (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), p. 155Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Engels, Fricdrich, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, edited by Leacock, Eleanor Burke (New York, Monthly Review Press, 1992), p. 137Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Jagger, Alison, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld, 1983), p. 145Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Engels, Fricdrich, The Condition of the Working Class in England, translated and edited by Henderson, W.O. and Chaloner, W.H. (Stanford University Press, 1958), p. 164Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Linda Kerbcr, “Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman's Place”, p. 13. Also see the discussion of Engels byZaretsky, Eli, Capitalism, The Family, & Personal Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), pp. 90–971Google Scholar.

²⁰ For a thorough discussion of the implications of Marx's work for understanding gender relations, see Nicholson, Linda, “Feminism and Marx: Integrating Kinship with the Economic”, in Feminism as Critique1, edited by Benhabib, Seyla and Cornell, Drucilla (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), pp. 16–30Google Scholar. Also see the important essay byBenenson, Harold, “Victorian Sexual Ideology and Marx's Theory of the Working Class”, International Labor and Working Class History 25 (1983), pp. 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ Linda Nicholson, “Feminism and Marx”, p. 25. Also see the discussion by Joan Kelly, “The Doubled Vision of Feminist Theory”, in Women, History, and Theory: The Essays of Joan Kelly, pp. 54–55.

²² For a recent review of the debates among feminists on integrating Marxism and feminism in the analysts of gender and labor, see Glucksmann, Miriam, Women Assemble: Women Workers and the New Industries in Inter-War Britain (London and New York: Routledge, 1990), Chapter 1 and pp. 265–279Google Scholar. See also my Limited Livelihoods: Gender and Class in Nineteenth Century England (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992), Chapter 1. For a variety of different approaches to the issue of integrating gender and class analysis sec the essays inSargent, Lydia (ed.), Women and Revolution (Boston: South End Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

²³ Harold Benenson, “Victorian Sexual Ideology and Marx's Theory of the Working Class”, p. 18.

²⁴ For an important discussion of the formation of a masculine working class, and its relation to the embodiment of separate spheres in radical discourse, see Hall, Catherine, “The Tale of Samuel and Jemima: Gender and Working-class Culture in Nineteenth-Century England”, in E.P. Tliompson: Critical Perspectives, edited by Kaye, Harvey J. and McClelland, Keith (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990), pp. 78–102Google Scholar.

²⁵ Harold Benenson, “Victorian Sexual Ideology and Marx's Theory of the Working Class”, pp. 1–23. Also see Joan Scott's discussion of the construction of gender in the writings of nineteenth-century French political economists in “ ‘L'ouvriere! mot impie, sordide … ’ Women Workers in the Discourse of French Political Economy, 1840–1860”, in Gender and the Politics of History, pp. 137–163.

²⁶ For England, see the pathbreaking study by Davidoff, Leonore and Hall, Catherine, Family Fortunes: Man and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780–1850 (London: Hutchinson, 1987)Google Scholar. For the U.S. see Ryan, Mary, Cradle of the Middle Class; The Family in Oneida County New York, 1790–1865 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

²⁷ For an interesting analysis of changing ideas about the similarities and differences between women and me n and their relative status, see Bloch, Ruth H., “Untangling the Roots of Modern Sex Roles: A Survey of Four Centuries of Change”, Signs 4(Winter 1978), pp. 237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁸ There is an enormous literature on how gender, especially as it was worked out in Enlightenment thought, was a constitutive feature of both biology and medicine. For recent work, see as particularly good examples, Jordanova, Ludmilla, Sexual Visions: Images of Gender in Science and Medicine between the Eighteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Hemel Hempstead, Herts.: Harvester Press, 1989)Google Scholar, andWilson, Lindsay, Women and Medicine in the French Enlightenment: The Debate over Maladies des Femmes (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

²⁹ For a discussion of this point, see Collier, Jane, Rosaldo, Michelle Z. and Yanagisako, Sylvia, “Is There a Family? Ne w Anthropological Views”, in Rethinking the Family: Some Feminist Questions, edited by Thome, Barrie with Yalom, Marilyn (New York: Longman, 1982), pp. 25–39Google Scholar.

³⁰ Barbara Laslett has argued that the gendered concept of separate spheres strongly influences theories of human agency by expunging emotion. See “Gender in/and Social Science History”, Social Science History 16 (Summer 1992), pp. 177–195. Also see her “Unfeeling Knowledge: Emotion and Objectivity in the History of Sociology”, Sociological Forum 5 (1990), pp. 413–433. See Leonore Davidoff s exploration of the influence of separate spheres on the development of the social sciences in the nineteenth century: “Adam Spoke First'. Also see Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall, Family Fortunes, p. 29. For an early statement of the link between “representations of gender difference” and “scientific analyses of social and economic life”, see Fox-Gcnovcsc, Elizabeth, “Placing Women's History in History”, New Left Review 133 (05/06, 1982), pp. 5–30Google Scholar.

³¹ Landes, Joan, Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

³² Geoff Elcy, “Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures”, p. 310. For England specifically, see Catherine Hall, “Private Persons versus Public Someoncs”.

³³ Joan Landes, Women and the Public Sphere, p. 46. Also see, Scott, Joan W., “French Feminists and the Rights of ‘Man’: Olympe de Gouge's Declarations”, History Workshop 28 (Autumn 1989), pp. 1–21, esp. pp. 1–7Google Scholar.

³⁴ For an account of the construction of the notion of Republican motherhood in the United States, see Kerber, Linda K., Women of the Republic (hapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1980)Google Scholar. The American public sphere excluded black men as well as all women.

³⁵ Catherine Hall, “Private Persons versus Public Someones”, p. 152.

³⁶ See Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall, Family Fortunes, Chapter 10. For a superb account of the importance of gender and fraternalism for the construction of class formation, see Clawson, Mary Ann, Constructing Brotherhood (Princeton University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Koditschek, Theodore, Class Formation and Urban Industrial Society: Bradford, 1750–1850 (Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 252–3191Google Scholar.

³⁷ For a provocative discussion of creating a history of “the social”, see Geoff Eley, “Is All the World a Text? From Social History to the History of Society Two Decades Later”, in The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences, edited by Terence MacDonaly (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, forthcoming).

³⁸ Catherine Hall, “Private Persons versus Public Someones”, pp. 165–166. Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall, Family Fortunes, pp. 279–315.

³⁹ Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall, Family Fortunes, pp. 279–289.

⁴⁰ For the U.S. see Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Gordon, Linda, “Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women's Welfare Activism, 1890–1945”, The Journal of American History 78 (09 1991), pp. 559–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gordon, Linda (ed.), Women, the State, and Welfare (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990)Google Scholar; for England see Lewis, Jane (ed.), Women's Welfare Women's Rights (London: Croom Helm, 1983)Google Scholar; and for a comparative perspective, see Michel, Sonya and Koven, Seth, “Womanly Duties: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States, 1880–1920”, American Historical Review 95 (10 1990), pp. 1076–1108Google Scholar.

⁴¹ On the masculine language of political protest, see Alexander, Sally, “Women, Class and Sexual Difference”, History Workshop 17 (Spring 1984), pp. 125–149Google Scholar. On the notion of “property in skill”, see Hobsbawm, Eric, Worlds of Labour (London: Heinemann, 1984), p. 182Google Scholar, and Rule, John, “The Property of Skill in the Period of Manufacture”, in The Historical Meanings of Work, edited by Joyce, Patrick (Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 107–108Google Scholar.

⁴² Catherine Hall, “The Tale of Samuel and Jemima”, p. 84.

⁴³ Thompson, Dorothy, The Chartists. Popular Politics in the Industrial Revolution (New York: Pantheon, 1984)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Clark, Anna, “The Rhetoric of Chartist Domesticity: Gender, Language and Class in the 1830s and 1840s”, Journal of British Studies 31 (01 1992), pp. 62–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see, Catherine Hall, “The Tale of Samuel and Jemima”, pp. 90–94.

⁴⁵ Valverde, Marianna, “ ‘Giving the Female a Domestic Turn’: The Social, Legal and Moral Regulation of Women's Work in British Cotton Mills, 1820–1850”, Journal of Social History 21 (1988), pp. 619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Wally Seccombe argues that the norm of male breadwinning emerged from the ranks of skilled artisans. See his insightful “Patriarchy Stabilized: The Construction of the Male Breadwinner Wage Norm in Nineteenth-Century Britain”, Social History 11 (1986), pp. 53–76. Also see, Harold Benenson, “Victorian Sexual Ideology and Marx's Theory of the Working Class”.

⁴⁶ For an important exploration o f the moral claims of “mutuality” made by working-class women prior to the Chartist period, see Smith, Ruth L. and Valenze, Deborah M., “Mutuality and Marginality: Liberal Moral Theory and Working-Class Women in Nineteenth-Century England”, Signs 13 (1988), pp. 277–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For ideals of sexual equality among Owenites, see Taylor, Barbara, Eve and the New Jerusalem (New York: Pantheon, 1983)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Barbara Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, Also see Anna Clark, “Gender, Citizenship and the Making of the British Working Class”, in Gender and the Reconstruction of Working' Class History, edited by Laura Frader and Sonya O. Rose (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, forthcoming).

⁴⁸ See Limited Livelihoods, pp. 148–152. Also see McClelland, Keith, “Masculinity and the ‘Representative Artisan’ in Britain, 1850–1880”, in Manful Assertions: Masculinities in Britain since 1800, edited by Roper, Michael and Tosh, John (London: Routledge, 1991), pp. 74–91Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ The following discussion of respectable manhood, the suffrage and trade unionism is drawn fromRose, Sonya O., “Respectable Men, Disorderly Others: The Language of Gender and the Lancashire Weavers” Strike of 1878”, Gender and History, 5 (1993), pp. 382–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁰ The Reform Act stipulated that in addition to tax-paying householders, lodgers with a year of residency paying 10 pounds rent annually could vote in national elections. Because of those financial and residency requirements, only 30 percent at best of adult males in urban working-class constituencies could vote. For a discussion of the 1867 Reform Act and its role in working-class politics, see Burgess, Keith, The Challenge of Labour. Shaping British Society 1850–1930 (London: Croom Helm, 1980), pp. 34–39Google Scholar.

⁵¹ See my Limited Livelihoods, Chapter 7. Also see Joyce, Patrick, Visions of the People (Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 129–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the U.S. see Faue, Elizabeth, Community of Suffering and Struggle: Women, Men, and the Labor Movement in Minneapolis, 1915–1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), Chapter 3Google Scholar. Keith McClelland suggests that these processes significantly influenced socialist politics and ideas. See “Time to Work, Time to Live: Some Aspects of Work and the Re-formation of Class in Britain, 1850–1880”, in The Historical Meanings of Work, Joyce, Patrick, edited by (Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 180–209Google Scholar.

⁵² Women trade unionists attended TUC conventions from the mid-1870s, but the male leadership often ridiculed their concerns and arguments, especially in debates concerning hours legislation, and on the subject of female factory inspectors.

⁵³ Hobsbawm, E.J., “Man and Woman: Images on the Left”, in Worlds of Labor: Further Studies in the History of Labour (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1984), p. 94Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Sally Alexander, Anna Davin, Eve Hostettler, “Labouring Women”, p. 175.

⁵⁵ Hobsbawm, E.J., The Age of Empire, 1875–1914(London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1987), p. 141Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Harrison, Brian, “Class and Gender in Modern British Labour History”, Past and Present 124, (1989), pp. 121–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁷ On the latter point and its bearing on public policy, see Minow, Martha, Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990)Google Scholar. For a discussion of the significance for working-class history of examining masculinity, see Ava Baron, “On Looking at Men: Masculinity and Working-class History”, unpublished paper. For examples of outstanding work on the construction of working-class masculinity in the U.S. see Baron, Ava, “Questions of Gender: Deskilling and Demasculinization in theU.S. Printing Industry, 1830–1945”, Gender & History 1 (1989), pp. 178–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and in the U.K. see McClelland, Keith, “Some Thoughts on Masculinity and the ‘Representativc Artisan’ in Britain, 1850–1915”, Gender & History 1 (1989), pp. 164–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁸ Brian Harrison, “Gender and Class”, p. 126.

⁵⁹ In sociology see Feldberg, Roslyn and Glenn, Evelyn, “Male and Female: Job versus Gender Models in the Sociology of Work”, Social Problems 26 (1979), pp. 524–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ McKibbin, Ross, “Work and Hobbies in Britain, 1880–1950”, in The Ideologies of Class: Social Relations in Britain, 1880–1950 (Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 101–138Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Ross McKibbin, Ideologies of Class, p. 156. Emphasis in the original. For examples of jokes and other rituals among women workers, see Wetwood, Sally, All Day Every Day (London: Pluto Press, 1984)Google Scholar, and for women's expressions of their identities as workers in Germany see Kathleen Canning, “Gender and the Politics of Class Location”, pp. 756–757.

⁶² I am using the notion of “ideological work” as developed by Mary Poovey in Uneven Developments, pp. 2–3.

⁶³ For an early essay on women in the economy of Britain, see Richards, Eric, “Women in the British Economy Since About 1700: An Interpretation”, History 69 (1974), pp. 337–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a recent review see Honeyman, Katrina and Goodman, Jordan, “Women's Work, Gender Conflict, and Labour Markets in Europe, 1500–1900”, Economic History Review 44 (1991), pp. 608–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ For a critique of this assumption in German labor history, see Kathleen Canning, “Gender and the Politics of Class Formation”, p. 748.

⁶⁵ Whipp, Richard, “Kinship, Labour and Enterprise: The Staffordshire Pottery Industry, 1890–1920”, in Women's Work and the Family Economy in Historical Perspective, edited by Hudson, Pat and Lee, W.R. (Manchester University Press, 1990), pp. 172–203Google Scholar. Other scholars have also shown that women are not necessarily more temporary and less committed than men are. See, for example, Kathleen Canning, “Gender and the Politics of Class Formation”, p. 748;Scott, Alison, “Industrialization, Gender Segregation and Stratification Theory”, in Gender and Stratification, edited by Crompton, Rosemary and Mann, Michael (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1986), p. 158Google Scholar; Sonya O. Rose, Limited Livelihoods, p. 162.

⁶⁶ Joan W. Scott, Gender and the Politics of History, p. 75.

⁶⁷ This is an enormous literature. For an overview for the American case, see Linda Kerber, “Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman's Place”, Also see Levine, Susan, “Labors in the Field: Reviewing Women's Cultural History”, Radical History Review 35 (1986), pp. 49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁸ One approach to such questions is taken by Smith and Valenze who argue that women's use of “mutuality” as moral argument stems from their marginality. See Ruth L. Smith and Deborah M. Valenze, “Mutuality and Marginality”. Another approach would follow Joan Scott's lead, and examine the discourses that construct women's identities. See Gender and the Politics of History.

⁶⁹ See Keith McClelland, “Some Thoughts o n Masculinity and the ‘Representative Artisan’ ”, pp. 170–174; Keith McClelland, ”Time to Work, Time to Live”, pp. 206–207;Hanagan, Michael P., Nascent Proletarians: Class Formation in Post-Revolutionary France (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989)Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ On the family wage see Land, Hilary, “The Family Wage”, Feminist Review 6 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar;May, Martha, “Bread Before Roses: American Workingmen, Labor Unions and the Family Wage”, in Women Work and Protest: A Century of U.S. Women's Labor History, edited by Milkman, Ruth (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985), pp. 1–22Google Scholar;Blewett, Mary, Men, Women, and Work: Class, Gender and Protest in the New England Shoe Industry, 1780–1910 (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), pp. 121–131Google Scholar.

⁷¹ See Bornat, Joanna, “Home and Work: A New Context for Trade Union History”, Oral History 5 (1977)Google Scholar and “Lost Leaders: Women, Trade Unionism and the Case of the General Union of Textile Workers, 1875–1914”, in Unequal Opportunities: Women's Employment in England 1800–1918, edited by John, Angela (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), pp. 207–234Google Scholar. For the U.S. see Turbin, Carole, “Beyond Conventional Wisdom: Women's Wage Work, Household Economic Contribution, and Labor Activism in a Mid-Nineteenth-Century Working-Class Community”, in To Toil the Livelong Day: America's Women at Work, 1780–1980, edited by Groneman, Carol and Norton, Mary Beth (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), pp. 47–67Google Scholar.

⁷² Joan W. Scott, “On Language, Gender, and Working-Class History”, in Gender and the Politics of History, pp. 53–67, esp. 55–60.

⁷³ See Biagini, Eugenio F. and Reid, Alastair J. (eds.), Currents of Radicalism: Popular Radicalism, Organised Labour and Party Politics in Britain, 1850–1914 (Cambridge University Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Women appear only in an essay by Pat Thane.

⁷⁴ Joyce, Visions of the People, p. 135.

⁷⁵ Ibid., pp. 98–99.

⁷⁶ Ibid., p. 155.

⁷⁷ Ava Baron, “An ‘Other’ Side of Gender Antagonism”.

⁷⁸ Roediger, David R., The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (London: Verso, 1991)Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Ava Baron, “Gender and Labor History”, pp. 27–32.

⁸⁰ Dana Frank, “Gender, Consumer Organizing, and the Seattle Labor Movement, 1919–1929”, in Work Engendered, edited by Av a Baron, pp. 273–295.

⁸¹ Scott, James C., Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven Yale University Press, 1985)Google Scholar. Also see his Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts of Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).

⁸² James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak, pp. 341–345.