¹ See the programmatic statement by Conze, W., Die Strukturgeschichte des technischindustriellen Zeitalters (Cologne, 1957)Google Scholar; for the background of this view see the writings of the eminent historian of societal structures and Verfassung in late medieval times, Otto Brunner; cf. idem, Sozialgeschichte Europas im Mittelalter (Gottingen, 1978), p. 5.

² Kocka, J., Arbeitsverhältnisse und Arbeiterexistenzen. Grundlagen der Klassenbildung im19. Jahrhundert (Bonn, 1990), pp. 4, 521Google Scholar; cf. idem, Lohnarbeit und Klassenbildung. Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung in Deutschland 1800–1875 (Berlin and Bonn, 1983), pp. 24ff.; on the approach of “historical social science”, cf. idem, Sozialgeschichte, 2nd ed. (Gö;ttingen, 1986), chap. IV. Such a structural-analytical view is the predominant tendency (save for contributions on France) in the comparative volume on West Germany, France and the United States edited by Katznelson, I. and Zolberg, A. R., Working-Class Formation. Nine-teenth'Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States (Princeton, 1986)Google Scholar.

³ Kocka, Lohnarbeit, pp. 26f.

⁴ It is an open question whether justice is really done to the richness of various brands of Marxism – many by no means so “doctrinaire and certain” or rigidly one-dimensional – by assuming that only after the “Weberian” shift in perspective is there any possibility for Marxist approaches grounded in undogmatic analysis. After all, the rich range of Marxist ideas includes observations on the “unequal development” of “material and artistic production” (cf. Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie [1857/58], Frankfurt/M and Vienna, n.d. [1973], pp. 30f.) as well as the empirically dense look at French society around 1850 contained in the “Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”.

⁵ Kocka, Sozialgeschichte, pp. 29f.

⁶ For greater detail, see my introduction, “Was ist und wer treibt Alltagsgeschichte?”, in A. Lüdtke (ed.), Alltagsgeschichte. Zur Rekonstruktion historischer Erfahrungen und Lebensweisen (Frankfurt/M, 1989), esp. pp. 11–26, in English translation: Lüdtke (ed.), The History of Everyday Life, trans. W. Templer (Princeton, forthcoming).

⁷ But cf. Kocka, Lohnarbeit, p. 24.

⁸ On this linkage, cf. esp. Sider, G., Culture and Class in Anthropology and History: A Newfoundland Illustration (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 6f., 120f., 192fGoogle Scholar.

⁹ See Docekal, H., “Feministische Geschichtswissenschaft – ein unverzichtbares Projekt”, L'Homme: Zeitschrift für Feministische Geschichtswissenschaft, 1 (1990), pp. 7–18Google Scholar; Pomata, G., “Partikulargeschichte und Universalgeschichte – Bemerkungen zu einigen Handbüchern der Frauengeschichte”, L'Homme, 2 (1991), pp. 5–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ As much as women's history predominates (probably initially with good reason), more recent publications indicate that it is principally female scholars who are now taking a serious look at the theme of gender relations and masculine life, cf. Scott, J. W., Gender and the Politics of History (New York, 1988)Google Scholar, and for relevant literature in German, see Hausen, K. and Wunder, H. (eds.), Frauengeschichte – Geschlechtergeschichte (Frankfurt/M and New York, 1992)Google Scholar; conceptually stimulating, since it stresses the self-interpretations of historical subjects, is Kessler-Harris, A., “Gender Ideology in Historical Reconstruction”, Gender & History, 1 (1991), pp. 31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Nienhaus, U., Berufsstand weiblich: Die ersten weiblichen Angestellten (Berlin, 1982)Google Scholar; cf. Wierling, D., Mädchen für alles: Arbeitsalltag und Lebensgeschichte städtischer Dienstmädchen um die Jahrhundertwende (Berlin and Bonn, 1987)Google Scholar.

¹² Exemplary is Canning, K., “Class, Gender and Working-Class Politics: The Case of the German Textile Industry, 1890–1933” (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, 1988)Google Scholar; cf. Canning, K., “Gender and the Politics of Class Formation: Rethinking German Labor History”, American Historical Review, 97 (1992), pp. 736–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Knapp, U., Frauenarbeit in Deutschland, vol. 2: Hausarbeit und geschlechtsspezifischer Arbeitsmarkt im deutschen Industrialisierungsprozeβ – Frauenpolitik und proletarischer Alltag zwischen 1800 und 1933 (Munich, 1984)Google Scholar; see also the case study on the “segment” of women organized in a Social Democratic framework by Hagemann, K., Frauenalltag und Mānnerpolitik. Alltagsleben und gesellschaftliches Handeln von Arbeiterfrauen in der Weimarer Republik (Bonn, 1990)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ The following remain highly thought-providing: Bock, G., Duden, B., “Arbeit aus Liebe – Liebe als Arbeit”, Frauen und Wissenschaft (Berlin, 1976)Google Scholar; Tilly, L. and Scott, J. W., Women, Work and Family (New York, 1978)Google Scholar; Hareven, T., Family Time and Industrial Time: The Relationship between Family and Work in a New England Industrial Community (Cambridge, 1982)Google Scholar; Hausen, K., “Groβe Wäsche. Technischer Fortschritt und sozialer Wandel in Deutschland vom 18. bis ins 20. Jahrhundert”, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 13 (1987), pp. 273–303Google Scholar; Rapin, H. (ed.), Frauenforschung und Hausarbeit (Frankfurt/M and New York, 1988)Google Scholar; and more generally, Medick, H. and Sabean, D. (eds.), Interest and Emotion: Essays on the Study of Family and Kinship (Cambridge, 1984)Google Scholar; cf. also the mixture of personal recollections and careful reconstruction in Steedman, C., Landscape for a Good Woman: A Story of Two Lives (New Brunswick, 1986)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Cf. my “Hunger, Essens-‘Genuβ’ und Politik bei Fabrikarbeitern und Arbeiterfrauen. Beispiele aus dem rheinisch-westfälischen Industriegebiet, 1910–1940”, in Lüdtke, A., Eigen-Sinn. Fabrikalltag, Arbeitererfahrungen und Politik vom Kaiserreich bis in den Faschismus (Hamburg, 1993)Google Scholar; for a similar perspective with examples drawn from industrial towns in northwest Lancashire, see Roberts, E., A Woman's Place: An Oral History of Working-Class Women 1890–1940 (Oxford and New York, 1984), esp. pp. 110ffGoogle Scholar. regarding a sharp separation of roles from spaces for action; on working-class fathers, see Rosenbaum, H., Proletarische Familien. Arbeiterfamilien und Arbeiterväter im frühen 20. Jahrhundert zwisclten traditioneller, sozialdemokratischer und kleinbtlrgerliclier Orientierung (Frankfurt/M, 1992)Google Scholar, chap. 4; in her study on Social Democratic women in Hamburg, Hagemann found that comparatively little value was placed on domestic duties, cf. Frauenalltag, p. 644.

¹⁶ Daniel, U., Arbeiterfrauen in der Kriegsgesellschaft. Beruf, Familie und Politik im Ersten Weltkrieg (Göttingen, 1989), on the “counter-public sphere”, p. 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar; aspects of this topic are also dealt with in Meyer, S. and Schulz, E., “Wie wir das alles geschafft haben”. Alleinstehende Frauen berichten fiber ihr Leben nach 1945 (Munich, 1984)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ A stimulating summary of such critique can be found in Lindcnberger, Th. and Wildt, M., “Radikale Pluralität. Geschichtswerkstätten als praktische Wissenschaftskritik”, Archiv für Sozialgeschiclite, 29 (1989), pp. 393–411, esp. pp. 401ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ (London, 1963). The 1987 German edition has the somewhat misleading title Die Entstehung [i.e., genesis] der englischen Arbeiterklasse.

¹⁹ Moore, B., Injustice. The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (Boston, 1978)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Gutman, H., Work, Culture and Society in Industrializing America (New York, 1977)Google Scholar; Gutman, H., The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750–1925 (New York and London, 1976)Google Scholar; a revised version of key arguments is contained in idem, “Family Ties among Afro-Americans before and after the Emancipation of the Slaves in North America”, in Medick and Sabean, Interest and Emotion.

²¹ Perrot, M., Les ouvriers en grève. France 1871–1890, 2 vols. (Paris and The Hague, 1974)Google Scholar; for the following, ibid., vol. 2, pt. III, esp. pp. 548ff., quote p. 550.

²² Braudel, F., “Materielles Leben und wirtschaftliches Leben”, in Braudel, F., Die Dynamik des Kapitatismus (Stuttgart, 1986), pp. 11–37, here p. 16Google Scholar.

²³ Schütz, A. and Luckmann, Th., Strukturen der Lebenswelt, vol. 2 (Frankfurt/M, 1984), p.14Google Scholar. [In common speech, Erlebnis tends to denote “any event through which one has lived”, whereas Erfahntng stresses “knowledge gained from experience in that event”, or the “sum total of knowledge accumulated”. – trans, note.]

²⁴ For more detail, cf. my “Wo blieb die ‘rote Glut’? Arbeitererfahrungen und deutscher Faschismus”, A. Lüdtke, Alltagsgescliichte, pp. 224–282, esp. pp. 240–248 and now in English translation in: Lüdtke, The History of Everyday Life.

²⁵ For regions on the periphery and outside of urban industrial conglomerations, cf. Barfuss, K. M., “Gastarbeiter” in Nordwestdeutschland 1884–1918 (Bremen, 1986)Google Scholar; for the midnineteenth century, see also Gerstenberger, H. (ed.), Wanderarbeit. Armut und Zwang zum Reisen (Bremen, 1984)Google Scholar.

²⁶ On this distinction between menial and more skilled labor, highlighting the example of dockworkers and emphasizing the refractory behavior of “casual laborers”, cf. Grüttner, M., Arbeitswelt an der Wasserkante. Sozialgeschichte der Hamburger Hafenarbeiter, 1886–1914 (Göttingen, 1984), esp. pp. 85ff., 92ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ This particular aspect of the delimitation “from below” remains marginal in the detailed case study by Kocka, J., Unternehmensvenvaltung und Angestelltenschaft am Beispiel Siemens 1847–1914. Zum Verhältnis von Kapitalismus und Bürokratie in der deutschen Industrialisierung (Stuttgart, 1969)Google Scholar, chap. IV; for an international comparison, see Zunz, O., Making America Corporate 1870–1920 (Chicago, 1990)Google Scholar.

²⁸ Osterroth, N., Vom Beter zum Kämpfer, 2nd pr. (Berlin and Bonn, 1980; 1st ed.: 1920), pp. 42ff.Google Scholar; Parisius, B., Lebenswege im Revier. Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen zwischen Jahrhundertwende und Kohlenkrise (Essen, 1984), pp. 32ff. 80ff., 98, 104ff.Google Scholar; Nissen, N. R. (ed.), Menschen-Monarchen-Maschinen. Landarbeiter in Dithmarschen (Heide, 1988), pp. 31ff., cf. p. 95Google Scholar.

²⁹ Levenstein, A., Die Arbeiterfrage – mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sozialpsychologischen Seite des modernen Groβbetriebes und der psychophysischen Einwirkungen auf die Arbeiter (Munich, 1912), pp. 47ff., 53–75; cf. pp. 123ff., 187ff., 199ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Ibid., pp. 44, esp. 53ff.

³¹ On the distinction between working “at” and “with” (the aid of) machines, such as operating a crane, cf. Popitz, H. et al. , Technik und Industriearbeit, 3rd ed. (Tübingen, 1976), pp. 112ff., 128ff.Google Scholar; such distinctions on the basis of activity are far more appropriate to work experience than designations that refer to various but abstract degrees of “skill”.

³² On this orientation, as well as intra-class distinctions, see the penetrating reconstruction of work processes and more general interpretations of the way of life of coal miners, slate quarry laborers and saltworkers in Samuel, R. (ed.), Miners, Quarrymen and Saltworkers (London, 1977)Google Scholar.

³³ Levenstein, Die Arbeiterfrage, p. 107.

³⁴ Ibid., p. 227.

³⁵ On female factory workers, see T. Hareven, Family Time and esp. K. Canning, “Gender and the Politics of Class Formation”, pp. 744ff.; starting about 1908/10, an attempt was made in the German Textile Workers' Association (DTAV) either to justify more extensive protective regulations for women – or to exclude them from the functions of union leadership singling out their “special characteristics” as females, cf. ibid., pp. 762ff.; on the range of experience in factory work and the synchronisms of factory employment and housework, see Lüdtke, A. (ed.), “Mein Arbeitstag – mein Wochenende”. Arbeiterinnen berichten von ihrem Alltag 1928 (Hamburg, 1991)Google Scholar; on the array of such “glances”, ibid., p. 29.

³⁶ Eigensinn is a central term in the author's analysis of workers' everyday life, denoting willfulness, spontaneous self-will, a kind of self-affirmation, an act of (re)appropriating alienated social relations on and off the shop floor by self-assertive prankishness, demarcating a space of one's own. There is a disjunction between formalized politics and the prankish, stylized misanthropic distancing from all constraints or incentives present in the everyday politics of “ Eigensinn”. In standard parlance, the word has pejorative overtones, referring to “obstreperous, obstinate” behaviour, usually of children. The “dis-compounding” or writing it as “EigenSinn” stresses its root signification of “one's own sense, own meaning”. – Trans, note.

³⁷ Göhre, P., Drei Monate Fabrikarbeiter und Handwerksbursche. Eine praktische Studie (Leipzig, 1891)Google Scholar; Wettstein-Adelt, M., Dreieinhalb Monate als Fabrik-Arbeiterin (Berlin, 1893)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Benjamin, W., “Über den Begriff der Geschichte”, in idem, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1, pt. 2 (Frankfurt/M, 1974), pp. 691–704, here 693Google Scholar.

³⁹ Göhre, Drei Monate Fabrikarbeiter, p. 78; treated in greater detail in my “Cash, Coffee-Breaks, Horseplay: Eigensinn and Politics among Factory Workers in Germany circa 1900”, in Hanagan, M. and Stephenson, Ch. (eds.), Confrontation, Class Consciousness, and the Labor Process (New York, 1986), pp. 65–95Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ For the following, I have drawn on my article “Die Ordnung der Fabrik. ‘Sozialdisziplinierung’ und Eigensinn bei Fabrikarbeitern im spaten 19. Jahrhundert”, in Vierhaus, R. et al. (eds.), Frühe Neuzeit – frühe Moderne? (Göttingen, 1992), pp. 206–231Google Scholar, esp. 217–244. On the practice and experience of manual labor “at” and “with” (the aid of) tool machines, see my “Wo blieb die ‘rote Glut’?”, esp. pp. 240ff., 253ff.; on the so-called “internal life” of German factories, see the well-documented analysis by Machtan, L., “Zum Innenleben deutscher Fabriken im 19. Jahrhundert. Di e formelle und informelle Verfassung von Industriebetrieben, anhand von Beispielen aus dem Bereich der Textil-und Maschinenbauproduktion (1869–1891)”, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 21 (1981), pp. 179–236Google Scholar. In individual studies, the ever-recurrent “icons of industry” tend to be reproduced, i.e., heavy industry and mining – by comparison, other spheres of production and branches of industry have attracted little research to date; on the mining industry, however, note the superb studies by Brilggemeier, F.-J., Leben vor Ort. Ruhrbergleute und Ruhrbergbau, 1898–1919 (Munich, 1983)Google Scholar and Steffens, H., Autoritāt und Revolte. Alltagsleben und Streikverhalten der Bergarbeiter an der Saar im 19. Jahrhundert (Weingarten, 1987), pp. 109–164Google Scholar; cf. also Mallmann, K.-P. and Steffens, H., Lohn der Mühen. Geschichte der Bergarbeiter an der Saar (Munich, 1989)Google Scholar; and for an international comparison, see Tenfelde, K. (ed.), Sozialgeschichte des Bergbaus im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1992)Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Cf. Andersen, A. and Ott, R., “Risikoperzeption im Industrialisierungszeitalter am Beispiel des Hüttenwesens”, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 28 (1988), pp. 75–109Google Scholar; Trischler, H., “Arbeitsunfaile und Berufskrankheiten im Bergbau 1851 bis 1945. Bergbehördliche Sozialpolitik im Spannungsfeld von Sicherheit und Produktionsinteressen”, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 28 (1988), pp. 111–151Google Scholar.

⁴² Kern, H., Schumann, M., Industriearbeit und Arbeiterbewuβtsein, vol. 1 (Frankfurt/M, 1974), pp. 147ff.Google Scholar; cf. Lappe, L., “Technologie, Qualifikation und Kontrolle”, Soziale Welt 37 (1986), pp. 310–330, esp. 316ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ Bernhard, L., Die Akkordarbeit in Deutschland (Leipzig, 1903)Google Scholar; Bernays, M., Auslese und Anpassung der Arbeiterschaft der geschlossenen Groβindustrie, dargestellt an den Verhältnissen der ”Gladbacher Spinneret und Weberei” AG zu Mönchen-Gladbach im Rheinland (Leipzig, 1910), p. 189Google Scholar; Landé, D., “Arbeits-und Lohnverhältnisse in der Berliner Maschinenindustric zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts”, in Sozialpolitik, Verein für (ed.), Auslese und Anpassung der Arbeiterschaft in der Elektroindustrie, Buchdruckerei, Feinmechanik und Maschinenindustrie (Leipzig, 1910), pp. 302–498Google Scholar, here 356. Team piecework is mentioned only in passing in Freyberg, Th. v., Industrielle Rathnalisierung in der Weimarer Republik, unter-sucht an Beispielen aus dent Maschinenbau und der Elektroindustrie (Frankfurt/M and New York, 1989)Google Scholar; “group fabrication” is dealt with on pp. 152ff., but team piecework is touched on solely in connection with Siemens, where it was lauded in 1926 as highly especially useful for inducing self-control and monitoring among workers – and thus for procedures geared to maintaining a “tight production schedule”, ibid., p. 237.

⁴⁴ See my “Deutsche Qualitätsarbeit”, “Spielereien” am Arbeitsplatz und ”Fliehen aus der Fabrik”, in Boll, F. (ed.), Arbeiterkulturen zwischen Alltag und Politik (Vienna, 1986), pp. 155–197, esp. 163, 165, 178ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁵ See Göhre, Drei Monate Fabrikarbeiter, pp. 76ff. In other industrial branches of industry, such as mining, the “physicality” of factory work and life in the workplace has likewise received little attention – or has even been regarded as a quasi-taboo topic; but cf. F.-J. Brüggemeier, Leben vor Ort, pp. 138ff.; and for a more fundamental treatment of related questions, W. Kaschuba, “Volkskultur und Arbeiterkultur als symbolische Ordnungen”, in Lüdtke, Alltagsgeschichte, pp. 191–223, esp. 205ff., and in English translation: Lüdtke, The History of Everyday Life.

⁴⁶ M. Th. W. Bromme, Lebensgeschichte eines modernen Fabrikarbeiters (1905, repr. Frankfurt/M, 1971), p. 282; cf. Levenstein, Arbeiterfrage, pp. 97, 129.

⁴⁷ Regarding the stealing of tools by fellow workers, see reports contained in biographical accounts put together by the Gutehoffnungshütte mill in Oberhausen in the 1930s using interviews with retired workers, cf. Haniel Archive, GHH 40016/9 and my “Cash, Coffee-Breaks, Horseplay”, p. 82. By contrast, the widespread practice of “ripping stuff off”, apparently regarded by Hamburg dockworkers as a legitimate form of compensatory (re-)appropriation, was not directed against one's “own people”, cf. Grüttner, M., “Unterklassenkriminalitāt in Hamburg. Güterberaubungen im Hamburger Hafen, 1888–1923”, in Reif, H. (ed.), Räuber, Volk und Obrigkeit. Studien zur Geschichte der Krimmalität in Deutschland seit dem 18. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt/M, 1984), pp. 153–184Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ The increasingly detailed formulations of factory conduct codes over the years indicate that precisely in this area, there was an effort to stiffen regulations; for a more thorough treatment, see my “Die Ordnung der Fabrik”, in Vierhaus, Frühe Neuzeit – frühe Modeme?, pp. 206–231, esp. 223, fn. 45.

⁴⁹ This corresponds to the particular form of “self-representation” that Luisa Passerini has examined among Turin industrial workers in the 1920s and '30s as a widespread alternative to an attitude aimed at changing society as a whole and oriented toward the level of state politics, cf. Passerini, , Fascism in Popular Memory. The Cultural Experience of the Turin Working Class (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 22f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “ On self-representation…is characterised by irreverence, thanks to the ability to be detached from the existing order of things and even from oneself, and to reflect critically on, and laugh at, the current state of the world [emphasis mine, A. L.]. It is an approach that turns the world on its head.… But it is acting nonetheless…we have promises, symbols, and stimulus to action, not real and lasting transformation of power relations”.

⁵⁰ Cf. Lüdtke, ‘Deutsche Qualitatsärbeit’”, pp. 190ff. There is likewise no parallel here to the suggestion by M. Seidman that the numerous forms of hidden and inconspicuous appropriations or evasive action, ranging from factory sabotage to refusal to work or restraint on the job, should be interpreted as proof for the existence of a fundamental orientation of “workers against work”. Seidman overlooks the variety of concrete modes of behavior and the various forms of independent interpretation of factory work and serial production. Yet see idem, Workers against Work: Labor in Paris and Barcelona During the Popular Fronts (Berkeley, 1991), pp. 170, 188, 231ff., 313ff. Expressive forms of physicality underwent change outside the factory workplace, especially in connection with mass sports – not just for the participating athletes, but for the spectators (overwhelmingly male) as well, see Lindner, R., “Die Sportbegeisterung”, in Jeggle, U. et al. (eds.), Volkskultur in der Moderne (Reinbek, 1986), pp. 249–259, esp. 252Google Scholar.

⁵¹ But note the references to folktale traditions in which the wish is that “refractory” children might die rather than be so “doggedly obstinate”, cf. Negt, O. and Kluge, A., Geschichte und Eigensinn (Frankfurt/M, 1981), pp. 765ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵² Cf. Sulzer, L., Versuch von der Eniehung und Untenveisung der Kinder (Göttingen, 1748)Google Scholar, cited in Rutschky, K., Schwarze Pädagogik (Frankfurt/M, 1968), pp. 25ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ Stanitzek, G., “Blödigkeit”. Beschreibungen des Individuums im 18. Jahrhundert (Tübingen, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁴ Chr. Garve, “Über den Charakter der schlesischen Bauern und ihre Haltung gegen die Regierung (1786/96)”, in K. Wölfel (ed.), Garve, Chr., Popularphilosophische Schriften, vol. 2 (Stuttgart, 1974), pp. 799–1026, here p. 859fGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁵ On manual trades, see Wissell, R., Des Alten Handwerks Recht und Gewohnheit, 2nd. rev. ed., 6 vols (Berlin, 1971–1988)Google Scholar; Grieβinger, A., Das symbolische Kapital der Ehre (Frankfurt/M, 1982)Google Scholar; cf. Darnton, R., “Workers Revolt: The Great Cat Massacre of the Rue Saint Severin”, in Darnton, R., The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes of French Cultural History (London, 1984), pp. 75–104Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ J. Peters generally agrees to this framework, see his “Eigensinn und Widerstand im Alltag. Abwehrverhalten ostelbischer Bauern unter Refeudalisierungsdruck”, Jahrbuch für Wirt-schaftsgeschkhte, 1991/11, pp. 85–103; at the same time, however, he convincingly shows the balanced importance of “action and devotion” in peasant behavior in reconstructing the everyday life of estate-dependent peasants in Brandenburg in the eighteenth century. In the light of this description, the existence side-by-side – and the often smooth interchange – of careful calculation on the one hand, and lack of planning, on the other, becomes quite plausible.

⁵⁷ In this connection, see the characterization of individually “unobtrusive”, frequently subdued or even taciturn forms of confronting intrusions and attempts at control originating “from above” in Scott, J., Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven and London, 1990), esp. pp. 183ffGoogle Scholar. Scott views symbolic actions as being closely intertwined with practices of refusal or appropriation. Explosive outbursts – at celebrations, for example – do not impede individual actions, but rather serve to pave the road for them. Such activity includes the avoidance of tax demands, the forbidden planting of a small plot of rubber trees, ignoring various rules and regulations, and illegal consumption, ranging from the theft of food for one's own personal needs to the stealing of small amounts of the harvest. In his analysis, a decisive aspect is that these “hidden-unobtrusive” interpretations and practices do not function as a “safety valve” for releasing pent-up pressure against economic or authority-related constraints and compulsion (though I think the practices are seen here too much as a product of the contraints!). Rather, he postulates the operation of a kind of “infrapolitics”. In Scott's view, it does not supplant resistance or resistiveness, but functions rather as a necessary precondition for it. Scott's analysts is largely based on ethnological research in rural Malaysia. On English farm workers in the twentieth century and their brand of Eigensinn, recognizable in modes of “deference”, cf. Newby, H., The Deferential Worker. A Study of Farm Workers in East Anglia (Harmondsworth, 1977)Google Scholar. Strategies of popular resistance, evasions, ruses and “ ways of using imposed systems” in popular culture, an “ethics of tenacity (countless ways of refusing to accord the established order the status of a law, a meaning or a fatality)” are intriguingly explored in de Certeau, M., The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley, 1984, quotes pp. 18,26.)Google Scholar. See also Fiske, J., Understanding Popular Culture (London, 1989), pp.3211Google Scholar. On the synchronidty of evasion, participation and an inconspicuous process of repeated withdrawal, manifested in the case of a “middle-class child” growing up in the era of German fascism, see Brückner, P., Das Abseits als sicherer Ort. Kindheit und Jugend zwischen 1933 und 1945 (Berlin, 1980)Google Scholar. On the multiply layered dimensions of fields of force and power strategies, see the very thought-provoking study by Sofsky, W. and Paris, R., Figurationen sozialer Macht (Opladen, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁸ Bromme, Lebensgeschichte, pp. 259f.

⁵⁹ On self-control, self-constraint, the psychological instruments of self-compulsion and their formation within a kind of “counter-move” against the monopolization of violence by the state, see Elias, N., Ober den Prozeβ der Zivilisation (1937), vol. 2, 2nd ed. (Munich and Zurich, 1969), pp. 316ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ See the detailed discussion of this, with numerous examples culled from speeches and the Social Democratic press, in Warneken, B. J., “‘Die friedliche Gewalt des Volkswillens’. Muster und Deutungsmuster von Demonstrationen im Deutschen Kaiserreich”, in Warneken, B. J. (ed.), Massenmedium Straβe. Zur Kulturgeschichte der Demonstrationen (Frankfurt/M and New York, 1991), pp. 97–119Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Schirmbeck, P., comp., Vom Beginn der Industrialisierung bis 1945, 2nd pr. (Rüsselsheim, 1981), p. 36Google Scholar; on the variant of “recreation”, see the 1894 example in: Mühlberg, D. (ed.), Proletariat. Kultur und Lebensweise im 19. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1986), p. 262Google Scholar.

⁶² Kocka, Lohnarbeit, pp. 15f.; Kocka, “Sozialgeschichte zwischen Struktur und Erfahrung. Die Herausforderung der Alltagsgeschichte”, in Kocka, J., Geschichte und Aufklärung (Göttingen, 1989), pp. 29–44, here 42ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶³ Kocka, Sozialgeschichte, pp., 135ff., 171; Kocka, “Probleme einer europäischen Geschichte in komparativer Sicht”, in Kocka, Geschichte und Aufklärung, pp. 21–28, here 25; Kocka, “Sozialgeschichte zwischen Struktur und Erfahrung”, ibid., here pp. 42ff. For an international comparison of societal configurations, see Moore, B., The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (Boston, 1966)Google Scholar. The usual type of comparative investigation is characterized by questions regarding similarities and differences between individual features or specific social segments and/or forms of perception and action, cf. the penetrating studies by Steinisch, I., Arbeitszeitverkürzung und sozialer Wandel. Der Kampf um die Achtstundenschicht in der deutschen und amerikanischen Eisen-und Stahlindustrie 1880–1929 (Berlin and New York, 1986)Google Scholar and Boll, F., Arbeitskämpfe und Gewerkschaften in Deutschland, England und Frankreich. Ihre Entwicklung vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert (Bonn, 1992)Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Cf. also the example of Düsseldorf: local and immigrant industrial workers supported the Catholic workers' organizations, but many of those with upgraded skills joined the ranks of Social Democracy, cf. Nolan, M., Social Democracy and Society: Working-Class Radicalism in Düsseldorf 1890–1920 (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 42ff., 113ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁵ In this connection, see the large-scale project “Lebensgeschichte und Sozialkultur im Ruhrgebiet 1930–1960”, including various published studies: Niethammer, L. (ed.), “Die Jahre weiβ man nicht, wo man die heute hinsetzen soil”. Faschismuserfahrungen im Ruhrgebiet 1930–1960 (Berlin and Bonn, 1983)Google Scholar; Niethammer, L. (ed.)., “Hinterher merkt man, daβ es richtig war, daβ es schiefgegangen ist” (Berlin and Bonn, 1983)Google Scholar; Niethammer, L. and Plato, A. v. (eds.), “Wir kriegen jetzt andere Zeiten” (Berlin and Bonn, 1985)Google Scholar; see also F. J. Henne, “A German Path to Fordism: The Socio-Economic Transformation of a Region: The Bergische Land and the Sauerland, 1930–1960” (Ph.D., University of Chicago, in progress).

⁶⁶ Lepsius, M. R., “Parteiensystem und Sozialstruktur: zum Problem der Demokratisierung der Gesellschaft”, in Abel, W. et al. (eds.), Wirtschaft, Geschichte und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Festschrift far F. Lütge (Stuttgart, 1966), pp. 371–393, here 383ff.Google Scholar; on “fuzziness” in respect to “camps” and “milieus” and/or their synchronism, see A. v. Plato, “‘Ich bin mit alien gut ausgekommen’. Oder: war die Ruhrarbeiterschaft vor 1933 in politische Lager gespalten?”, in Niethammer, ‘ Die Jahre weiβ man nicht…”, pp. 31–65, esp. 60ff.

⁶⁷ Cf. Parisius, B., Lebenswege im Revier, Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen zwischen Jahrhundertwende und Kohlenkrise – erzählt von Frauen und Männern aus Borbeck (Essen, 1984)Google Scholar; E. Roberts' work remains highly provocative regarding neighborhood, since his approach rejects romanticization, see Roberts, A Woman's Place, pp. 189ff. There have been few attempts to date to examine the public spheres of “free” or commercial amusement (in contrast to conviviality in voluntary associations), but note the bulk of contributions in Kift, D. (ed.), Kirmes – Kneipe – Kino. Arbeiterkultur im Ruhrgebiet zwischen Kommerz und Kontrolle (1850–1904) (Paderborn, 1992)Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Note the references by Boll, H., “Verlust vergleichender Deutungsfähigkeit? Bemerkungen zu einigen Neuerscheinungen komparativer Sozial- und Arbeiterbewegungsgeschichte”, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 28 (1988), pp. 426–459Google Scholar. Lenger, F., “Beyond Exceptionalism: Notes on the Artisanal Phase of the Labour Movement in France, England, Germany and the United States”, International Review of Social History, 36 (1992), pp. 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar provides an example of a comprehensive panorama, including both sociostructural and cultural elements, though with reference to the level of societal comparisons of “class formation” (moreover, there is no intention to discuss the conceptual or theoretical nature of comparison as a method).

⁶⁹ Devereux, Georges, Angst und Methode in den Verhaltenswissenschaften (Munich, 1973)Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ This also applies to Pierre Bourdieu's suggestion (which has enjoyed a considerable support echo) that specific “forms of habitus” – i.e., a “subjective, though not individual system of internalized structures, shared schemata of perception, thinking and action” be assumed as a “precondition for every…perception” – based on the assumption that “everything has already been mediated”, cf. Bourdieu, P., Sozialer Sinn. Kritik der theoretischen Vernunft (Frankfurt/M, 1987 [French 1980]), p. 112Google Scholar. See likewise Bourdieu's emphatic (though systematically unelaborated) comment that habitus is “caught up in a process of incessant transformation”, idem, “Antworten auf einige Einwände”, in Eder, K. (ed.), Klassenlage, Lebensstil und kulturelle Praxis. Theoretische und empirische Beitrage zur Auseinandersetzung mit Pierre Bourdieus Klassentheorie (Frankfurt/M, 1989), pp. 395–410, esp. 406 fGoogle Scholar.

⁷¹ Cf. relevant suggestions by Foucault, Michel, for example in his Sexualität und Wahrheit, vol. 1 (Frankfurt/M, 1977 [Paris, 1976]), esp. pp. 113ff.Google Scholar; references to the “ubiquitous presence of power” do not presuppose a general context embracing all social levels, strategies and tactics; rather, in the discourse of sexuality, power and knowledge are considered “discontinuous segments”, ibid., p. 122. On ruptures in the continuities, see also , Foucault's fulminating sketch Vom Licht des Krieges zur Geburt der Geschichte (Berlin, 1976 [recorded Paris, 1976, no French or English edition])Google Scholar.

⁷² On the philosophical debate, cf. Hrachovec, H., Vermessen. Studien über Subjektivität (Frankfurt/M, 1989)Google Scholar; Meyer-Drawe, K., Illusionen von Autonomie. Diesseits von Ohnmacht undAllmacht des Ich (Munich, 1990)Google Scholar; the volume by Carrithers, M., Collins, S. and Lukes, S. (eds.), The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History (Cambridge, 1985)Google Scholar revolves around the notion that there are universal connections to a “self” in all socially and culturally specific refractions, and that “individualistic” formulations appear to regulate all “Western” critique of the subject; cf. also Lutz, C. A. and Abu-Lughod, L. (eds.), Language and the Politics of Emotion (Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar.

⁷³ In this connection, cf. the broad longitudinal investigation of literary, natural-scientific and engineering conceptions and ideas o f industrial labor and their gradual elaboration into the notion of “German work” by Campbell, J., Joy in Work, German Work: Vie National Debate, 1800–1945 (Princeton, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁴ The prerequisite for this are studies on spatially and socially delimited configurations of work and non-work, population, family and relatives, public spheres and realms of privacy, cf., for example, Berlanstein, L. R., The Working People of Paris, 1871–1914 (Baltimore and London, 1984)Google Scholar or Sewell, W. H. Jr, “Uneven Development, the Autonomy of Politics, and the Dockworkers of Nineteenth-Century Marseille”, American Historical Review, 93 (1988), pp. 604–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Another special comparative perspective focusing on secular processes (in particular within a global context) is richly suggestive, namely Michael Mann's magisterial studies of power. Mann argues that societies consist of numerous overlapping social and spatial power networks that lay siege, so to speak, one to one another. Consequently, society cannot be conceptualized as a monolayered entity clearly and unambiguously fixed and defined by external boundaries. There are no sharply separable subsystems or dimensions. It is likewise impossible to proceed from clearly defined ascriptions or defining and justifying relations (in the sense of a source of “final authority”). If the claim of totality is empty and hollow, it is also incorrect to postulate that social structures are antecedent to action by persons or groups. Mann's main stress is directed against the supposition of any homogeneity of ”intra-social” relations; such a homogeneity is conjured up, however, in speaking about ”society” as such. Cf. Mann, M., The Sources of Social Power vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. chap. 1, “Societies as organized power networks”, pp. 1–33.

⁷⁵ Göhre, Drei Monate, pp. 157ff., esp. 176, 180, 190.

⁷⁶ On the concepts, though not their scope and range in social and everyday practical contexts, cf. Hölscher, L., Weltgericht oder Revolution. Protestantische und sozialistische Zukunftsvorstellungen im deutschen Kaiserreich (Stuttgart, 1989)Google Scholar; on the distribution and intensity of magical practices specifically in working-class circles, cf. the first-hand report by a Protestant minister who ministered t o a parish in , Magdeburg, Huschenbett: Volksaberglaube. Ein Bericht aus der Gegenwart nebst Beurteilung (Magdeburg, 1925)Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Spohn, W., “Religion and Working-Class Formation in Imperial Germany 1871–1914”, Politics and Society, 19 (1991), pp. 109–32, esp. 111ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁸ Noltenius, R. (ed.), Alltag, Traum und Utopic Lesegeschichten – Lebensgeschichten (Essen, 1988), pp. 34–43Google Scholar; cf. Parisius, Lebenswege, pp. 92ff.

⁷⁹ D. v. Liliencron's poem “Die Musik kommt” does not express jubilation, but is rather the consciously ironic description of a familiar street scene with youthful marching soldiers and pretty girls looking on curiously; cf. Liliencron, D. v., “Die Musik kommt”, in Reiners, L. (ed.), Der ewige Brunnen. Ein Hausbuch deutscher Dichtung (Munich, 1955), pp. 474f.Google Scholar, freely trans, here by W. Templer.

⁸⁰ Differences between regional “workers’ cultures” and associated differential compliance with authority are underlined by Cattaruzza, M., “Das Kaiserbild in der Arbeiterschaft am Beispiel der Werftarbeiter in Hamburg und Stettin”, in Röhl, J. C. G. (ed.), Der Ort Kaiser Wilhelms II in der deutschen Geschichte (Munich, 1991), pp. 131–144Google Scholar; on the one hand, she stresses the more pronounced corporative conceptions prevalent among workers in Stettin, but on the other points to a fundamental acceptance of the monarchy and the emperor among Hamburg workers as well (the latter staged far more strikes). Over the years, their “attitude toward the state remained reserved, but was not hostile”, ibid., p. 140; cf. also Evans, R. J. (ed.), Kneipengespräche itn Kaiserreich. Stimmungsberichte der Hamburger Politischen Polizei, 1892–1914 (Reinbek, 1989), pp. 322ffGoogle Scholar. In contrast, A. v. Saldern stresses the mixed attitude present at the grass-roots level in Göttingen, consisting of a strong rejection of and disinterest in the (national) “state”. It is significant, however, that the topics dealt with in the local party association always concerned matters “at a far remove” from the locality itself, and thus had no direct connection with local concrete realities, idem, Auf dem Wege zum Arbeiter-Reformismus. Parteialltag in sozialdemokratischer Provinz, Göttingen 1870–1920 (Frankfurt/M, 1984), pp. 63ff.

⁸¹ Winnig, August, Der weite Weg (Hamburg, 1932), pp. 70fGoogle Scholar.

⁸² For varieties of Catholic organizing, cf. Mooser, J., “Volk, Arbeiter und Bürger in der katholischen Öffentlichkeit des Kaiserreichs. Zur Sozial-und Funktionsgeschichte der deutschen Katholikentage, 1871–1913,” in Puhle, H.-J. (ed.), Bürger in der Gesellschaft der Neuzeit (Göttingen, 1991), pp. 259–273Google Scholar, here pp. 266ff.; see also the apparently self-explanatory adoption of the pose and conduct of the soldier from the World War in the “Red Ruhr Army”; on self-representation, cf. Marchwitza, H., Sturm auf Essen (Berlin, 1930)Google Scholar. On Social Democracy in the 1920s, see Hauk, G., “‘Armeekorps auf dem Wege zur Sonne’. Einige Bemerkungen zur kulturellen Selbstdarstellung der Arbeiterbewegung,” in Petzina, D. (ed.), Fahnen, Fäuste, Körper, (Essen, 1986), pp. 69–89Google Scholar. Details indicate the extent to which the military habitus provided the yardstick: note, for example, the (printed) “Kommando-Kunde, für den Gau Oberbayern-Schwaben des Reichsbanners Schwarz-Rot- Gold” (Munich, 1931), p. 1: “The leadership must be in a position to direct the organization as if it were an individual man … ”; at the same time, the “exercises [should not be allowed] to degenerate into dull and dreary military drills“ (p. 2) – a warning that only makes sense viewed in connection with the fact that such “drills” often were precisely that: a kind of military exercise; Bundesarchiv Koblenz, NS 26/800. Usually ignored are, however, the ways in which women reacted to this, and how they often dealt with “military airs and graces” privately and in public, ranging from love affairs between soldiers and servant girls to the sending of small gifts, “tokens of love”, to men at the front.

⁸³ Kluge, A., “Das Politische als Intensitätsgrad alltäglicher Gefühle,” Freibeuter, 1 (1979), pp. 56–62Google Scholar, here 61; cf. Kluge, A. and Negt, O., Maβverhältnisse des Politischen (Frankfurt/M, 1992), pp. 91ff.Google Scholar; what is involved here is not a “fixation on any individual experiencing of pleasure and individual death” – a view which Thanos Lipowatz criticizes in his thought-provoking analysis of subjectivity focusing on Lacan (and Freud), see Lipowatz, T., Die Verleugnung des Politischen. Die Ethik des Symbolischen bet Jacques Lacan (Weinheim and Berlin, 1986), above quote, p. 240Google Scholar. To be sure, Carl Schmitt has employed the notion of the “ultimate intensity of connectedness or separateness” in his writings about “the Political”; see Schmitt, C., Der Begriff des Politischen (Munich and Leipzig, 1932), p. 14Google Scholar. In contrast to the point made here, however, he argues that this “connectedness or separateness” is totally distinct from moral or aesthetical (or other) domains and judgements.

⁸⁴ Weber, M., “Politik als Beruf” (1919), in Weber, M., Gesammelte Politische Schriften (Tübingen, 1958), pp. 493–548Google Scholar, here 494; on the spectrum of diverse conceptions of what is politics, cf. for example, Berg-Schlosser, D. and Stammen, Th., Einführung in die Politikwissenschaft, 5th ed. (Munich, 1992), pp. 22ffGoogle Scholar. Th. Lipowatz develops an especially intriguing analysis in Die Verleugnung des Politischen, arguing passionately for a distinction between “public” and “private” spheres. In classical political theory, this opposition was developed on the basis of the “law” (p. 196, see also pp. 172ff.) and facilitates that postulation of the subject not being identical with itself that the author supports (p. 18). However, he proceeds on the assumption that in attempts to overcome the separation between those spheres, the dimension of “the social” was hypothesized to be all-encompassing or all-penetrating. As I see it, that does not affect Negt/Kluge or this attempt cither, because the basic supposition here is that there is an insoluble difference between what is individual and what is “social” (despite all the tensely charged relations, including gaps and ruptures).

⁸⁵ The term used here has been stimulated by ideas elaborated by Theodore J. Lowi; in a seminal article, he distinguished several types of constellations of interest and political activity, postulating three political “arenas”: “distributive”, “regulatory” and “redistributive”, cf. idem, “Decision-Making vs. Policy-Making”, Public Administration Review, 30 (1970), pp. 314–25.

⁸⁶ Note in this regard the substantial contribution o f Foucault's theses, persistently ignored in previous historical analyses, on the “ubiquitousness of power” qua relation, not as a thing or “possession” (though these latter are utilized by individuals or groups in interactions and situations – a point which Foucault fails adequately t o acknowledge), cf. idem, Sexualität und Wahrheit, vol. 1, pp. 113ff.; also useful t o examine in this connection is Foucault's thinking about the forms of “self-affirmation” mediated via perception or respect for the body, ibid., pp. 147ff.

⁸⁷ Reddy, W. M., “Entschlüsseln von Lohnforderungen: Der Tarif und der Lebenszyklus in den Leinenfabriken von Armentières (1889–1904),” in Berdahl, R. et al. , Klassen und Kultur (Frankfurt/M, 1982), pp. 77–107Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ On the SPD and the associated Free Unions up to 1914, cf. Ritter, G. A., “Die Sozialdemokratie im Deutschen Kaiserreich in sozialgeschichtlicher Perspektive”, Historische Zeitschrift, 249 (1989), pp. 295–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem (ed.), Der Aufstieg der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung. Sozialdetnokratie und Freie Gewerkschaften im Parteiensystetn und Sozialmilieu des Kaiserreichs (Munich, 1990); on a Bavarian case deviating from the customary type of large northern German urban conglomeration, see Pohl, K. H., Die Münchner Arbeiterbewegung. Sozialdemokratische Partei, Freie Gewerkschaften, Staat und Gesellscliaft in München 1890–1915 (Munich, 1992)Google Scholar; in his The Alternative Culture: Socialist Labor in Imperial Germany (Oxford and New York, 1985), V. Lidtke examines “alternative” orientations in the cultural practices of the Social Democratic workers' movement; a highly convincing combination of reconstruction of ways of living and political organizing is presented in Maderthaner, W. (ed.), Sozialdemokratie und Habsburgstaat (Vienna, 1988)Google Scholar. Two instructive local monographs that consider work with persons seeking assistance (in the offices of the workers' organizations and trade unions) and relations between the organizations, exploring the local limits to “revolutionary” programmes (in Frankfurt and Cologne): Roth, R., Gewerkschaftskartell und Sozialpolitik in Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt/M, 1991)Google Scholar and Faust, M., Sozialer Burgfrieden im Ersten Weltkrieg. Sozialistische und christliche Arbeiterbewegung in Köln (Essen, 1992)Google Scholar. The literature on developments after 1918 is disparate and uneven; some brief references to studies containing further bibliography should suffice, though it must be mentioned that the various oppositional groupings and splinter factions are given only marginal consideration. For the SPD, see Winkler, H. A., Von der Revolution zur Stabilisierung. Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung in der Weimarer Republik 1918–1924 (Berlin and Bonn, 1984)Google Scholar; idem, Der Schein der Normalität. Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung in der Weimarer Republik 1924–1930 (Berlin and Bonn, 1985); Winkler, H. A., Der Weg in die Katastrophe. Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung in der Weimarer Republik 1930–1933 (Berlin and Bonn, 1987)Google Scholar; for the KPD, Koch-Baumgarten, S., Aufstand der Avantgarde. Die Märzaktion der KPD 1921 (Frankfurt/M and New York, 1986)Google Scholar; Weber, H., Die Wandlung des deutschen Kommunismus (Frankfurt/M, 1969)Google Scholar; for the Christian organizations, see Schneider, M., Die Christlichen Gewerkschaften, 1894–1933 (Bonn, 1982)Google Scholar; Krenn, D.-M., Die Christliche Arbeiterbewegung in Bayern vom Ersten Weltkrieg bis 1933 (Mainz, 1991)Google Scholar; on the Catholic Zentrum party, cf. Evans, E. L., The German Center Party 1870–1933 (Carbondate, 1981)Google Scholar; for the “Yellows” to 1914, see Mattheier, K., Die Gelben (Düsseldorf, 1973)Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ In this connection, there is a highly illuminating comparison between the local SPD organizations in Braunschweig and Hannover and their “political styles” during the World War and down to about 1920 in Boll, F., Massenbewegungen in Niedersachsen 1906–1920 (Bonn, 1981), esp. pp. 196ff., 251ff, 313ffGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁰ Reports from the social arbitration courts before 1914 are informative, though limited to individual cases, see Wissell, R., Aus meinen Lebensjahren (Berlin, 1983)Google Scholar; see also Borsdorf, U., Hans Böckler. Arbeit und Leben eines Gewerkschafters von 1875 bis 1945 (Cologne, 1982)Google Scholar; for a more general conspectus, see Ritter, G. A., Sozialversicherung in Deutschland und England. Entstehung und Gnindzüge im Vergleich (Munich, 1983), pp. 62–75Google Scholar and Frevert, U., Krankheit als politisches Problem, 1780–1880. Soziale Unterschichten in Preufien zwischen medizinischer Polizei und staatlicher Sozialversicherung (Göttingen, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the official position and the struggle of interests at the level of the central government regarding the further development of protective measures in social policy, cf. von Berlepsch, H.-J., “Neuer Kurs” im Kaiserreich? Die Arbeiterpolitik des Freiherm von Berlepsch 1890 bis 1896 (Bonn, 1987)Google Scholar; on state strategies for control, the best source is still Saul, Klaus, Staat, Industrie, Arbeiterbewegung im Kaiserreich. Zur Innen- und Sozialpolitik des Wilhelminischen Deutschland 1903–1914 (Düsseldorf, 1974)Google Scholar.

⁹¹ On such union bureaucrats viewed from the perspective of a contemporary observer, see Michels, R., Zur Soziologie des modemen Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie. Untersuchungen über die oligarchischen Tendenzen des Gruppenlebens ([1911/1925], Stuttgart, 1958)Google Scholar; cf. now esp. Brunner, D., Bürokratie und Politik des Allgemeinen Deutschen Gewerkschaftsbundes 1918/19 bis 1933 (Cologne, 1992)Google Scholar.

⁹² Cf. the measures on “Improving Efficiency in Industrial Production” which the Reich Minister for Armaments and Munition, Albert Speer, tried to impose in February 1942, particularly in the area of machine manufacture, see Historisches Archiv Krupp WA 41/5 56 and the “empirical reports” later published as a ”confidential memo”: Maschinen, Hauptausschuβ (ed.), Flieβende Fertigung in deutschen Maschinenfabriken (Essen, 1943)Google Scholar.

⁹³ In connection with the quite different English context, see the debate in recent years on “rank and fileism” – i.e., whether conflicts between union functionaries and “simple” members should be seen as the crucial issue in labor and working-class history, or whether it is more productive to view these conflicts in the context o f “industrial relations”, increasingly influenced and regulated by the state; cf. the debate between Price, R., “‘What's in a Name?’ Workplace History and ‘Rank and Filism,’” International Review of Social History, 34 (1989), pp. 62–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J. Cronin, “The ‘Rank and File’ and the Social History of the Working Class”, ibid., pp. 78–88 and J. Zeitlin, “‘Rank and Filism’ and Labor History: A Rejoinder to Price and Cronin”, ibid., pp. 89–102.

⁹⁴ Textilarbeiter-Verband, Deutscher (ed.), Aus dem Tagebuch eines Betriebsrates (Berlin, 1925)Google Scholar; quotes ibid., pp. 3, 6, 8 f. I am grateful to Volker Jäger, Leipzig, for this reference.

⁹⁵ See my “Deutsche QualitStsarbeit”, “Spielereien”, pp. 188ff.; on the following, also cf. my “‘Ehre der Arbeit’: Industriearbeiter und Macht der Symbole. Zur Reichweite symbolischer Orientierungen im Nationalsozialismus”, in Lüdtke, A., Eigensinn. Fabrikalltag, Arbeitererfahrungen und Politik (Hamburg, 1993)Google Scholar (a shorter version in English translation as “The ‘Dignity of Labour’. Industrial Workers and the Power of Symbols under National Socialism”, in D. Crew (ed.), Recent Developments in German Social History (forthcoming). Re the “long wave” of industrial paternalism, see also the material in Gorges, K.-H., Der christlich geführte Industriebetrieb im 19. Jahrhundert und das Modell Villeroy & Boch (Stuttgart, 1989)Google Scholar; on the problematic more generally and for a French “case”, cf. Noiriel, G., “Du ‘patronage’ au ‘paternalisme’: la restructuration des formes de domination de la maind'oeuvre ouvrière dans I'industrie metallurgique francaise”, Mouvement social, No. 144 (1988), pp. 17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁶ In greater detail in Frese, M., Betriebspolitik im “Dritten Reich”. Deutsche Arbeitsfront, Unternehmer und Staatsbürokratie in der westdeutschen Groβindustrie 1933–1939 (Paderbora, 1991)Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ See especially. Schäfer, H., “Arbeitsverdienst im Lebenszyklus. Zur Einkommensmobilität von Arbeitern”, Arcltiv filr Sozialgeschichte, 21 (1981), pp. 237–267Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ On the patterns of interpretation of the war generation, see Junger, E., In Stahlgewittern ([1920], 32nd pr. Stuttgart, 1990)Google Scholar and Theweleit, K., Männerphantasien (Frankfurt/M, 1977)Google Scholar; an alternative view is presented in Toller, E., Eine Jugend in Deutschland ([1933], Munich, 1978)Google Scholar, (= Gesanwtelte Werke, vol. IV). For a psychoanalytic approach to the generational experience of those born in 1906–1910, see Loewenberg, P., “The Psychohistorical Origins of the Nazi Youth Cohort”, American Historical Review, 76 (1971), pp. 1457–1502CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; an examination of prewar, wartime and postwar generations in the context of World War II can be found in Deppe, W., Drei Generationen Arbeiterleben. Eine sozio-biographische Darstellung (Frankfurt/M and New York, 1982)Google Scholar. The narrative construction of “family” in family narratives is thematized in an exploratory study by Vesper, I. and Weber, A., Familien-Geschichten. Mündliche Übertieferung von Zeitgeschichte in Familien (Hamburg, 1991)Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ This experience of rupture is also reflected in the notion that a new type of man – i.e., the amalgam of frontline soldier and (industrial-skilled) worker – could remedy the supposed evils of the bourgeois age, cf. Jünger, E., Der Arbeiter ([1932], Stuttgart, 1985)Google Scholar; on Jünger's totalistic (and thus “metapolitically” oriented) conception of “work” as the aesthetic linking of performance and pleasure, see the penetrating study by Segeberg, H., “Krieg als Arbeit – Ernst Jünger und der Erste Weltkrieg”, in Segeberg, H. (ed.), Vom Wert der Arbeit. Zur literarischen Konstitution des Wertkomplexes “Arbeit” in der deutschen Literatur (1770–1930) (Tübingen, 1986), pp. 335–378Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Cf. U. Herbert, “Zur Entwicklung der Ruhrarbeiterschaft 1930 bis 1960 aus erfahrungsgeschichtlicher Perspektive,” in L. Niethammer and A. v. Plato, ‘ Wir kriegen jetzt andere Zeiten', pp. 19–52, here p. 22f.

¹⁰¹ Wickham, J., “Working-Class Movement and Working-Class Life: Frankfurt am Main during the Weimar Republic”, Social History, 8 (1983), pp. 315–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on the popular mass culture of the 1920s, see A. v. Saldern, “Arbeiterkulturbewegung in Deutschland in der Zwischenkriegszeit”, in Boll, Arbeiterkutturen, pp. 29–70, esp. 59ff.; on gender-specific aspects, cf. Saldern, A. v., “Cultural Conflicts, Popular Mass Culture, and the Question of Nazi Success: The Eilenriede Motorcycle Races, 1924–39”, German Studies Review, 15 (1992), pp. 317–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Studies of generational conflicts among workers have tended to presuppose a “previous” unanimity of outlook and sense of collectivity. In such a view, the success of the political propaganda and practice of National Socialism, which propagated “redemption” by “honor” and “(folk) community”, is reductively conceptualized as nothing but a reaction to the 1920s. Such a perspective fails to grapple with the question of the extent to which longer-term ambivalent attitudes present in worker orientations were indeed significant – and lent themselves to being usefully “exploited” by the Nazis.

¹⁰² On this, see remarks in Langewiesche, D., “Mobility in deutschen Mittel-und Groβ-studten. Aspekte der Binnenwanderung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert”, in Conze, W. and Engelhardt, U. (eds.), Arbeiter im Industrialisierungsprozefl (Stuttgart, 1979), pp. 70–93Google Scholar, esp. table 2, pp. 84f.; Lenger, F., Langewiesche, D., “Räumliche Mobilität in Deutschland vor und nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg”, in Schildt, A. and Sywottek, A. (eds.), Massenwohnung und Eigenheim (Frankfurt/M and New York, 1988), pp. 103–126Google Scholar; however, such global figures o n mobility do not reveal whether the various movements (and patterns of immobility), quite different depending on such factors as occupation, formal qualification, industrial branch, age and sex (see Langewiesche, “Mobilität”, pp. 78ff.), were universally changed in the process.

¹⁰³ Cf. v. Saldern, Auf dem Wege zum Arbeiter-Reformismus, pp. 64f.; Evans, Kneipengespräche im Kaiserreich, pp. 322ff. and especially 361ff. On the question of a fundamentally national or “patriotic” orientation – i.e., appeals to “the people of England” or “the British people” and not to the priority of class – an attitude present even among the unpropertted and wage-laboring classes o f industrial England, see the illuminating study by Joyce, P., Visions of the People: Industrial England and the question of class 1848–1914 (Cambridge, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Chr., Kleβmann, Polnische Bergarbeiter im Ruhrgebiet 1870–1945. Soziale Integration und nationale Subkultur einer Minderheit in der deutschen Industriegesellschaft (Göttingen, 1978)Google Scholar;for an enlightening parallel from Appalachia, cf. the study by Totter, J. W., Coal, Class and Color: Blacks in Southern West Virginia, 1915–1932 (Urbana, 1990)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Herbert, U., A History of Foreign Labor in Germany, 1880–1980, trans. Templer, W. (Ann Arbor, 1990), pp. 57–72Google Scholar, quotes pp. 57f.; on transport workers, overlooked by Herbert, and the rigorously negative defensive attitude prevalent toward them in the Social Democratic movement, see Lindenberger, Th., “StraBenpolitik. Zur Sozialgeschichte der öffentlichen Ordnung in Berlin” (Ph.D., Technical University Berlin, 1992), pp. 289ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ The local “underclass” – which generally had only migrated into most industrial combinations one or two generations earlier especially in the Ruhr – has been little examined to date; a penetrating photographic study on such a neighborhood (‘Segeroth’) in Essen can be found in Bajohr, F. and Gaigalat, M. (eds.), Essens wilder Norden. Segeroth – ein Viertel zwischen Mythos und Stigma, (Hamburg 1990)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ Cf. Ruck, M., Diefreien Gewerkschaften im Ruhrkampf 1923 (Cologne, 1986)Google Scholar; however, Ruck also points to the limits of this “charged emotional situation”, noting “extreme right-wing sentiments” among those who had little or no experience in organizations, cf. Ruck, M., Bollwerk gegen Hitler? Arbeiterschaft, Arbeiterbewegung und die Anfänge des Nationalsozialismus (Cologne, 1988), pp. 56–73Google Scholar; but see also references to the protesting behavior of “socially declassé” young men in the '20s who had flocked to join the separatist movements in the Rhineland, cf. Thomassen, J., “Arbeiterschaft und rheinischer Separatismus im Krisenjahr 1923”, Geschichte im Westen, 7 (1992), pp. 53–61Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Lüdtke, “Deutsche QualitStsarbeit”, “Spielereien'”, pp. 182 f.

¹⁰⁹ Hirschman, A. O., Shifting Involvements (Princeton, 1982)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ In this connection, also note H. Rosenstrauch's precise observations on the “organizational culture” and ordinary commonplace nature of common bonds of understanding – as well as isolation (in everyday life!) – among Austrian (card-carrying) communists and socialists from the 1930s on, but esp. from the 1950s until the 1980s, cf. idem, Beim Sichten der Erbschaft: Wiener Bilder für das Museum einer untergehenden Kultur; eine NacherzUhlung (Mannheim, 1992).

¹¹¹ Schütz and Luckmann, Strukturen der Lebettswelt, p. 14; see also note 23.

¹¹² Turner, V., The Forest of Symbols. Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca and London, 1973), pp. 27ff.Google Scholar, esp. pp. 48ff.; V. Turner, ”Symbols in African Ritual”, in Dolgin, J. L., Kemnitzer, J. S. and Schneider, D. M. (eds.), Symbolic Anthropology (New York, 1977), pp. 183–194Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Sabel, Ch., Zeitlin, J., “Historical Alternatives to Mass Production: Politics, Markets and Technology in Nineteenth-Century Industrialization,” Past & Present, No. 108 (1985), pp. 133–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for a study on change and redefinition of skills in an industry based on smaller-scale production units, see Whipp, R., Patterns of Labour: Work and Social Change in the Pottery Industry (New York, 1990)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ Cf. the thought-provoking article by Quataert, J. H., “Combining Agrarian and Industrial Livelihoods. Rural Households in the Saxon Oberlausitz in the 19th Century”, Journal of Family History, 10 (1985), pp. 145–162Google Scholar; on “commuting migration” (and its genesis in the regional industrializations of the twentieth century), especially illuminating is J. Thomassen, “Pendelwanderung im Bereich der Industrie und Handelskammer Krefeld im ersten Viertel des 20. Jahrhunderts”, paper presented at the conference “Städtische Bevölkerungsentwicklung in Deutschland im 19. Jhdt. im internationalen Vergleich” (University of Bremen, 27–28 January 1989); cf. also Lenger and Langewiesche, “Räumliche Mobilität in Deutschland”, pp. 109ff.

¹¹⁵ Cf. Schröter, H., “Der Jahrhundertbrunnen in Essen”, Beiträge zur Geschichte von Stadt und Stift Essen, 73 (1957), pp. 152–158Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ See Campbell, Joy in Work, German Work and Trommler, Die Nationalisierung der Arbeit.

¹¹⁷ Maier, R., Die Stachanov-Bewegung 1935–1938 (Stuttgart, 1990), pp. 119ffGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Gerstle, G., Working-class Americanism: The Politics of Labor in a Textile City 1914–1960 (Cambridge, 1989), esp. pp. 166ffGoogle Scholar.; see likewise Cohen, L., Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago 1919–1939 (Cambridge, 1990), esp. pp. 283ffGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁹ On the unequal treatment of women and men in household and family settings, see Lipp, C., “Die Innenseite der Arbeiterkultur. Sexualität im Arbeitermilieu des 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhunderts”, in van Dulmen, R. (ed.), Arbeit, Frömmigkeit und Eigensinn (Frankfurt/M, 1990), pp. 214–259Google Scholarand 323–328, especially pp. 254ff.; see also Bromme, Lebensgeschichte eines modernen Fabrikarbeiters, pp. 351ff. and Seccombe, W., “Patriarchy Stabilized: The Construction of the Male Breadwinner Wage Norm in 19th C. Britain”, Social History, 11 (1986), pp. 53–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁰ Thürmer-Rohr, Chr., “Aus der Täuschung in die Ent-Täuschung. Zur Mittäterschaft von Frauen”, in Thürmer-Rohr, Chr., Vagabundinnen. Feministische Essays (Berlin, 1987), pp. 38–56Google Scholar, esp. pp. 49ff.

¹²¹ Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. and Zeisel, H., Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal, 3rd pr. (Frankfurt/M, 1975), esp. pp. 70ff.Google Scholar, 83ff.

¹²² Central State Archive of the October Revolution, Register 5451, inventory list 39, item 100, folios 42–42a. I am grateful to Dr. Viktoria Tyashelnikova (Institute for Russian History RAN, Moscow) for her assistance in making this text available to me.

¹²³ For a more detailed treatment, see my “The ‘Dignity of Labour’”. Regarding the various “benefits” provided by Nazi organizations, see also the illustrated volumes by Pöchlinger, J. (ed.), Front in der Heimat. Das Bitch des deutschen Rüstungsarbeiters (Berlin, Vienna and Leipzig, 1942)Google Scholar and Hoffmann, H. (ed.), Me 109 – der siegreiche deutsche Jäiger (Munich, 1942)Google Scholar. The question of the range and degree of acceptance remains open in its particulars, but should be scrutinized in connection with fluctuations in the tide of success and failure on the battlefield; cf. the basic studies by Rosenthal, G., “Als der Krieg kam, hatte ich mit Hitler nichts mehr zu tun”. Zur Gegenwärtigkeit des “Dritten Reiches” in Biographien (Opladen, 1990)Google Scholar and L. Niethammer, “Heimat und Front”, in Neithammer, ” Die Jahre weiβ man nicht…”, pp. 163–232.

¹²⁴ Cf. W. Benjamin, “Über den Begriff der Geschichte” (ca. 1940), in idem, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1/2 (Frankfurt/M, 1974), pp. 691–704; cf. likewise Nietbammer, L., Posthistoire: Has History Come to an End? (London, 1992)Google Scholar; Konersman, R., Erstarrte Unruhe. Walter Benjamins Begriff der Geschichte (Frankfurt/M, 1991), pp. 58ff.Google Scholar, 97ff.; McRobbie, A., “The Passagenwerk and the Place of Walter Benjamin in Cultural Studies: Benjamin, Cultural Studies, Marxist Theories of Art”, Cultural Studies, 6 (1992), pp. 147–169, esp. pp. 154f., 160ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁵ This is not actually thematized by B. Kroener and M. Steinert; rather, in their contributions to a recent volume on Stalingrad, they stress the repression ”of the regime”, see Förster, J. (ed.), Stalingrad. Ereignis – Wirkung – Symbol (Munich, 1992), pp. 151–170Google Scholar, 171–185; cf. an illuminating chapter (V) in Werner, W. F., ‘Bleib übrigt’ Deutsche Arbeiter in der nationalsozialistischen Kriegswirtschaft (Düsseldorf, 1983)Google Scholar; see also Roseman, Marc, “World War II and Social Change in Germany”, in Marwick, A. (ed.), Total War and Social Change (London, 1988), pp. 58–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.