¹ For a fuller discussion of British developments, see Zeitlin, , “From Labour History to the History of Industrial Relations”Google Scholar; and for discussion of comparable shifts in American and German historiography, respectively, see Brody, David, “The Old Labor History and the New: In Search of the American Working Class”, Labor History 20 (Winter 1979), pp. 111–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Evans, Richard J., “The Sociological Interpretation of German Labour History”Google Scholar, in idem (ed.), The German Working Class, 1888–1933 (London, 1982), pp. 15–53.Google Scholar

² See, for example, Blackburn, Robin and Cockburn, Alexander (eds), The Incompatibles: Trade Union Militancy and the Consensus (Harmondsworth, 1967).Google Scholar

³ For representative statements of the pluralist position, see Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, 1965–68 [Chairman: Lord Donovan], Report (Cmnd. 3623), 1968Google Scholar; and Flanders, Alan, Management and Unions: The Theory and Reform of Industrial Relations (Oxford, 1970).Google Scholar For the radical critique, see Hyman, Richard, Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction (London, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Pluralism, Procedural Consensus and Collective Bargaining”, British Journal of Industrial Relations 16, 1 (1978), pp. 16–40.Google Scholar For a fuller analysis of the assumptions underlying the debate, see my “Shop Floor Bargaining and the State: A Contradictory Relationship”, in Tolliday, Steven and Zeitlin, Jonathan (eds), Shop Floor Bargaining and the State: Historical and Comparative Perspectives (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 1–45Google Scholar; and “From Labour History to the History of Industrial Relations”.

⁴ Hinton, James, The First Shop Stewards' Movement (London, 1973)Google Scholar; Holton, Bob, British Syndicalism, 1900–1914 (London, 1976)Google Scholar; and White, Joseph L., The Limits of Trade Union Militancy: The Lancashire Textile Workers, 1910–1914Google Scholar; see also Cronin, James, “Coping with Labour, 1918–26”Google Scholar, in idem and Schneer, Jonathan (eds), Social Conflict and the Political Order in Modern Britain (London, 1982), pp. 113–45.Google Scholar

⁵ Burgess, Keith, The Origins of British Industrial Relations: The Nineteenth Century Experience (London, 1975)Google Scholar; The Challenge of Labour, 1850–1930 (London, 1980)Google Scholar; Price, Richard, Masters, Unions and Men: Work Control and the Rise of Labour in Building, 1830–1914 (Cambridge, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Structures of Subordination in Nine teenth-Century British Industry”, in Thane, Pat et al. , (eds), The Power of the Past: Essays for Eric Hobsbawm (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 119–42.Google Scholar

⁶ Cronin, James, Industrial Conflict in Modern Britain (London, 1979)Google Scholar; “Strikes, 1870–1914”, in Wrigley, C. J. (ed.), A History of British Industrial Relations, 1875–1914 (Brighton, 1982), pp. 74–98Google Scholar; Labour and Society in Britain, 1918–79 (London, 1984)Google Scholar; Price, Richard, Labour in British Society: An Interpretative Survey (London, 1986)Google Scholar; “Rethinking Labour History: The Importance of Work”, in Cronin, and Schneer, , Social Conflict, pp. 179–214Google Scholar; “The Labour Process and Labour History”, Social History VIII (1983), pp. 57–75Google Scholar; Hyman, Richard, The Workers' Union (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar; Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unionism (London, 1971)Google Scholar; “The Politics of Workplace Trade Unionism: Recent Tendencies and Some Problems for Theory”, Capital and Class no 8 (1979), pp. 54–67Google Scholar; and “Rank and File Movements and Workplace Organization, 1914–39”, in Wrigley, C. J. (ed.), A History of British Industrial Relations, vol. 2:1914–39 (Brighton, 1986), pp. 129–58Google Scholar; see also Hinton, James, Labour and Socialism: A History of the British Labour Movement, 1867–1974 (Brighton, 1983).Google Scholar

⁷ The Miners' Next Step: Being a Suggested Scheme for the Reorganisation of the Federation, Issued by the Unofficial Reform Committee (Reprints in Labour History no 4, London, 1973; 1st ed. 1912)Google Scholar; Murphy, J. T., The Workers' Committee: An Outline of its Principles and Structure (Reprints in Labour History no 1, London, 1972; 1st ed. 1917)Google Scholar; and Preparing for Power (reprinted, London, 1972; 1st ed. 1934).Google Scholar

⁸ See, for example, the quotations from contemporary sources in Cronin, , “Coping with Labour, 1918–26”Google Scholar; and Middlemas, Keith, Politics in Industrial Society: The Experience of the British System since 1911 (London, 1979), chs 2–6.Google Scholar For a pioneering discussion of the changing meanings of the term “rank and file” from “a loose military analogy” implying “no more than a functional division between leaders and led” to “an opposition of interests, functions or attitudes”, see Hyman, , “Rank and File Movements, 1914–39”, especially pp. 129–30.Google Scholar

⁹ Michels, Robert, Political Parties (New York, 1962; 1st German ed. 1911)Google Scholar; Sidney, and Webb, Beatrice, Industrial Democracy (London, 1920; 1st ed. 1897)Google Scholar; The History of Trade Unionism, 1666–1920 (London, 1920; 1st ed. 1894), pp. 444–64.Google Scholar For more recent versions of this approach, see Allen, V. L., Power in Trade Unions (London, 1957)Google Scholar on Britain; and Mills, C. Wright, New Men of Power: America's Labor Leaders (New York, 1971; 1st ed. 1948) on the U.S.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Webbs, , Industrial Democracy, pp. 38–71Google Scholar; and History of Trade Unionism, pp. 469–71.Google Scholar

¹¹ For the theoretical basis of this view, see Clarke, Tom and Clements, Laurie (eds), Trade Unions under Capitalism (London, 1977)Google Scholar; Hyman, , Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unions; Industrial Relations, pp. 67–9, 87–92, 142–5Google Scholar; and “Politics of Workplace Trade Unionism”, especially pp. 54–5Google Scholar: “those continuously engaged in a representative capacity perform a crucial mediating role in sustaining tendencies towards an accommodative and subaltern relationship with external agencies (employers and the state) in opposition to which trade unions were originally formed […]. Because of their ongoing relationship with external parties, officials normally become committed to preserving a stable bargaining relationship and to the ‘rules of the game’; which this presupposes”. For historical applications, see inter alia, Burgess, , Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. vi–xi and 309–10Google Scholar; and Price, , Masters, Unions and Men, pp. 104–235, and especially p. 8Google Scholar, where he observes that “the conflict relationship between official unionism and the rank and file” evident from the 1890s “was a structural not a behavioural tension, inherent to the negotiated compromise between labour and society that emanated from the acceptance of organised labour's role as an agent with bargaining rights over industrial conditions”.

¹² See, for example, Hyman, , Industrial Relations, p. 199Google Scholar: “The process of institutionalisation is itself beset by contradictions […]. It does indeed achieve a provisional containment of disorder; but where workers grievances and discontents are not resolved, they give rise eventually to new forms of conflict […]”; cf. Price, , Masters, Unions and Men, p. 17.Google Scholar

¹³ See Hinton, , First Shop Stewards' Movement; Labour and Socialism, pp. 96–118Google Scholar; Cronin, , “Coping with Labour, 1918–26”Google Scholar; Burgess, , Challenge of Labour, pp. 153–94Google Scholar; and from a different perspective, Middlemas, , Politics in Industrial Society.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Burgess, , Origins of British Industrial RelationsGoogle Scholar; Allen, V. L., “The Origins of Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration”, International Review of Social History IX (1964), pp. 237–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and White, , Limits of Trade Union Militancy.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Price, , Masters, Unions and MenGoogle Scholar; “Rethinking Labour History”; “The Labour Process and Labour History”; and Labour in British Society.

¹⁶ Hyman, , “Politics of Workplace Trade Unionism”, p. 55Google Scholar; Hinton, First Shop Stewards' Movement; and Labour and Socialism.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Quoted in Hyman, , Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unions, pp. 43–44.Google Scholar For a fuller discussion of Gramsci's views, see Clark, Martin, Antonio Granisci and the Revolution that Failed (New Haven, 1977)Google Scholar; and Cammett, John M., Antonio Gramsci and the Origins of Italian Communism (Stanford, CA, 1967).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Thus for Price, , Masters, Unions and Men, p. 8Google Scholar: the “effort to exert a control over the productive process is essentially a product of the employer-worker relationship; it is implicit in the subordination in which workers are placed [.]”; while for Hyman, , Industrial Relations, p. 23Google Scholar: “between these two classes there exists a radical conflict of interests, which underlies everything that occurs in industrial relations”.

¹⁹ For insightful discussions of these debates, see Sabel, Charles F., Work and Politics: The Division of Labor in Industry (Cambridge, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Reid, Alastair, Social Classes and Social Relations in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Economic History Society pamphlet, forthcoming).Google Scholar

²⁰ Webbs, , History of Trade Unionism, p. 577.Google Scholar

²¹ The AEU was formed in 1920 as an amalgamation of the ASE and three smaller craft societies; it became the Amalgamated Engineering Federation (AEF) in 1967 and the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (AUEW) in 1970 as a result of mergers with the Foundrymen and the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Association respectively; with the departure of its Technical and Supervisory Section (TASS) in 1986, it has reverted to its original title.

²² On the internal politics of the ASE, see Jefferys, James B., The Story of the Engineers, 1800–1945 (London, 1946) pp. 68–113, 136–91Google Scholar; Weekes, B. C. M., “The Amalgamated Society of Engineers, 1880–1914: A Study of Trade Union Government, Politics and Industrial Policy” (Ph.D., University of Warwick, 1970)Google Scholar; Croucher, Richard, “The ASE and Local Autonomy, 1898–1914” (M. A., University of Warwick, 1971)Google Scholar; Hinton, , Shop Stewards, pp. 76–84Google Scholar; Zeitlin, Jonathan, “Engineers and Compositors: A Comparison”, in Harrison, Royden and Zeitlin, Jonathan (eds), Divisions of Labour: Skilled Workers and Technological Change in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Brighton/Champaign, IL, 1985), pp. 231–5Google Scholar; and “Craft Regulation and the Division of Labour: Engineers and Compositors in Britain, 1890–1914” (Ph.D., Warwick, 1981), pp. 77–81, 181–7, 352–429.Google Scholar A fuller treatment of these issues will appear in my forthcoming book, The Triumph of Adversarial Bargaining: Industrial Relations in British Engineering, 1880–1939.

²³ For this reading of Hinton, , First Shop Stewards' MovementGoogle Scholar and the wartime industrial unrest on the Clyde, see Reid, Alastair, “Dilution, Trade Unionism and the State in Britain during the First World War”Google Scholar, in Tolliday, and Zeitlin, , Shop Floor Bargaining and the State, pp. 46–74Google Scholar; Melling, Joseph, Rent Strikes: People's Struggles for Housing in West Scotland, 1890–1916 (Edinburgh, 1983), pp. 50–58Google Scholar; McLean, Iain, The Legend of Red Clydeside (Edinburgh, 1983)Google Scholar; and Rubin, Gerry R., War, Law and Labour: The Munitions Acts, State Regulation and the Unions, 1915–21 (Oxford, 1987).Google Scholar

²⁴ The active role of the ASE executive in defending the position of skilled workers during the war is extensively documented in Cole, G. D. H., Trade Unionism and Munitions (Oxford, 1923)Google Scholar; the official History of the Ministry of Munitions (London, 1920–1922)Google Scholar, especially vols IV and VI; and, despite the author's intentions, in Wrigley, C. J., Lloyd George and the British Labour Movement (Brighton, 1976).Google Scholar

²⁵ Public Record Office, London [hereafter PRO], MUN 5/20/221.1/29, “Minutes of the Proceedings of a Conference with the Executive Council of the ASE and a Deputation from the Walworth Conference, 19 May 1917”, pp. 11–12Google Scholar, quoted in History of the Ministry of Munitions, vol. VI, pt. I, pp. 116–117.Google Scholar Cf. PRO LAB 2/254/13, Chorley, E. S. T., “Memorandum on the Strike of Engineers in May 1917 – Commentary and Complement to the History Compiled by the Ministry of Munitions Intelligence and Records Section, 9 11 1917, pp. 1–2Google Scholar; “It is now fairly clear that however much the executives of the unions objected to the methods pursued by the strikers their sympathies were entirely with the objects of the strike. The strike was unofficial, because to all intents no strike can be official […]. In most cases a strike will take place in two sections, firstly the negotiations […] by the trade union executives; secondly if the men are dissatisfied with the result, they take the matter into their own hands and strike.”

²⁶ On the internal politics of the AEU and the changing relationships between national, district and workplace organisation, see Hyman, , “Rank and File Movements, 1914–39”Google Scholar; Jefferys, , Story of the Engineers, 1800–1945, pp. 191–4, 217–65Google Scholar; Tolliday, Steven, “Management and Labour in Britain, 1896–1939”Google Scholar, in idem and Zeitlin, Jonathan, (eds), The Automobile Industry and Its Workers: Between Fordism and Flexibility (Cambridge/New York, 1987), pp. 29–56Google Scholar; “Government, Employers and Shop Floor Organization in the British Motor Industry, 1939–69”, in Tolliday, and Zeitlin, , Shop Floor Bargaining and the State, pp. 108–47Google Scholar; McKinlay, Alan, “Employers and Skilled Workers in the Interwar Depression: Clydeside Engineering and Shipbuilding, 1918–39”, (Ph.D., Oxford, 1986), pp. 82–219Google Scholar; Croucher, Richard, Engineers at War, 1939–45 (London, 1982)Google Scholar; Edelstein, David and Warner, Malcolm, Comparative Union Democracy: Organization and Opposition in British and American Unions (2nd ed., New Brunswick, 1979), pp. 263–318Google Scholar; Undy, Roger, “The Electoral Influence of the Opposition Party in the AUEW Engineering Section, 1960–75”, British Journal of Industrial Relations XVII (1979), pp. 19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and James, Larry, Power in a Trade Union: The Role of the District Committee in the AUEW (Cambridge, 1984).Google Scholar For a detailed account of industrial relations at British Leyland in the late 1970s and early 80s, see Willman, Paul and Winch, Graham, Innovation and Management Control: Labour Relations at BL Cars (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 65–148.Google Scholar

²⁷ Van Gore, , “Rank-and-file dissent”Google Scholar, in Wrigley, , History of British Industrial Relations, 1875–1914, p. 69.Google Scholar

²⁸ Muste, A. J., “Factional Fights in Trade Unions”, in Hardman, J. B. S. (ed.), American Labour Dynamics in the Light of Postwar Developments (New York, 1928), p. 343.Google Scholar

²⁹ Thus, as Hyman observes, the rhetoric of “rank-and-file” opposition to trade union officialdom between the wars was closely associated with the struggles of the Communist Party and other leftwing groups to constitute themselves as “a putative alternative leadership”; and on his own account, the formally organized “Rank and File Movements” of the period “increasingly represented artificial constructs”. See Hyman, , “Rank and File Movements, 1914–39”, pp. 146, 154.Google Scholar

³⁰ Hyman, , “Politics of Workplace Trade Unionism”, pp. 59–61.Google Scholar

³¹ Turner, H. A., Trade Union Growth, Structure and Policy: A Comparative Study of the Cotton Unions (London, 1962), p. 318Google Scholar, quoted in Gore, , “Rank-and-File Dissent”, p. 71Google Scholar, n. 25. See also White, , Limits of Trade Union Militancy, pp. 56–63.Google Scholar

³² See Joyce, Patrick, Work, Society and Politics: The Culture of the Factory in Later Victorian Britain (Brighton, 1980)Google Scholar; Lee, Alan, “Conservatism, Traditionalism and the British Working Class, 1880–1918”, in Martin, David E. and Rubinstein, David (eds), Ideology and the Labour Movement: Essays Presented to John Saville (London, 1979)Google Scholar; Alderman, Geoffrey, “The National Free Labour Association: A Case Study of Organised Strike-Breaking in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries”, International Review of Social History XXI (1976), pp. 309–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Douglas, Roy, “The National Democratic Party and the British Workers' League”, Historical Journal XV (1972), pp. 571–91Google Scholar; Stubbs, J. O., “Lord Milner and Patriotic Labour”, English Historical Review 87 (1972), pp. 717–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Griffin, A. R. and Griffin, C. P., “The Non-Political Trade Union Movement”, in Briggs, Asa and Saville, John (eds), Essays in Labour History, 1918–39 (London, 1977), pp. 133–62Google Scholar; and Waller, Robert, The Dukeries Transformed: The Social and Political Development of a Twentieth-Century Coalfield (Oxford, 1983), pp. 108–30.Google Scholar

³³ For a discussion of the “unitarist” approach to industrial relations, see Fox, Alan, “Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations”Google Scholar, Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, Research Paper, no 3 (London, 1966), pp. 2–15.Google Scholar

³⁴ See Jefferys, , Story of the Engineers, 1800–1945, pp. 127, 166Google Scholar; Weekes, , “The Amalgamated Society of Engineers, 1880–1914”, pp. 41–53Google Scholar; and Zeitlin, , “Craft Regulation”, pp. 185–6, 374–6.Google Scholar For similar opposition to the AEU's conversion to industrial unionism in the 1920s, see Claydon, T. J., “The Development of Trade Unionism among British Automobile and Aircraft Workers, 1914–46”, (Ph.D., Kent, 1981), pp. 355–66Google Scholar; and Tolliday, , “Management and Labour in Britain, 1914–39”, pp. 47–8.Google Scholar

³⁵ See especially Burgess, , Origins of British Industrial RelationsGoogle Scholar; and Price, , Masters, Unions and Men.Google Scholar More recently, however, Price has acknowledged that in industries such as cotton spinning and steel, “Those same structures that had secured the social peace of the mid-Victorian period also served to obstruct managerial freedom once the balance of the mid-Victorian compromise was disrupted by organisational change”: see Labour in British Society, pp. 100–1.Google Scholar

³⁶ Lazonick, William, “Industrial Relations and Technological Change: The Case of the Self-Acting Mule”, Cambridge Journal of Economics III, 3 (1979), pp. 231–62Google Scholar; “Production Relations, Labour Productivity and Choice of Technique: British and US Cotton Spinning”, Journal of Economic History LI (1981), pp. 491–516Google Scholar; and idem and Mass, William, “The Performance of the British Cotton Industry, 1870–1913”, in Research in Economic History IX (1984), pp. 1–44.Google Scholar

³⁷ Wilkinson, Frank, “Collective Bargaining in the Steel Industry in the 1920s”Google Scholar, in Briggs, and Saville, , Essays in Labour History, 1918–39, pp. 103–32Google Scholar; Elbaum, Bernard and Wilkinson, Frank, “Industrial Relations and Uneven Development: A Comparative Study of the American and British Steel Industries”, Cambridge Journal of Economics III, 3 (1979), pp. 275–303Google Scholar; and for a wider range of sectors, Tarling, Roger and Wilkinson, Frank, “The Movement of Real Wages and the Development of Collective Bargaining in the U.K., 1855–1920”, Contributions to Political Economy I (1982), pp. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ For this interpretation of Price's evidence, see Reid, Alastair, “Labour and Society in Modern Britain”, pp. 494–6Google Scholar; and for a discussion of employers' associations in the building industry, see McKenna, J. and Rodger, R., “Control by Coercion: Employers' Associations and the Establishment of Industrial Order in the Building Industry of England and Wales, 1860–1914”, Business History Review LIX (1985), pp. 203–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁹ For the craft sector in general, see Reid, Alastair, “The Division of Labour and Politics in Britain, 1880–1920”, in Mommsen, Wolfgang J. and Husung, Hans-Gerhard (eds), The Development of Trade Unionism in Great Britain and Germany, 1880–1914 (London, 1985), pp. 154–8Google Scholar; and for engineering and printing in particular, see Zeitlin, , “Engineers and Compositors”Google Scholar; and “Craft Regulation and the Division of Labour”, especially pp. 51–90.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ McClelland, Keith and Reid, Alastair, “Wood, Iron and Steel: Technology, Labour and Trade Union Organization in the Shipbuilding Industry, 1840–1914”Google Scholar, in Harrison, and Zeitlin, , Divisions of Labour, pp. 151–84Google Scholar; Reid, Alastair, “The Division of Labour in the British Shipbuilding Industry, 1880–1920” (Ph.D., Cambridge, 1980)Google Scholar; McGoldrick, James, “Crisis and the Division of Labour: Clydeside Shipbuilding in the Interwar Period”, in Dickson, Tony (ed.), Capital and Class in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1982)Google Scholar; “Industrial relations and the Division of Labour in the Shipbuilding Industry since the War”, British Journal of Industrial Relations XXI (1983), pp. 197–220Google Scholar; “A Profile of the Boilermakers' Union”, in Kruse, Jan and Slaven, Anthony (eds.), Scottish and Scandinavian Shipbuilding: Development Problems in Historical Perspective (University of Gothenburg Conference Series, 1980), n.p.Google Scholar; Lorenz, Edward H., “Two Patterns of Development: The Labour Process in the British and French Shipbuilding Industries, 1880–1930”, Journal of European Economic History XIII (1984), pp. 599–634Google Scholar; “The Labour Process in the British and French Shipbuilding Industries, 1880–1930: Two Patterns of Development” (Ph.D., Cambridge, 1983)Google Scholar; and McKinlay, , “Employers and Skilled Workers in the Interwar Depression”, pp. 220–331.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Tolliday, , “Government, Employers and Shop Floor Organisation in the British Motor Industry, 1939–69”Google Scholar; “High Tide and After: Coventry's Engineering Workers and Shopfloor Bargaining, 1945–80”, in Lancaster, Bill and Mason, Tony (eds), Life and Labour in a Twentieth-Century City: The Case of Coventry (Coventry, 1986), pp. 204–43Google Scholar; Tolliday, and Zeitlin, Jonathan, “Shop-floor Bargaining, Contract Unionism and Job Control: An Anglo-American Comparison”Google Scholar, in Tolliday, and Zeitlin, , The Automobile IndustryGoogle Scholar; Batstone, Eric et al. , Shop Stewards in Action (Oxford, 1977), especially pp. 178–211, 231–51Google Scholar; The Social Organisation of Strikes (1980)Google Scholar; and Batstone, Eric, Working Order: Workplace Industrial Relations over Two Decades (Oxford, 1984).Google Scholar

⁴² Zeitlin, , “Engineers and Compositors”Google Scholar; Reid, , “The Division of Labour in the British Shipbuilding Industry”Google Scholar; Price, , Masters, Unions and MenGoogle Scholar; and Mortimer, James E., A History of the Boilermakers' Society, 1834–1939, 2 vols (London, 1973 and 1982).Google Scholar

⁴³ PRO BT 55/22, Minutes of Evidence to the Committee on the Engineering Trades after the War, 10 08 1916, p. 16.Google Scholar Cf. EEF Archives (London and Warwick), W(4)3, Smith, to Richmond, J. R., 2 02 1915, p. 3Google Scholar: “The unions are essentially democratic. Their Executive Councils are hide-bound in their actions not only by the history of the movement, but by the actual terms of their constitutions. A breach of their constitutions or an action ultra vires of their power under the constitution would render the Council liable to immediate impeachment and the tribulation which the Councils of several very important Unions have come through naturally makes the members of the Councils doubly careful that they protect themselves by acting strictly within the limits of their mandate.”

⁴⁴ This interpretation will be developed more fully in my forthcoming book, The Triumph of Adversarial Bargaining.

⁴⁵ This approach draws on the theoretical framework elaborated in Sabel, Charles F., “The Internal Politics of Trade Unions”, in Berger, Suzanne (ed.), Organizing Interests in Western Europe: Pluralism, Corporatism and the Transformation of Politics (Cambridge, 1981).Google Scholar