Peculiarities” versus “Exceptions”

The Shaping of the American Federation of Labor's Politics during the 1890s and 1900s

Bibliographic Data

ID9969737
AuthorsN Kirk (0009-0000-5966-2998, corresponding author)
Year2000
Volume45
Issue1
Pages25-50
Publication date2000-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Review of Social History (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0020-8590 • E-ISSN: 1469-512X
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s002085900000002x
OpenAlexW2043029804
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited3

The purpose of this article is to question the notion of US labour's “exceptionalism” – of its “conservatism” and “closure” and difference from “class-conscious” and “socialist” British and European labour – with specific reference to the politics of the American Federation of Labour during the 1890s and 1900s. An approach rooted in the assumption of “norms” and “exceptions” is rejected in favour of one exploring differences and similarities. In terms of similarities, the article demonstrates the ways in which the AF of L consciously sought to model its “independent” (i.e. nonpartisan–party) politics upon the practice of the late-Victorian British TUC. With respect to differences, the article then proceeds to chart the challenges posed to the AF of L by the growing identification within British labour of political independence with independent partyism , as manifested especially in the TUC's official endorsement of the Labour Representation Committee (1900) and the Labour Party (1906). Resistant to the adoption of the new “British road”, the AF of L nevertheless defended its “traditional” form of political independence far more in terms of experiential US “peculiarities” than “exceptionalist” structural determinations

Conservatism · Exceptionalism · Independence (probability theory · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Representation (politics · Sociology · Labor Movements and Unions · Law