Suchergebnisse

The two dominant paradigms in the study of white Americans' racial attitudes—symbolic racism and group position theory—while fundamentally differing with regard to theoretical orientations and causal emphases, concur in their rejection of individual-level economic circumstances—typically operationalized through either conventional measures of class or direct racial threats to whites' personal lives—as a meaningful determinant of whites' racial attitudes. This article argues that these existing measures do not sufficiently consider the subjective dimension of individuals' economic well-being. As such, conclusions drawn from the relative lack of association between these measures and racial attitudes are likely overstated. Utilizing a measure of affective economic insecurity—anxiety concerning one's economic circumstances—a strong correlative relationship is shown to exist between this dimension of individual-level economic circumstances and whites' racial attitudes. Specifically, it is shown that affective economic insecurity is related to whites' level of racial resentment, their perception of racialized labor market competition, and their attitudes toward immigration. A causal relationship between affective economic insecurity and perceptions of racialized labor market competition is established through an original survey experiment.

This article identifies and systemically analyzes a "core assumption" of WEB Du Bois's social and political thought: the assumption that class-based, interracial cooperation among white and Black workers is extremely unlikely, if not totally impossible. It is argued that this assumption undergirds and informs most of Du Bois's mature scholarship, serving as the theoretical grounding for his condemnation of the large-scale attempts to organize workers interracially on the basis of class, and explaining his uneven personal relationship with the Communist Party USA. Further, it is argued that this assumption leads Du Bois to attribute a methodologically untenable transhistoric logic to white working-class behavior, which has been adopted largely uncritically by contemporary analysts of white supremacy in the USA. The untenability of this Du Boisian logic is illustrated through historical analysis of interracial labor unionism, emphasizing the instances of interracial organization that Du Bois specifically denounced.

In this article, the authors look at the supposed causal role of progressive labor legislation on union organizing. As an extension of the Wagner Act debates of the late 1980s and early 1990s, the authors argue—contrary to the accepted wisdom of virtually all established scholarship—that "progressive" labor legislation is not generally the impetus for worker organization, a necessary prerequisite without which mass unionization would be impossible. Rather, this legislation is often consciously cooptive, with the explicit goal of diffusing worker militancy, denuding and undermining radical leadership while simultaneously placating popular discontent. The theoretical and methodological shortcomings of the former position are analyzed in the context of the passage of Section 7(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). The authors argue that if the unionization of coal miners—the supposed primary beneficiaries of the stimulus attributed to the legislation—occurred prior to the passage of the NIRA, Section 7(a) could not have acted as a catalyst to unionization in the coalfields. The authors show, using archival and secondary accounts, that nearly all the nation's coal miners were organized before the passage of the NIRA. In light of this empirical data, the authors propose an alternative model of union growth that rejects the methodological individualist assumptions that tacitly undergird the existing literature.