논문 / 미국노동사의 위기와 해결의 모색 = Search for the alternative to the New Lobor History

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The field of the U.S. labor history has undergone a remarkable metamorphosis since the 1960s. The $quot;new$quot; labor history emerged in place of the $quot;old.$quot; A new generation of historians who were loosely called as the $quot;new labor historians$quot; endeavored to overcome the limits of the old labor history by integrating working-class culture into their studies, rehabilitating rank-and-file perspective, and refusing mainly focusing on institutional aspects. The community study approach adopted by many new labor historians especially allowed exploration of workers` culture, including religion, family and leisure activities. The new labor historians also have challenged conventional studies, as they attempted to include gender and race as central elements in the making of the American working class. By making gender and race the primary focus for labor history, the new labor historians proved that American working class was never as white and as male as has been portrayed. Despite its contributions to expand our understanding on this subject, the new labor history scholarship has received concerns and criticisms of its limits. One of the major concerns was expressed as a demand for synthesis, especially since 1980. Mostly themselves as the first generation of the new labor historians, critics argued that the diversity of the new labor history has proved so sprawling that a new synthesis was urgently necessary. Although many scholars have demanded on the synthesis, they differed as to what the synthesis should be and do. The second criticism was more severe and negative in evaluating the results of the new labor history scholarship. Mostly inside the new labor historian scholars, critics were worried that the new labor history has lost its purpose and direction. Many scholars seemed to accept the main point that has been made by one critic: that the rank-and-file-centered perspective that nourished new labor history scholarship has reached a scholarly and political stalemate. Among several elements to possibly cause this stalemate, as they argued, was the fact that the new labor history scholarship often $quot;left out$quot; the most important factors from the scene of labor history: politics and power. Common concerns thereafter arose among the labor history scholars that if not in crisis, the new labor history scholarship was confused as to its future directions, whether politically or academically. In order to overcome the weakness and stalemate of recent labor historiography, we may wait for another paradigm shift within labor history scholarship. As one labor history scholar recommends, we need, first of all, to call a halt to $quot;the continuing flight within labor history from institutional-political analysis.$quot; Nonetheless, the alternative should be balanced carefully, by embracing the fruits of both old and new, and by combining institutional and political history with a concern for rank-and-file workers and cultural aspects.