Boyte and Kari add a thoughtful perspective to contemporary debates over the problems facing democracies and attempts to build stronger communities. Other analysts have pointed to the importance of civic associations, religious organizations, and strong neighborhood and family structures. This volume argues that alongside these vehicles for socialization, collective identification, commitment, and social action, the workplace offers one of the most vital forums for the creation of social capital. Work enjoys a position of honor in the American psyche, and so efforts to effect change through “honest labor” are particularly welcome in this country. It has been through the workplace, Boyte and Kari argue, that Americans of all classes most often have had reason to engage in collective effort, have invested in that effort, and, consequently, have had the opportunity to forge collective identity.
The argument bears powerful implications for both the success and the reception of reform movements in American history. In an eminently readable fashion, the book focuses on three aspects of the historical relationship between work and populist reform movements. First, it identifies the ways in which work and the workplace have been employed in reform efforts to improve the lives of poor and working-class Americans. The Civilian Conservation Corps of the New Deal is one of the most telling examples of such an attempt—with Roosevelt’s “Tree Army” conceived as an opportunity for the poor to work their way out of the Depression.
Second, the authors discuss the capacity of work and of the workplace to create a “public culture” democratizing the American populace, with the beliefs and prejudices of individuals thrust against those of their neighbors. Though not explicitly discussed here, this argument hearkens to the findings of political science classics such as the American Voter , and Participation in America , which also found the workplace to be critical for American political socialization. As Boyte and Kari explain, the public culture created through work allows for the creation of “public spaces” which cross “boundaries of community, ethnicity, and particular cultural ties. They create settings where people with quite diverse interests interact and form bases for power with which to address common problems” (p. 81).
Third, the book demonstrates that, running counter to the historically democratizing features
of the American workplace, there has been a parallel and conflicting notion of work and, indeed, of society, bettered by technology and steered by experts and professionals. Lost in this vision of a “professionally run society” (p. 111), Boyte and Kari argue, is precisely the democratic, collective, and process-driven value of work itself. In the tension between these two visions of the promise of the workplace, the authors see the emergence and decline of historical social reform efforts.
To support their arguments, Boyte and Kari bring forward a sweeping and fascinating range of historical examples. Particularly compelling are their discussions of the efforts of educator Liberty Hyde Bailey, and social reformer Jane Addams, both of whom were committed to the democratizing potential of work and of the public space that work fostered.
One difficulty that I have with the argument concerns the breadth of the notion of “public work,” which underlies the investigation. Public work, the authors explain, includes not only work with public purposes, but also work by a public, work in public settings, as well as the products of work (p. 202). In this discussion, the public dimension of work includes not only diverse groups acting together, but also “open, visible and accessible space” and, “broad purposes of general importance,” such as the public interest (pp. 12-13).
I think the inclusiveness of this notion presents a problem for the analytical strength of the argument. Armed with this definition, it is difficult, for example, to differentiate between the workplace and other organizations concerned with collective identity. As the authors note, the capacity to create public spaces certainly extends beyond the traditional workplace to include “labor unions, political parties, and the YMCA” as well as the “NAACP, women’s suffrage groups, and other organizations for reform” (p. 81).
Where the argument focuses on the relationship between work and reform (e.g., early efforts in the development of the agricultural extension system), public work appears to occur in a fairly distinct subset of workplaces which are structured to encourage the involvement of workers with each other and with management. In these examples, public work appears to extend beyond shop-floor management, and engenders the social and political engagement of workers. In certain examples, the development of this engagement appears organic, in other examples it appears to be the result of careful nurturing.
The range of initiatives discussed in Building Democracy , however, makes it difficult to identify the critical dimensions of public work. An example of this confusion is the chapter devoted to a citizen effort to revitalize the Baltimore school system. The organization created (Baltimoreans United in Leadership Development, or BUILD) is fascinating, and its successes are enviable. But we are left to wonder what makes the BUILD initiative public work rather than a social movement. The authors do not make this clear.
More than anything else, these concerns reflect the broad sweep of the argument and highlight the importance of pursuing the research agenda begun in this volume. The next steps in that agenda might include investigating the historical, social, and political conditions under which public work will emerge and flourish and the conditions under which it will be overrun by elite-driven, hierarchical workplace organiza-tions. Second, this agenda calls for comparative investigations, looking at the democratizing role of work both cross-nationally and, increasingly, transnationally, as multi-national corporations and international political regimes increasingly define the global economy.
Ultimately, Boyte and Kari have made an impressive contribution to our understanding of the role of work in the emergence and development of social reform movements in the United States. I highly recommend the work to all audiences.