Work and Revolution in France Essay -- History, French Labor Movement

William H. Sewell, Jr.s Work and Revolution in France The Language of Labor from the Old authorities to 1848 (1980) is a qualitative analysis of the French labor dejection, sweeping terzetto radical revolutionary eras 1790s, 1830s, and 1850s. Sewells strategy encompasses aggregating and analyzing (1980 5) events that would generally be considered the stock(prenominal) factional struggles and encounters of individual French workers. He amasses these facts into a macro-history of the workers plight to class-consciousness from the ancien regime to the repressing post-revolutionary era of 1850s. Sewell frames his historic analysis within the context of the way the workers movement utilized the evolving rhetoric to advocate their pro-rights agenda. He performs a stringent investigating on the progression and determination of the use of specific terminology, focusing his lens of the eye on how concepts of culture (i.e., ideas, beliefs, and behaviors) aid in shifts of existing str uctures.Sewells conjectural perspective is admittedly self-constructed. He borrowed shamelessly from such sources as the brand-new history, intellectual history, cultural anthropology, and certain new strains of Marxism (1980 5). I find borrow from cultural anthropology to be the most influential of these theoretical viewpoints, and Sewell highlights the importance of ethnographical field methods in his work. However, he is quick to acknowledge that, from a historical perspective, conventional ethnography, as we understand it, is not suffice in this context. turn traditional ethnography tends to focus on non-Western, relatively small-scale and resembling societies (Sewell 1980 12), Sewells initiative is to analyze the complex society that was rent by all sorts of co... ...mes widening his scope could strengthen his argument further. He does this in the conclusion of chapter 11 to display how and why the movement was at times, and ultimately, unsuccessful. Additionally, as he suggests the reasons why the bourgeois neer really accepted and the peasantry never felt validated by the movement, he could strengthen his argument by further displaying other elements of cultural value outside of language, i.e. symbolic gestures apply by the movement. In addition to symbols, I also feel that Sewell could put one across provided more definition surrounding the artisan culture (Hanagan 1981). Given the order of the numerous trades, and the variety of societies, clubs, associations within each where and what are the cultural margins surrounded by the different trade corporations? Is there one united culture, or a multitude within the varying factions?