Review: Donald Roy: Sociologist and Working Stiff Author(s): Michael Burawoy Source: Contemporary Sociology, Vol.

30, No. 5 (Sep., 2001), pp. 453-458 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3089314 Accessed: 28/10/2010 23:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Contemporary Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

Symposium cepts of structureand subjectivity,his focus on practicesto the exclusion of the meanings within which they occur makes invisible the role of gendered meanings and subjectivities in production. The power of Burawoy'sanalysislies in his unusual commitment to actually tracing the processes throughwhich subjectivityemerges within the context of local social relations. However, his opening assumptions make this strength a weakness as well, as it leads him to take for granted that, because production is not a gendered or racialized process, the subjectivities that emerge within it are also ungendered or unracialized.Thus, Manufacturing Consents most fundamentalcontribution to the study of work, that of bringing worker subjectivity to the fore, is also its greatest failing, as Burawoy's overall theoretical framework keeps him from recognizing the many elements that actually constitute shop floor subjectivity. Do these problems ultimately negate the book's arguments? I think not. Every account of social reality is partial. Burawoy himself would not claim to have told the whole sto-

453

ry, simply to have included all elements relevant to the argumentat hand. However, precisely because of the compelling natureof the narrative,Manufacturing Consenthas a totalizing quality. Thus, the very elegance of formulation, both the specific elements of subjectivityattended to and the parsimonyof explanation, can be misleading, obscuring importantelements of social process, experience, and political possibility and mystifying the role of gender and race in constituting capitalistdomination. The book's fundamentalinsight, that subjectivitymattersin production and varies with shifts in its structure,continues to illuminate processes that too often are opaque to those who live them. Anyone who has taught this book to studentswith experience in the workplace can attest to the "aha!"moment it engenders. Nonetheless, today, two decades afterits emergence, we must continue to read and teach Manufacturing Consent,but do so with care, lest, in sideliningcategoriesof domination beyond class, it further undermines the liberatoryproject that inspired it.

Donald Roy-Sociologist and Working Stiff

MICHAEL BURAWOY
University of California, Berkeley world and in so doing connecting the past to the present. I follow the lead of these retrospective essays in reflecting on the work of my own predecessor, the famous industrialsociologist, Donald Roy whose ChicagoPh.D. dissertation analyzed the same piecework machine shop which, 30 years later, became the basis of foregoing reflections on Manufacturing Con- Manufacturing Consent. In these comments, sent indulge in such uncriticaladulation but I consider the career of this industrial plant instead build on its errors, transcend its limi- between 1944-45 and 1974-75, but also the tations, problematize its assumptions, ques- career of its original ethnographer. After he tion its logic, break through its blinkers, and left Chicago in 1950, Roy wrestled with the situate its weakness in the myopia of its time. strictures of his inherited Chicago-style, That is how we move forward,reconstructing bounded ethnography as he sought to locate ancient works to better fit the contemporary microprocesses in their broader historical, and economic context. Alone and Thanks to Huw Beynon for twenty years of inter- political, ahead of his time, he explored issues that premittent conversation about Donald Roy, to Erik Wrightfor twentyyears of uninterruptedcriticism, occupy us today-homelessness, gender and and to Heidi Gottfriedforinviting me to write this. sexuality at work, despotic management,
Contemporary Sociology30, 5

Howard Becker (2000) recently lamented the burialof our ethnographictreasures.He urged us to dig up the gems and polish them until they sparkle. I agree that we should resuscitate our ancestors but to exalt them, to put them on a pedestal, is to freeze them in time and to miss what makes them significantfor the present. I'm delighted that none of the

454 Symposium obstacles to the growth of unionism, global capitalism,and new forms of action research. I firstgrappled with Roy'sresearchin 1974 when I began work as a machine operator at Allied. I was struckby deja vu-a remarkable resemblance to Roy's classic accounts of output restriction. I partook in the same shop floor game of "makingout" that was the subject of his famous articles on "gold bricking" and "quotarestriction," and the fix" "efficiency (Roy 1952a, 1953, 1955). After curiosity took me to his voluminous dissertation (Roy 1952b), it became apparentthatI was not simworkply studyingthe same type of industrial place but the very same plant. My firstinstinct was to do what others have done when they returned, usually deliberately, to famous anthropologicalsites-Oscar Lewis' returnto RobertRedfield'sTepoztlan, Derek Freeman's return to MargaretMead's Samoa, Marianne Boelen's returnto WilliamFoote Whyte'sCornerville, or even Patrick Tierey's return to Napoleon Chagnon'sYanomami.In each case the successor tries to debunk the original ethnographyas misguided,naive, distorted,or even fraudulent. Any hopes for debunking,however, quickly dissipated as it became obvious that Roy was every bit the master ethnographer,next to whom I was the novice. Everett Hughes considered Roy's dissertationone of the best he had supervised. I was in awe of his recounting of life on the shop floor, its rhythms,its nuances, and its tensions. I knew I could never emulate his graphic portraits. This was not a study to discredit but a model to emulate. Roy was no slumming graduate student looking for a field site, but rather he was an experienced blue-collar workerthe genuine thing ratherthan the Marxistpretender. Throughhis career, he was employed in 24 different"bottomrung"jobs in some 20 industries!He began in 1934 with a study of the makeshift underworld of unemployed men, a SeattleHooverville-"the hobo 'jungle' . . scrap heap of cast-off men, junk-yardfor humanjunk,an interestingvariationof the grimaces of laissez faire"(Roy 1939/40:45).Then from farmto mine, he began his own itinerary from forest to oilfield, from factoryto factory across the United States.Just before he died in 1980, he drew on his experiences in a review of Manufacturing Consent, regaling the readerwith, as he put it, the multipleways to "skina worker"(Roy 1980b).
Sociology30, 5 Contemporary

Once I had overcome my panic at having landed in Roy's plant, I saw how I could exploit the strengths of his ethnography. I decided to use his study as a base line from which to evaluate my own, to use it to understand the transformation of work from 1944-45 to 1974-75. But in so doing I turned Roy'squestion inside out. Where he had been interestedin why workers did not work harder, I wondered why they worked as hard as they did. Roy was arguing with the Western Electricresearchersand their successors who held the "non-rational" culture of workers responsible for their failure to meet managerial expectations. Roy showed the contrary: Workerswere quite rationalin their games of making out while management was guilty of in obstructing workers from "irrationality" making their quotas. If only management would clean up their act, Roy concluded, there could be much more management-labor collaboration. Manufacturing Consent, on the other hand, was embedded in Marxistdebates, and presumed a fundamental conflict between labor and capital. I was amazed not by output restriction, which seemed an obvious response to exploitation, but by how hard workers worked, to what lengths they (and I) would go to make our rates, even when the economic incentive was absent. Where so much of Marxist theory of the time focused on the superstructures-state, education, family, or political parties-as incorporating the working class, stifling its revolutionary impulse, organizing its consent, I saw these same politicaland ideological processes operating within the factory. I reconstitutedRoy's descriptions and experiences through this lens, showing that over the 30 years that separated us, factory politics had shifted along the continuum from "despotism"to "hegemony," a shift from a production regime based in coercion to one based in consent. Because technology was essentiallythe same, I could attributethese changes to the absorption of Roy's Geer Company into the multinationalAllied and to the broaderchanges in industrial relationsorganizedby the state. Historical analysis led directly to an account of the wider forces impelling social change. As we see from the essays in this symposium, as well as from my revisiting Roy's work, theoretical frameworkschange no less than the economy. How had Roy's own the-

Symposium oretical lens changed in those 30 years?After leaving Chicagoin 1950, Roy became an assistant professor at Duke University where he remaineduntil he retiredin 1979. Throughout he was very much the outsider within the academy, never removing his workman'scap, always keeping one foot in the lower echelons of the industrial workplace, a man of two stiff' and sociologist. It was careers-"working then that he penned his famous "Banana Time" (Roy 1959-60), an account of how workers manage to find meaning in monotonous work through game playing and ritualized social interaction.To this day sociologists continue to overlook the importof Roy's contributions-the social and psychological compensations and seductions of alienatingwork. Laterhe published his fascinatingaccount of "Sexin the Factory" (Roy 1974), showing how sexual alliances affect production. Extramarital liaisons, which he describes in lurid detail, initially led to surges of output but then, as the news leaked, fellow workers became resentful, work teams dissolved, and output plummeted. The analysis was mainly through the eyes of male workers to be sure, but it was before feministethnographershad begun to study work as a gendered process. This was still ahistorical plant sociology that went no further than the factory walls. Roy only broke with his Chicago schooling when he stumbled into the unfolding struggle for unionization in the Southern textile industry.Riskingostracismfrom his Duke colleagues, he trainedhis sociological eye on the labor organizers and asked why their campaigns nearly always failed; why unionism never took root in the South. He began to do ethnography in a new way. It was ethnography that looked beyond the textile mill to its historical and geographical context. He considered labor legislation and race relations as of the contexts for the historictransformation textile enterprise. As owners moved up and out, so the paternalist regime that had embraced plant and mill village gave way to a pseudopatemalism which, under pressure from labor organizers, turned into an ugly, despotic order. Stretchout, work rationalization, and even ideological warfare predisposed workers to join the union, but a reign of terrorswung the balance decisively in favor of management (Roy 1964, 1968). Roy's Chicago studies saw management from afar, as "irrational" but benign. In treat-

455

and not giving ing workers as "yardbirds" them a genuine voice in the factory order, managers simply did not comprehend their own best interest. Now that he put managerial "rationality" under the microscope, however, he saw things differently.In "FearStuff, Sweet Stuff,Evil Stuff," Roy (1980a) described the battery of weapons deployed against the union and its certification.Fear stuff included intimidation, interrogation, spying, harassment on the job of those suspected of union sympathies, selective firing, and threat of plant closure. Sweet stuff included the temporary resurrectionof paternalism(picnics, "love letters" from management, replacement of hated managers, etc.) or promises of transfers, promotions, and wage increases for suspected union leaders. Evil stuff was the defamation of the union as Anti-Christ,partner of Satan, communist conspiracy, led by carpetbaggers from the North, by "Nigger lovers" and sponsors of racial mixing. If these three strategiesdidn't work and the union was certified, there was always "fatal stuff'-bargaining the union to death, prolonging the signing of the contract. It all has a contemporaryring.As union strengthcontinues to fall (today some 13.5%of the labor force), as the AFL-CIO focuses on expanding membership, as employers mount aggressive and successful campaigns against unions, as the Bush administrationbecomes more antiunion, as "hegemonic" regimes returnto despotic ways, in short, as the South becomes the model for the whole of the United States, Roy's pioneering analysis of the textile industryin the 1950s and 1970s, unappreciated at the time, anticipatestoday's resurgentsociology of the labor movement. The Chicago School not only failed Roy in theoretical terms, giving him no leverage on class struggleor its broadercontext, but it also failed him in methodological terms. As participant observer he was caught in a vise between irreconcilable, warring interests. How could he maintainhis stance as an outsider observer when everyone wanted to place him on one side or the other?When he tried to interview workers about their allegiance, he could only make any headway at all if he had the sponsorshipof the union, and even then workers would tremble in their boots. When he was on the picket line with the union supporters how could he maintain When picketing workers startedto neutrality?
Contemporary Sociology30, 5

456 Symposium
the ModernMetropolis,edited by M. Burawoy, A. Burton,A. Amett-Ferguson, K.J. Fox,J. Gamson, N. Gartrell, L. Hurst, C. Kurzman, L. Salzinger,J. Shiffman,and S. Ui. Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress. 2000. "Introduction: Reachingfor the Global." Pp. 1-40 in Global Ethnography:Forces, and Imaginationsin a Postmodern Connections, World, edited by M. Burawoy, J. Blum, S. George, Z. Gille, T. Gowan, L. Haney, M. Klawaiter,S. Lopez, S. O'Riain,and M. Thayer. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress. Burawoy, Micheal, Alice Burton, Ann Amett-FerJ. Fox, Joshua Gamson, Nadine guson, Kathryn Gartrell,Leslie Hurst, Charles Kurzman,Leslie Salzinger,Josepha Shiffman,and ShioriUi, eds. 1991. EthnographyUnbound:Power and Resistance in the ModernMetropolis.Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. Burawoy, Michael, Joseph Blum, Sheba George, Zsuzsa Gille, Teresa Gowan, Lynne Haney, Maren Klawaiter,Steven Lopez, Sean O'Riain, and Millie Thayer, eds. 2000. GlobalEthnograSymposium References Forces, Connections,and Imaginations in phy: Appadurai,Arjun. 1996. Modernityat Large. Mina Postmodern World. Berkeley: University of neapolis: Universityof MinnesotaPress. CaliforniaPress. Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of CooperaLinda.1996. "SeeingThroughthe Eye of DifCarty, tion. New York: Basic Book. ference." Pp. 88-104 in Feminist Methodology: the ExecChesterI. 1975. TheFunctionsof Barnard, and Practice,edited by H. GotBridgingTheory MA:Hared. Cambridge, utive.30th Anniversary tfried. Urbana:Universityof Illinois Press. vard UniversityPress. Coleman,James S. 1990. TheFoundations of Social Becker, Howard. 2000. "Response to the 'ManiTheory.Cambridge,MA:Belknap. festo."'Ethnography2:257-60. Colin and Wolfgang Streeck, eds. 1997. Crouch, Blum, Linda. 1991. Between Feminism and Labor. Political Economy of Modern Capitalism:MapBerkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress. and Diversity.London:Sage. ping Convergence LabourMarThe ed. Search 1988. for Boyer, Robert, and Del Pinal, Jorge Singer. 1997. "GenerAudrey ket Flexibility: The European Economies in ations of Diversity:Latinosin the US."PopulaTransition.Oxford, UK:ClarendonPress. tion Bulletin 52:3. PolarBrose, Hans-Georg. 1998. "Proletarisierung, Dudley, KathrynMarie. 1994. TheEnd of the Line: In Erwerbsarbeit?" der oder isierung Upgrading America. New Livesin Post-Industrial Lost Jobs, Der Soziologie,edited by Die Diagnosefaehigkeit of Chicago Press. University Chicago: K.U. and M.R. Mayer. Lepsius, J. Friedrichs, Durand,Jean-Pierreand Paul Stewart.1998. "ManWiesbaden:WestdeutscherVerlag. ufacturingDissent?Burawoy in a Franco-JapanClass in the Colour of Burawoy,Michael. 1972. The ese Workshop." Work,Employment& Society to Advancement From Mines: African Copper 12:145-60. Zambianization. Manchester,UK: Manchester Rick. 1988. Culturesof Solidarity.BerkeFantasia, Press. University of CaliforniaPress. ley: University in 1979. Manufacturing Consent:Changes the LaborProcess under Monopoly Capitalism. Freeman, Richard.1994. WorkingUnderDifferent Rules. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Theo.1985. The Politics of Production: Factory Gottfried,Heidi. 1998. "Beyond Patriarchy? Class." Gender and Journal Lonof Sociology: rising Regimes under Capitalismand Socialism. the BritishSociologicalAssociation, 32:451-68. don: Verso. 1998. "TheExtended Case Method."Soci- Gottfried, Heidi and LaurieGraham. 1993. "ConstructingDifference: The Making of Gendered ological Theory16:4-33. Subcultures in a Japanese Automobile TransBurawoy,Michaeland ErikWright.1990. "Coercion and Consent in Contested Exchange."Politics plant."Sociology:TheJournalof the BritishSociand Society. 18:251-66. ological Association7:611-28. Man. ChicaPp. 1-7 in Halle, David. 1984. America'sWorking Burawoy,Michael. 1991. "Introduction." Unbound:Powerand Resistancein go: Universityof Chicago. Ethnography hurl rocks at the cars of scabs, he had no alternative but to join in, and he did so with gusto but in "a balletic imitation of a man throwing rocks" (Roy 1970:242). How could he be sensitive to the microdynamics of the union campaign and still pay attention to the broader forces at play? This question became more acute as he became increasingly aware, toward the end of his life, of the global dimension of capitalism and the havoc it wrecked on Southern labor. As he sketched the outline of a book that would deal with the labor struggles in the South, he turned back to the writings of Dewey and Cassirer-a participant observer in search of a new science of ethnography, what he called action research. He began as a sociologist of industrial work but ended up bringing his insights home, exploring new approaches to the work of the sociologist. Sociology30, 5 Contemporary

Symposium
Harrison, Bennet and Barry Bluestone. 1988. The Great U-Turn: Corporate Restructuring and the Polarization of America. New York: Basic Books. Hartmann, Doug, Jennifer L. Pierce, and Theresa Swartz. Forthcoming. Race, Class, and Gender: An Emergent Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Herzenberg, Steven, John Alic, and Howard Wial. 1998. New Rules for a New Economy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Hill, Herbert. 1988. "Myth-making as Labor History: Herbert Gutman and the United Mine Workers of America." International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 2 (Winter). Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson. 1996. Globalization in Question. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell. Hodson, Randy. 1995. "Worker Resistance: An Underdeveloped Concept in the Sociology of Work." Economic and Industrial Democracy 16: 79-110. Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierette. 1994. Gendered Transitions. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hughes, Everett C. 1946. "The Knitting of Racial Groups in Industry." American Sociological Review 11:5. Jurgens, Ulrich. 1984. Arbeitspolitik: Materialien zum Zusammenhang von Politischer Macht, Kontrolle und Betrieblicher Organization der Arbeit. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Jurgens, Ulrich, Thomas Malsch, and Knuth Dohse. 1993. Breakingfrom Taylorism: Changing Forms of Work in the Automobile Industry. New York: Cambridge University Press. Keating, Edward. 2000. "Ata Slaughterhouse, Some Things Never Die: Who Kills, Who Cuts, Who Bosses Can Depend on Race." The New York Times. June 16, p. Al. Ker, Horst and Michael Schumann. 1984. Das Ende derArbeitsteilung?Rationalisierung in der Industriellen Produktion. Muenchen: C.H. Beck Verlag. Klawiter, Maren. 2000. "From Private Stigma to Global Assembly." Pp. 299-334 in Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections, and Imaginations in a Postmodern World, edited by M. Burawoy, J. Blum, S. George, Z. Gille, T. Gowan, L. Haney, M. Klawaiter, S. Lopez, S. O'Riain, and M. Thayer. Berkeley: University of California Press Knights, David and Hugh Willmott. 1989. "Power and Subjectivity at Work: From Degradation to Subjugation in Social Relations." Sociology 23:45-558. Kwan-Lee, Ching. 1998. The South China Miracle: Two Worlds of Factory Women. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lee, Roger and Jane Willis, eds. 1997. Geographies of Economies. London: Arnold.

457

Leidner, Robin. 1993. Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lipsitz, George. Forthcoming. American Studies in a Moment of Danger. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. March, James G. and Herbert A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: John Wiley. Marcus, George 1994. "What Comes (Just) After 'Post'? The Case of Ethnography." P. 566 in Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Martin, Philip and Elizabeth Midgley. 1999. "Immigration to the U.S." Population Bulletin 54:2. Maurice, Marc, Francois Sellier, and Jean-Jacques Silvestre. 1986. The Social Foundations of Industrial Power: A Comparison of France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McDowell, Linda. 1997. Capital Culture: Gender and Work in the City. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Meyer, John W. 1987. "Self and the Life Course: Institutionalization and Its Effects." Pp. 242-60 in Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual, edited by G. M. Thomas, J. W. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, andJ. Boli. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Milkman, Ruth. 1987. Gender at Work: The Dynamics of Job Segregation by Sex During WWII. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. .1997. Farewell to Factory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Morrill, Calvin and Gary Alan Fine. 1997. "Ethnographic Contributions to Organizational Sociology." Sociological Methods and Research 25:424-51. Nelson, Margaret K. and Joan Smith. 1999. Working Hard and Making Do. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pierce, Jennifer L. 1995. Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms. Berkeley: University of California Press. Piore, Michael and Charles Sabel. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic Books. Pollard, Kevin and William O'Hare. 1999. "America's Racial and Ethnic Minorities." Population Bulletin 54:3. Roy, Donald. 1939-40. "Hooverville-A Community of Homeless Men." Studies in Sociology 4:37-45. .1952a. "Quota Restriction and Goldbricking in a Machine Shop." American Journal of Sociology 57:427-2. .1952b. Restriction of Output in a Piecework Machine Shop. PhD Thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. .1953. "Work Satisfaction and Social Reward in Quota Achievement: An Analysis of PieceContemporary Sociology 30, 5

458 Symposium
work Incentive."American SociologicalReview 18:507-14. . 1955. "Efficiencyand the 'Fix': Informal IntergroupRelations in a Piece-work Machine Shop." American Journal of Sociology 60:255-66. . 1959-60. "'BananaTime':Job Satisfaction and Informal Interaction." Human Organization 18:158-68. . 1964. "Unionization in the South: The Organizational Campaignin the Social and Cultural Context of the South."LaborLawJournal 15:451-68. . 1968. "TheUnion OrganizingCampaignas a Problem of Social Distance: Three Crucial Dimensions of Affiliation-Disaffiliation." Pp.49-56 in Institutionsand the Person, Essays Presentedto EverettC. Hughes, edited by H. S. Becker, B. Geer, D. Reisman, and R. Weiss. Chicago:Aldine. 1970. "TheStudy of SouthernLaborUnion Organizing Campaigns."Pp. 216-44 in Pathways to Data, edited by Robert Habenstein. Chicago:Aldine. . 1974. "Sex in the Factory:Informal Heterosexual Relations between Supervisors and Work Groups."Pp. 44-66 in Deviant Behavior: Occupationaland OrganizationalBases, edited by CliftonBryant.Chicago:Rand McNally. 1980a. "Fear Stuff, Sweet Stuff and Evil Stuff: Management'sDefenses Against Unionization in the South." Pp. 395-415 in Capital and Labour: Studies in the Capitalist Labour Process, edited by Theo Nichols. Glasgow: Fontana. 1980b. Review of MichaelBurawoy, ManJournal of Sociolufacturing Consent. Berkeley ogy 24:329-39. Sexual SubSalzinger,Leslie. 2000. "Manufacturing Desire and Discipline on a jects: 'Harassment,' Maquiladora Shopfloor."Ethnography1:1. .Forthcoming. Gender under Production: Making Subjects in Mexico's Global Factories. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress. Smith,Chrisand Paul Thompson. 1999. "Re-evaluating the Labor Process Debate." P. 216 in Rethinking the Labor Process, edited by M. Wardell, T. Steiger, and P. Meiksins. Albany: State Universityof New York. Smith, Vicki. 1998. "The FracturedWorld of the TemporaryWorker: Power, Participation,and Fragmentation in the Contemporary Workplace." Social Problems4: 411-30. Smith,Vicki and Heidi Gottfried.1998. "Flexibility and Work in Employment."In FrauenArbeitsMarkt: Der Beitrag der Frauenforschung zur Sozio-Okonomischen editTheorienentwicklung, ed by B. Geissler, F. Maier, and B. Pfau-Effinger. Berlin:Sigma. Stacey, Judith. 1996. "Can There Be a Feminist Ethnography?" Pp. 123-42 in FeministMethodology:Bridging Theoryand Practice, edited by H. Gottfried.Urbana:Universityof IllinoisPress. Andrew,David Knights,and Hugh Willmott, Sturdy, eds. 1992. Skill and Consent: Contemporary Studies in the Labour Process. London: Routledge. Thompson, Paul. 1983. The Nature of Work:An Introduction to Debates on the LabourProcess. London:MacMillan. Tilly, Chris. 1996. Halfa Job. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress. Vallas,Steven Peter. 1993. Power in the Workplace: ThePoliticsof ProductionatAT&T. Albany:State Universityof New York Press. . 2001. "Class,Race, and FactoryLife:The 'Knittingof Racial Groups' Revisited."Annual Meetings of the AmericanSociological Association, Anaheim, CA. Weber, Max. 1946. "Bureaucracy." Pp. 196-244 in FromMax Weber: Essaysin Sociology,edited by H. H. Gerthand C. W. Mills.New York:Oxford. Williamson,Oliver. 1975. Marketsand Hierarchies: Analysis and AntitrustImplications.New York: Free Press. How Working Willis,Paul. 1977. Learningto Labor: Class Kids Get WorkingClassJobs. New York: ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Contemporary Sociology30, 5