最新提问
我的动态
登录后查看动态
题目内容双击单词支持查询和收藏哦～
题目材料：
The shop-floor struggles and wildcat strikes of United States auto workers during the Second World War have received a substantial amount of scholarly attention in recent years. Once dismissed by labor historians as little more than the undisciplined behavior of workers unwilling to abide by union rules, this wartime militancy has been portrayed recently as playing a significant role in an extended conflict with management over distribution of power in the factory.
The revisionist historians who subscribe to this recent view have argued that auto workers, under the direction of militant shop stewards, took advantage of wartime conditions to extend workers' degree of control of the shop floor. Although often devoid of overt political content workers' wartime job actions, according to this view, had the potential to reshape the politics and power structure of the American factory, challenging the centralized, highly bureaucratic union organization and giving workers a more direct voice in determining shop-floor policy. These actions thus created the possibility, according to historian Nelson Lichtenstein, "for a decentralized system of postwar industrial relations in the auto industry." But this potential for change, this argument continues, was undercut by a number of forces. One of these forces—the government's patriotic wartime rhetoric, which presented a vision of a unified America in which those from different classes came together in a common effort—undermined the auto workers' sense of class aggrievement. This government propaganda, according to this view, made it all but impossible for the workers to frame their conflicts with management as a class struggle, depriving their job actions of a potential source of ideological legitimacy.
The historical evidence, however, suggests a substantially different interpretation, both of workers' motivation for militancy and of the role that patriotic rhetoric played in their struggle. Undoubtedly, there were shop-floor activists who hoped that the workers' job actions could be transformed into a broader struggle against management and union policies. A good deal of evidence indicates, however, that for workers, the factory-level conflicts of the Second world war were generally defensive maneuvers, designed not to extend the boundaries of worker control but rather to prevent erosion of workers nights that had been recently won in prewar union actions but were now threatened by union leaderships wartime no-strike policy. Moreover, the patriotic rhetoric of the period, far from undercutting that defense, actually served as a tool to legitimize workers' reaction to managements pressure. Specifically, many workers. framed their conflicts with management over their newly won right such as seniority and grievance procedures, as a struggle to secure their basic rights as Americans--nights of self-government and freedom from tyranny By employing this patriotic rhetorical tradition, the workers were able to imbue their newly won rights with a profound ideological legitimacy. These newly won rights were not simply the result of union power, the auto workers' patriotic rhetoric implied. They were, rather, a natural extension of the auto workers' birthright as Americans.
The revisionist historians who subscribe to this recent view have argued that auto workers, under the direction of militant shop stewards, took advantage of wartime conditions to extend workers' degree of control of the shop floor. Although often devoid of overt political content workers' wartime job actions, according to this view, had the potential to reshape the politics and power structure of the American factory, challenging the centralized, highly bureaucratic union organization and giving workers a more direct voice in determining shop-floor policy. These actions thus created the possibility, according to historian Nelson Lichtenstein, "for a decentralized system of postwar industrial relations in the auto industry." But this potential for change, this argument continues, was undercut by a number of forces. One of these forces—the government's patriotic wartime rhetoric, which presented a vision of a unified America in which those from different classes came together in a common effort—undermined the auto workers' sense of class aggrievement. This government propaganda, according to this view, made it all but impossible for the workers to frame their conflicts with management as a class struggle, depriving their job actions of a potential source of ideological legitimacy.
The historical evidence, however, suggests a substantially different interpretation, both of workers' motivation for militancy and of the role that patriotic rhetoric played in their struggle. Undoubtedly, there were shop-floor activists who hoped that the workers' job actions could be transformed into a broader struggle against management and union policies. A good deal of evidence indicates, however, that for workers, the factory-level conflicts of the Second world war were generally defensive maneuvers, designed not to extend the boundaries of worker control but rather to prevent erosion of workers nights that had been recently won in prewar union actions but were now threatened by union leaderships wartime no-strike policy. Moreover, the patriotic rhetoric of the period, far from undercutting that defense, actually served as a tool to legitimize workers' reaction to managements pressure. Specifically, many workers. framed their conflicts with management over their newly won right such as seniority and grievance procedures, as a struggle to secure their basic rights as Americans--nights of self-government and freedom from tyranny By employing this patriotic rhetorical tradition, the workers were able to imbue their newly won rights with a profound ideological legitimacy. These newly won rights were not simply the result of union power, the auto workers' patriotic rhetoric implied. They were, rather, a natural extension of the auto workers' birthright as Americans.
以上解析由 考满分老师提供。
