In defense of gutman; The Union's case

Abstract

The historical profession, much like late capitalism, experiences frequent spurts of production and consumption of specialty items. The appetite for such history "fads"?in the form of myriad reviews, articles, and books on a particular subject, individual scholar or approach to the past?at times resembles a school offish in the midst of a feeding frenzy. Herbert Gutman's scholarship and his role in inspiring a new generation of social and labor historians have been subjected of late to just such a feeding frenzy. Gutman's work of course has been much commented upon and criticized over the past decade, as befitted his major contributions to historical scholarship. But with Gutman's death in 1985 and the publication in 1987 of Power and Culture, a final collection of his previously unpublished essays accompanied by Ira Berlin's magnificent introductory essay, the chorus of com? mentators on Herbert Gutman has notably swelled. While much of the recent criticism has been favorable, even laudatory (e.g. the Summer 1988 issue of Labor History), many scholars have used the occasion of Gutman's death as an opportunity to offer sharp criti? cisms of his work. These criticisms have often extended beyond the man himself to encompass an overall attack on the "new" social and labor history Gutman helped bring into being. Some historians, such as Michael Kazin, criticize Gutman (and indirectly social his? tory) for being dewey-eyed and romantic, lacking sufficient theoreti? cal rigor in analyzing 19th century working class culture and poli? tics. Others, such as Melvin Dubofsky, have offered gratuitous insults about Gutman's writing ability. In the opening pages of "Myth Making As Labor History," Her? bert Hill consciously situates his essay squarely in the midst of this recent wave of Gutman-criticism. Hill's charges, however, are far more damning and serious than those offered to date, going well beyond complaints of poor writing or romantic interpretation. First, Hill argues that Gutman's work is ideologically motivated: it "pro? vided the basis for a revived populist neo-Marxism that advances the ideology of working class consciousness and solidarity against the social realities of race." Next, Gutman's writings (and by exten? sion those of Gutman's acolytes in what Hill calls "the New Labor