The Travails of Doing Labor History:

The Restless Wanderings of John Womack Jr.

John D. French and Daniel James

This is a book about country people who did not want to move and therefore got into
a revolution. They did not figure on so odd a fate. With this pithy observation, John
Womack Jr. opened his 1969 book Zapata and the Mexican Revolution. Nominated for
the National Book Award in 1970, Zapata has been read by tens of thousands, and
its author, while still in his early thirties, was awarded the Robert Woods Bliss Chair
in Latin American History and Economics at Harvard University, where he had
received his B.A. and his Ph.D.1 Academically, his inaugural monograph sparked a
turn toward grass-roots regional studies of the Mexican Revolution. Beyond the Mex-
icanist field, Zapata helped to inspire the new agrarian social and political history that
flourished among English-speaking Latin Americanists in the 1970s and it continued
to win wide praise, even from Mexican novelist Carlos Fuentes.

Colleagues from around the country were very helpful as we grappled with the Womack article, and we
received useful suggestions from a number of junior scholars and graduate students. Among the many
established scholars we would especially like to thank Chuck Bergquist, Jeff Cowie, Leon Fink, and Peter
Guardino for their comments. Reeve Huston and David McCreery also provided helpful written evalua-
tions of an earlier version of this essay at the Twenty-third Annual Latin American Labor History Confer-
ence (LALHC) at Duke University. In its final form, this article also benefited from the vigorous discussion
among the conference participants on May 5 6, 2006. To communicate with the authors, contact jdfrench@
duke.edu or [email protected].
1. John Womack Jr., Zapata and the Mexican Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1969), 1; [Robert] Low-
ell, Womack Are Considered for Two National Book Awards, Harvard Crimson, February 28, 1970. He
did his 1959 undergraduate thesis on an agrarian theme from his home state: Oklahomas Green Corn
Rebellion: The Importance of Fools. After a Rhodes scholarship 1959 1962, he entered the doctoral pro-
gram in History and defended his dissertation in 1966 on Emiliano Zapata and Revolution in Morelos,
1910 1920. Hired directly at Harvard as an assistant professor, he was named to the Bliss chair in 1970
1971. Robert Wood Bliss was U.S. Ambassador to Argentina before World War I and was sent to Paris in
the aftermath. The contemplation of the damages caused by the war made him believe that the future
of civilization was in the Americas, and the chair was formally created in 1922 23 and held by Clarence
Haring until the early 1950s (Private e-mail communication from Ricardo Salvatore, January 20, 2006).

Labor: Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas, Volume 4, Issue 2

DOI 10.1215/15476715-2006-067 2007 by Labor and Working-Class History Association

95
 96
4 :2
B OR
LA
While the generation of the 1970s turned to the rural, John Womack
embarked upon research on the then-neglected subject of urban workers2 with a proj-
ect on the state of Veracruz, whose labor struggles were central to the myth and tra-
jectory of the Mexican Revolution. Although Womack was described as concluding
his decade-long study in 1979,3 twenty years passed before he published an article
on any aspect of the project;4 this was followed six years later by an essay published
in the fall 2005 issue of the Journal of the Historical Society (JHS). As the title of the
essay suggests, Doing Labor History: Feelings, Work, Material Power ranges far
beyond Veracruz while offering Womacks assessment of the state of labor history.5
In truth, this impassioned philippic registers a strident dissent from what he deems
to be the erroneous direction of all labor history done since the 1960s in Europe, the
United States, and Latin America.6
At the time that Womacks silence came to an end, most Latin American-
ists were unaware of his labor history interests, even though his scholarly stature was
secure given his acclaimed first book, his reputation as a Marxist, and the prestige of
Harvard University, where he has twice chaired the history department. He had pub-
lished far less than others of his generation but was nonetheless widely admired for
his early historiographical reviews,7 a 1999 document collection,8 and his articles in
the New York Review of Books and the New Republic. Less enthusiasm was generated
by his ubiquitous and often opinionated book reviewing. Yet his book blurbs were still
sought, and his name often appeared on petitions in support of progressive causes. For
those of us involved in Latin American labor history, Womacks project was known

2. The political context for the boom in the study of rural social struggles, and the late shift to urban
labor is discussed in John D. French, The Latin American Labor Studies Boom. International Review of
Social History [Amsterdam] 45, no. 2 (2000): 280.
3. Rodney A. Anderson, Comentario, in Labor and Laborers through Mexican History, ed. Elsa
Ceclia Frost, Michael C. Meyer, Josefina Zorada Vzquez, and Lla Daz (Mexico/Tucson: El Colegio de
Mxico/University of Arizona Press, 1979), 731.
4. John Womack Jr., Work in the Moctezuma Brewery, in Reconstructing History: The Emergence
of a New Historical Society, ed. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn (New York: Rout-
ledge, 1999), 347 60.
5. John Womack Jr., Doing Labor History: Feeling, Work, Material Power, Journal of the Histori-
cal Society 5, no. 3 (2005): 255 96. A March 17, 2005, lecture in Mexico City by Womack, sponsored by the
Asociacin Mexicana de Historia Econmica y la Facultad de Economa-UNAM, had the title Proleg-
meno para una nueva historia obrera.
6. Although a specialist on Latin America, Womacks endnotes suggest a North Atlantic focus in the
labor history field with an overwhelming concentration on intellectual production in the United States and,
to a lesser extent, Europe with Latin America coming in a very distant third.
7. The most influential of three such articles by Womack was The Mexican Economy during the
Revolution, 1910 1920: Historiography and Analysis, Marxist Perspectives 1, no. 4 (1978): 80 123.
8. The unique blend of attention to detail, thick description, and empathy that marked his inaugural
monograph would also be found in the introduction to a document collection he edited thirty years later
about a new movement, in Chiapas, that took the name of Emiliano Zapata as their own in honor of the
martyred peasant revolutionary. John Womack Jr., Rebellion in Chiapas: An Historical Reader (New York:
New Press, 1999).
 F r e n c h a n d J a m e s / T h e R e s t le s s Wa n d e r in g s o f J o h n Wo m a c k J r. 97

primarily through a 1979 essay that sketched out his version of total labor history (it
was cited by the authors of this article in the introduction to a 1997 edited collection).9
With the passing of years and then decades, it was apparent that something was amiss
because nothing, however preliminary, was shared with those who were striving to
open up the emerging field of Latin American labor history.
When his forty-one-page historiographical essay appeared in JHS, its form
and spirita highly personalized narrative line with a penchant for pungent opin-
ionssurprised many. All in all, this densely written article, accompanied by ninety-
six footnotes citing hundreds of books and articles, is a disjointed and conflicted text
by a scholar unpublished in the field. As such, the JHS piece might seem an unlikely
subject for detailed analysis were it not for the respect earned by Womacks past con-
tributions and our concern that his personal prestige, and the symbolic capital of his
Harvard position, were being used to disseminate a tendentious rendering of the
labor history field.
This article begins by dissecting the historiographical account offered by
Womack, who tells a story of an early romance followed by his subsequent disillu-
sionment. This section also criticizes Womacks resort to ad hominem attacks and
other irresponsible argumentative ploys. In the second section, we focus on the pecu-
liarly confessional dimension of Womacks 2005 essay, which we characterize as a
failed bildungsroman. From there, we offer a diagnosis of the impasse that has sty-
mied Womacks multidecade study of Veracruz. In particular, we compare his self-
representation in the JHS article, in which he figures centrally as a character, with
what can be proven based on his scholarly and journalistic publications, interviews,
and newspaper reports since the 1960s. In so doing, we offer an alternate account of
his predicament as it touches on larger scholarly controversies about representation,
the role of narrative and culture, and epistemological debates about historical causal-
ity. Throughout, we follow an ethics of responsible reading that avoids ad hominem
argument through an exclusive reliance on direct evidence derived from the close
reading and citation of relevant sources.

John Womack and Labor History:

From Youthful Romance to the Practiced Bad Habits of the Veteran
To understand Womacks historiographical intervention, one must begin with his
decision to eschew the impersonal third person that often characterizes the genre.
Instead, he makes himself a character in a story line that begins with his romance
with labor history in the late 1960s, when giants of several kinds ruled the field. . . .
Above all [E. P.] Thompson . . . [and] whatever influence they accepted, the young all
took their subject in Thompsons spirit to be workers subjectivity, agency.10 At the

9. John Womack Jr., The Historiography of Mexican Labor, in Frost et al. eds., Labor and Laborers,
739 56; John D. French and Daniel James, Squaring the Circle: Womens Factory Labor, Gender Ideol-
ogy, and Necessity, in The Gendered Worlds of Latin American Women Workers, ed. John D. French and
Daniel James (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997), 1 30.
10. Womack, Doing, 273.
 98
4 :2
B OR
LA
beginning, he says that he dutifully set out to use the workers culture to explain their
politics, . . . but the more I learned . . . the less Thompson helped me to understand
it.11 The JHS narrative of his Veracruz research is interwoven with an account of his
gradual disappointment with a field to which he hoped to contribute. If his declared
admiration for labor history seems somewhat faux, the 2005 essay gains momentum
as he descends toward the sarcasm and condescension that mark the depths of his
disillusionment. While mocking established old American masters of labor history,
following Saint Edward [E. P. Thompson] and Saint Herb [Herbert Gutman], his
scorn extends to figures marginal to the academic labor history field, including two
identical dismissals of oral history narratives from the venerable Ronald Fraser and
blessed Studs Terkel.12
The declared focus of the JHS essay is the idea of strategic position in indus-
try, a classic theme that has generated a vast body of research across several genera-
tions. In this part of the piece, Womack parses his differences with the books and
articles of other scholars, none of whom gain his approval. At his most exacting,
Womack distinguishes between his concern with the technical and those who ana-
lyze strategic positions as part of social relations or a socially constructed relation-
ship or social practice at work. This was still social history, sociology, which was
essential but not engineering. I wanted to conceptualize the engineering of social pro-
duction, the mechanics of it, the forces and motion in it.13 To outsiders, Womacks
drawing of fine distinctions may seem arcane, although labor history practitioners
are more likely to wonder about his failure to fully engage, other than in passing,
with David Montgomerys research in the 1970s on changing machine technology,
strategic skills, and working-class praxis. As for his declared aspirations, labor his-
tory practitioners may be somewhat impatient with Womacks depiction of himself,
standing alone in lofty rectitude, arrayed against other lesser scholars whose claims
can be judged based on their published work. Finally, Womack identifies a surpris-
ing alternative inspiration for what he now calls his technical history of work: John
Dunlop, a key founder of the discipline of industrial and labor relations in the United
States since World War II.
Yet technical issues involving industrial labor do not produce Womacks fire
and passion, which largely derives from the hothouse atmosphere of the U.S. aca-
demic Kulturkampf of the 1980s and 1990s. Womack is particularly contemptuous
of the institutional venues and scholars involved in current attempts to reinvigorate
the labor history field, including the Labor and Working Class History Association,
the North American Labor History Conference, Labor: Studies in Working Class His-
tory of the Americas, and an edited book by the authors of this article.14 In Womacks

11. Womack, Doing, 258, 256.

12. Womack, Doing, 268, 261 (the dig about the venerable Fraser or blessed Studs is repeated on
267).
13. Womack, Doing, 263.
14. Womack, Doing, 268 270, 292n62. A discussion of the declining appeal of labor history to the
general U.S. public is sarcastically attacked by Womack as a notion (eventually expressed at an Organi-
 F r e n c h a n d J a m e s / T h e R e s t le s s Wa n d e r in g s o f J o h n Wo m a c k J r. 99

account, labor history is mired in an intellectually unsound and politically motivated

attempt to practically redefine the field as a general history of injustice by those
who still see the world through the lens of Robin Hood versus the Sheriff of Not-
tingham.15 After suggesting an academic pursuit dominated by mindless leftism, he
depicts veteran labor historians and their acolytes as having exchanged their true call-
ing (the study of industrial labor) for a trendy fascination with identities and injus-
tice, insistent on workers agency in the larger social and political culture, but igno-
rant of industrys engineering. . . . As they brought a second or third Thompsonite
generation into modern labor history, instead of teaching the new young about indus-
trial work, they have taught them about constructions, representations, and semiotic
challenges as blessed by Edward Said and Joan Scott.16
Clearly all scholars have a right to their own opinions, and more than a few
specialists might agree with one or another of Womacks complaints. Yet none would
confuse his reckless generalizations for even a semiaccurate account of our increas-
ingly pluralistic field. Moreover, Womacks strongly-expressed opinions are under-
mined by his frequent resort to sarcasm, exaggeration, and rhetorical overkill. Are
contemporary labor historians really all in thrall to Thompson, Gutman, and a now
thoroughly Thompson/Gutmanized [sic] Montgomery [emphasis added]?17 On some
level, all those in a given field are influenced by their predecessors, but responsible
scholarly argument hinges on the delineation of the nature and variation of that influ-
ence and its shifts through time. And are Thompson and Gutman, with their

zation of American Historians meeting, where else?) (269). Yet his proclaimed resistance to any rethink-
ing of labor history appears to be a case of damned if you do, damned if you dont because his JHS article
itself refers to the shrinkage of old-fashioned industry, the old-fashioned working class, and the old-time
labor movement (272). So the question might be posed: is it really advisable or practical for the field to
embark on a struggle to the death to preserve an old-fashioned or old-time labor history? Regardless
of area of geographic specialization, labor history practitioners today offer a common answer and it is not
to throw out the baby with the bathwater (as Womack suggests). A 2006 assessment of the Latin American
and Caribbean field suggests that the key to future advances is not to abandon or replace but rather to add
to and expand the boundaries of what we define as our objects of study. This can be done by incorporating
new theoretical problematics and empirical foci as well as through the application of our existing meth-
ods of analysis to subjects beyond our current core concerns. French, The Laboring and Middle-Class
Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean: Historical Trajectories and New Research Directions, in
Global Labour History: A State of the Art, ed. Jan Lucassen (Bern: Peter Lang, 2006), 329. Interestingly
enough, the U.S. union movement has also been engaged in a profound rethinking that parallels the new-
est configuration of the labor history field, including an enhanced attention to women, racial and ethnic
minorities, immigrants, and even gays and lesbians.
15. Womack, Doing, 269, 279. Even if the field was styling itself a general history of injustice, the
criticism seems arbitrary given Womacks 1983 discussion of the pedagogical role of history, which can
show that everybody hurts . . . [and] it seems to me that teaching about pain is the most important thing
history can do. . . . [It] teaches that people who really lived went through certain pain, which would have
hurt the reader as badly as it hurts them. Judith Evans, John Womack (interview), in Visions of History:
Interviews with E. P. Thompson et al., ed. MARHO [the Radical Historians Organization] [New York: Pan-
theon, 1983], 260; this observation originates with David McCreery.
16. Womack, Doing, 275, 280, 274.
17. Womack, Doing, 270.
 10 0
4:2
R
BO
LA
rightly influential work, really to be treated as self-evidently negative labels? And
what does it mean to conjoin the names of these two very different scholars and arbi-
trarily apply it to a third distinctive one? Even if it was granted that Montgomery has
fallen away from some original state of grace, no evidence of the shift is provided or
proof that it derives from the belated influence of his contemporaries E. P. Thompson
and Herbert Gutman, by now deceased.
Rather than seeking an opening for dialogue, Womack singles out for special
attack those, like Leon Fink, who have called for more analysis of changing work
processes and managerial structures as well as the felt experience of work and atten-
tion to the basic history of work and occupations.18 The very fact that the program
directed by Fink at the University of Illinois at Chicago includes a course on technol-
ogy, another possible opening, is met with sarcasm (bless that professor). Womack
then moves to his crowning put-down: that Fink evidently cannot tell the differ-
ence between work and the experience of it, or the difference between industrial and
other work.19 A similar attack is launched against the authors of this article. Since
Womack is aware of our combined sixty years studying Brazilian and Argentine
labor history, what does he gain by saying that we evidently have no idea what indus-
trial work is: technical, collective, complex? And given that many of those years have
been spent studying two communities and their respective industries (meatpacking
in Berisso and autoworkers in the ABC region of Sao Paulo), does it make sense to
claim that we will listen to how sausage is made but resist knowing how the factory
ran (or that some workers held better positions than others in keeping the place run-
ning or shut it down)?20
After such stunning violations of collegiality and tactical common sense, the
reader is left with an illogical and oddly personalized grievance. Fink and his collabo-
rators, Womack sniffs, will not have it in their house, [that is,] a vocabulary or gram-
mar for discourse on the human technical divisions in industrial production of the
sort he seeks to produce.21 And in the case of French and James, he claimsagainst
a two-decade history of our attempts to solicit his participation in the Latin American
Labor History Conferencethat we would (consistent with their principles) have
to denounce what he proposes to do.22 A self-imposed isolation is thus improbably
explained as a rejection by others, and Womacks failure to engage with a scholarly
community, bound by a common ethic, is presented as a defense of principle rather
than a loss to his own scholarship and ours.
Womack backs up his authoritative-sounding pronouncements with the bad
habits accumulated over fifty years in a profession he once analogized to monastic life

18. Leon Fink, Editors Introduction, Labor History 53, no. 3 (2002): 245 46.
19. Womack, Doing, 269.
20. Womack, Doing, 282 283.
21. Womack, Doing, 273.
22. Womack, Doing, 283.
 F r e n c h a n d J a m e s / T h e R e s t le s s Wa n d e r in g s o f J o h n Wo m a c k J r. 101

with its vices of petty bitchiness and trivializing malice.23 Hence, the scholarly pre-
tentiousness of providing his own translations for Marx, Gramsci, and St. Simon, even
when unnecessary, his discussion of Plato, and his attempt to dazzle the reader with
his observation that the Genesis story is (of course) strongest chanted in the original
Hebrew24 Moreover, he disdains the elegance of precise and exacting citation and
chooses instead to lay down an artillery barrage of endnotes. While some are mean-
inglessly detailed with dozens of individual pages cited from a given book or article,
Womack is just as likely to dump armfuls of distantly related books into a single end-
note with no explanation of what they have to do with each other or the text (a case of
citation as display presumed to shore up his authority). Of greatest concern, however,
is the frequency with which broad and controversial claims are advanced for which
no evidence at all is provided. This is particularly true about the ad hominem attacks
in which he postulates bad motives and demeaning cultural and political explanations
for intellectual developments of which he disapproves.25 Womack also routinely blurs
the lines between labor history and all that he disdains in the direction of the histori-
cal discipline as a whole, including his former Harvard colleague Simon Schama.26
Womacks tone of Olympian disdain coexists with rhetorical devices that
preemptively delegitimize the intellectual work of others. Through asides, such as
again, I swear or honest to God, he takes the sensible reader into his confi-
dence as if to say: isnt it amazing that these people actually believe this nonsense?
At other moments, he simply resorts to apodictic assertion, as with his claim that his
interpretation of Gramsci is self-evidently the only legitimate one. Nor should his
clear narrative arc from enchantment to bitterness be taken at face value. He posits
a break with his first love, E. P. Thompson, as central to his narrative of disillusion-
ment, but even in his foolish youth Womack was never the infatuated Thompsonian
he claims to have been in 2005. His earliest declared inspiration was the Karl Marx
of the first volume of Capital and a book by historical sociologist Harry Braverman,
Labor and Monopoly Capital, that he fails to even mention in 2005. In 1979, the latter

23. Evans, John Womack (interview), 260.

24. Womack, Doing, 284, 288, 291 292, 271; on 280, he twits U.S. labor historians for having read
Gramsci only in English.
25. Womack, Doing, offers a multitude of these insulting speculations: unmoored claims about
what is alleged to be the political coordinates of a generation in terms of their dreams, fantasies, and views
(276, 280); their surrender to the capitalist marketplace (270); that they can not imagine a technical story
of industrial production that would not bore them senseless and be a complete downer in the intellectual
marketplace (272 73); or that they are driven by material motivations (very few such historians could
expect to pay their bills doing histories of labor or work, much less industrial work) leading them to choose
more attractive and lucrative themes, thus surrendering to a debased U.S. culture of leisure, shopping, and
so on (272 73).
26. Womack, Doing, 278, offers statements about the study of work in the United States that slide
into a set of complaints, including nonbelief in reality, yet the endnote does not include a single labor histo-
rian (294n78). For the snide comment on a former colleague, see his attack on the formidable Gen. Reader
(if not watching Simon Schama re-runs) (267 68).
 10 2
4:2
R
BO
LA
was declared a virtual handbook for research on recent working-class history by
Womack, who sagely advised that anyone interested in the history of work or work-
ers should learn its argument cold.27
Toward the end of the JHS piece, Womack extends his attack to progres-
sive U.S. historians of Latin America who, by his account, have adhered en masse
to cultural and subaltern studies. His colleagues in his own area of specialization, he
begins, will be even more resistant to his project than the run-of-the-mill U.S. labor
historians he has earlier derided.28 He ends this section by saying round and round,
in their diligently subalternist rites, they would continually turn (thinking it their
cultural turn), which is followed by what is meant to be an intimidating display of
menacing erudition: they continually return to their old, unconsciously inherited, still
unrecognized (so still unexamined) often contradictory assumptions from Parsonian
functionalism, Popperite methodological individualism, Cooleyian symbolic interac-
tionism, and Goffmanite ethnomethodology. Beyond the incoherent hodgepodge of
improbable alleged influences (plus subaltern studies), Womack marshals not a single
scrap of evidence to link any of these to a single work by the diverse historians he criti-
cizes, while the weasel words unconsciously inherited and unrecognized suggest
that assertion is his only recourse, not evidence. To add insult to injury, he goes on to
project, once again, what is inside their/our heads: these absurd tribal rites and intel-
lectual confusion have a single aim: to save their [concept of ] culture and avoid see-
ing how work actually works in the organization of industrial workers.29 Beyond the
murkiness of how work actually works, this is ad hominem argument at its sloppi-
est and most embarrassing.

27. Womack, The Historiography of Mexican Labor, 752 53. He ends his 1979 article by propos-
ing the creation of two new academics chairs, one for the History of Technology in Mexico, and one for
the History of Labor and Workers in Mexico. In this earlier and more sensible version of his current inter-
ests, he defined the history of technology as subordinate to the latter, which after all is the mother sub-
ject (755 56).
28. Womack, Doing, 279. Contrary to Womacks aggrieved sense of being set upon, the progres-
sive U.S. historians of Latin America he attacks have routinely gone out of their way to avoid conflict with
their powerful senior colleague. Hence the surprisingly mild response by the Yale Mexicanist Gil Joseph to
an even more unbridled 1999 conference paper by Womack that served as the basis for the 2005 JHS essay.
Although not a labor historian, Joseph hastened to find some area of agreement by saying that Womack
was certainly correct about the need to reverse the trend away from research on the work process; it is his
disparagement of those labor historians that do cultural history tout court that seems cause for alarm.
Reclaiming the Political at the Turn of the Millennium, in Reclaiming the Political in Latin Ameri-
can History: Essays from the North, ed. Gilbert M. Joseph (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001), 15.
Womack responded to this temporizing with a fulminating condemnation of the edited book in which this
olive branch was proffered. See his review in Hispanic American Historical Review 83 (2003): 374 75.
29. Womack, Doing, 292.
 F r e n c h a n d J a m e s / T h e R e s t le s s Wa n d e r in g s o f J o h n Wo m a c k J r. 103

Historiographical Essay as Failed Bildungsroman

Womack sets himself up as a stern judge of quality in the JHS article and is much
given to distributing demerits while stingy with praise.30 Yet despite moments of the
old eloquence, the essay contains much that appears odd and out of place. For one
thing, there is not a single subheading in the twenty-nine pages of text, and its mean-
dering quality reflects the absence of a carefully specified overarching argument. The
most distinctive element, however, is the inclusion of a first-person narrative account
of what he has learned from his attempt to write about Veracruz workers. Indeed, the
second paragraph begins, In 1968 I started research on a history of industrial work-
ers in Veracruz but soon began studying industrial companies in Veracruz, . . . at
which I spent as much archival time as I did studying workers for the next ten years.
By 1980, I decided I had done enough research . . . [and] drafted chapters on Mexicos
development and Veracruzs industrial enterprises. He next sought to tackle the labor-
ing lives of workers, but I [simply] could not get my chapter on work right. As he
explains, two years were spent working up a narrative of the work job by job, depart-
ment by department among railroad and dockworkers, which proved much harder
than I had expected. As he wrestled with the challenge, Womack expanded the scope
of his coverage to additional industries: one chapter grew into several, for each indus-
try took its own, and industry by industry they grew severally into a very odd project,
so by the time I quit grubbing [it] took me almost twenty years on the calendar.31
As the research sprawled, Womack reports adopting a radically different
approach from all that was being done in the booming labor history field. From a
constant effort at abstraction, he undertook a deliberate turn away from culture and
class, in order to concentrate strictly on production. I wanted to see industry with
an engineers eye . . : work = Fs, force times space (?).32 At this point, Womack ruefully
notes that his growing obsession might lead an innocent reader . . . [to] wonder, among
so many concrete details, . . . where the analysis or the abstraction was. His hope, he
tells us, was that a focus on each industrys necessary mechanical, manual, and men-

30. While few win laurels for excellence, Womack is surprisingly ungenerous and given to mislead-
ing caveats, even in the case of one of his most talented Harvard graduate students, James Brennan. In
Doing, 264, he describes the author of the superb monograph The Labor Wars of Crdoba, 1955 1976:
Ideology, Work, and Labor Politics in an Argentine Industrial City (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1994) as one of those who professed to take technical factors seriously. Yet while praising him for offering
a concise, precise explanation of strategic power, he then twits his former student for failing to address
inter-industry differencesmatters that are, in fact, addressed in Brennans book as well as in a relevant
article not cited by Womack. See Brennans Industrial Sectors and Union Politics in Latin American
Labor Movements: Light and Power Workers in Argentina and Mexico, Latin American Research Review
30, no. 1 (1995): 39 68. This likely reflects what Womack perceives as his former students defection from
his own strident sectarianism; for a fuller discussion of Brennans work, see French, The Laboring and
Middle-Class Peoples, 318 22.
31. Womack, Doing, 256, 259, 261.
32. Womack, Doing, 261, 263.
 10 4
4:2
R
BO
LA
tal details would allow him to tell in each industry which positions were strategic.33
Discussing his then no-longer-so-young self, he reports finding little enlightenment
from the work of those who were publishing while he privately ruminated.34
Until this point, Womacks essay follows the format of a bildungsroman, a
moral tale or an ethical parable of the transition from youth to maturity that ends
in the characters acquisition of wisdom and knowledge. And Womack will finally
report the requisite personal breakthrough as having occurred in 1994 when he taught
a Harvard course on the history of Mexican industries and industrial labor for the
first time [sic]. The eureka passage reads as follows: I had to conceive of the workers
industrially, in the technical divisions and integrations of their labor. . . . This was my
break. Before long I had found new terms for industrial workers connections at work,
and it seemed to me imperative to finish my abstract histories in all of their stationary,
motive, moving, dead, and live details they required.35 In a very real sense, Womacks
excursion into the historiography was secondary to a personal quest that lead to this
moment of hard-earned wisdom on the part of a now-fully matured man.
Yet it is precisely at this highpoint in his pursuit of self-knowledge that
Womack betrays the essential requirements of the narrative genre he has adopted,
perhaps unwittingly. Given his account of a hard fought struggle to achieve wisdom,
the reader expects him to share the new vocabulary and concepts resulting from
this intellectual epiphany, while proving its worth in solving shared problems in the
field. The readers expectations, however, are disappointed, and this suggests unex-
pected difficulties in operationalizing the intellectual breakthrough he claims to have
achieved eleven years earlier. Most surprising of all, the very next paragraph begins
with a rhetorical question full of bathos: But who would care? Any fool culturally
or professionally awake knows that for twenty years or more the hot historical issues
of Western Civilization have been race, gender, ethnicity, sex, heroes, and signs, and
now, finally, right there up front, self. Why on earth would anyone now (or still) try
to do an industrial sort of history, of modern industrial work?36
From this point forward, the JHS article is marked by a radical shift in tone:
the failure is not Womacks but that of the society, the profession, and a younger gen-
eration of labor historians perverted by their elders. His essay now gains in volume as

33. Womack, Doing, 262.

34. Harvard sources provide some idea of the scope of his evidentiary base, and what we see does not
seem overwhelming in terms of scale. We know that his manually gathered factory employment records
(fifty boxes of five hundred forms each) were being converted to an electronic database format in 2001, and
that he and his assistants recorded 80 hours of interviews in Veracruz, which were to be transcribed in 2004.
Conversion of Data Collected on the Industrial Working Class of Veracruz, Mexico, 1880 1940 into an
Electronic Data Base, Rockefeller Center faculty research grant in 2001; Ken Gewert, Losing the Hiss,
Scratches, and Din of Traffic, Harvard University Gazette, May 13, 2004. Given that these types of sources
have been used by others, Womack might have escaped isolation by entering into dialogue on the method-
ological questions involved.
35. Womack, Doing, 266.
36. Womack, Doing, 266.
 F r e n c h a n d J a m e s / T h e R e s t le s s Wa n d e r in g s o f J o h n Wo m a c k J r. 105

he indulges in baseless abuse: The history of work, especially industrial work, now
evokes physical expressions of boredom, even aversion on the part of labor historians,
who treat it as a dreary subject.37 Yet there are some strange elements to his screed.
Echoing typical culture wars rhetoric, he complains that scholars now know vastly
more about race, gender or sex than they do about work yet give no sign that they
could ever have enough scholarship about bodies in representation or erotic stimu-
lation. In a snide aside, he notes that it is historically as well as naturally interest-
ing that the species would die out much faster without work than it would without
any copulation.38 One can only feel embarrassment at the absurdity of this arbitrary
thought experiment, which postulates a relative time to extinction based on no work
or no sex, because one could just as well observe that no food would produce the same
result even faster.
To summarize our argument so far, Womacks JHS article has the apparatus
of an historiographical intervention, but not its spirit or ethics, while the confessional
signposts of the bildungsroman are present, although it fails to fulfill that genres
requirements as well. Instead, it appears that Womack, frustrated in the quest for his
Holy Grail, has conjured up a chimera and marched off to do battle with the imagi-
nary monsters he believes beleaguer him.

The Origins of Womacks Double Impasse

The historical materials that document the evolution of his Veracruz project since
1968 allow us to better understand Womacks deep-seated anger in 2005. In two 1983
interviews, Womack was already acutely aware that fifteen years had passed with-
out publishing what was to have been his second monograph. Chagrined at the dif-
ficulties, he confessed to an earlier unbelievable arrogance because he had written
Zapata when he was not yet thirty . . . [and] I thought, Jesus, it only takes a couple or
three years to write a book. My arrogance was this: since Ive done peasants, next Im
going to write a book about workers in the revolution and eventually my synthesis. I
thought Id crack one off every two or three years. So I started hunting subjects and
chose the 1906 Rio Blanco massacre of textile workers, long cited as a precursor of the
Mexican Revolution. So I went off to Veracruz to study it.39
After finishing a 1981 82 Guggenheim fellowship,40 Womack was profiled in
a 1983 Washington Post article entitled John Womacks Harvard Marxism: The His-
tory Chairmans Respectable Unorthodoxy.41 Womack was of interest because the

37. Womack, Doing, 270, 267, 272.

38. Womack, Doing, 270 271.
39. Evans, John Womack (interview), 252.
40. Womack explained to the Harvard Crimson that most [Guggenheim] fellows spend the year writ-
ing books, while the reporters went on to note that Womack finds it impossible to teach and write at the
same time. 14 Faculty Members Named for Guggenheim Fellowships, Harvard Crimson, April 13, 1981.
41. James Ladner, John Womacks Harvard Marxism: The History Chairmans Respectable
Unorthodoxy, Washington Post, January 1, 1983.
 10 6
4:2
R
BO
LA
forty-six year old had just been selected to chair Harvards history department, despite
his status as a self-identified Marxist and Communist.42 In his Washington Post inter-
view, Womack seemed more comfortable discussing his politics than his writing pace.
While claiming that Im grateful that I didnt think [in the 1970s], Oh, boy, Ive got
it, and sit down and whip off a book about Veracruz that I would now be unbearably
ashamed of, he did plaintively insist that I think Ive found out stuff that nobody
else found out. Not just details, but something about the way things work in a soci-
ety. Yet despite this claim he could not hide a deeper uncertainty, both personal and
professional: If I can get it done and get it done right, I think it will be a very impor-
tant book in the field. These guys who engineer hearts and work in molecular biol-
ogy and so on it takes them a long time, and I think it works the same way in history
as it does in other fields. You cant program the discovery of what you dont know,
and he predicted that the book might still take fifteen to eighteen more years.43
Having passed both of those deadlines by 2005, Womack was less than honest
in the Journal of the Historical Society when he advanced a self-serving explanation:
he had embarked upon a difficult and lonely quest to achieve a meta-level insight into
some profound notion of the strategic, idiosyncratically his and his alone. It is clear
that John Womack has faced an impasse, but the center of his travails will certainly
not be found in the false dichotomy of his title: feelings versus material power. In fact,
Womacks conceptual and methodological difficulties are best illuminated through
the very terms of the theoretical debates in which he has adopted a ferocious if close-
minded stance. As his essay reveals, Harvards most famous Marxist has long felt
trapped in narrative: The better I did my stories, however, the more they too frus-
trated me, and his mind simply could not rest.44 Yet his response to thirty years of
cumulative anguish is to simply radicalize his declared objective of achieving some-
thing higher, something objective, hard, transparent, and transcendent, a standpoint
that takes gendered shape in his mind as an idealized god-like Engineer.
In essence, Womack has suffered grievously from his failure to engage with
the rich and complicated intellectual debates about representation, narration, and cul-
ture. Is it in fact possible to achieve an unmediated and fully objective comprehension
of social reality? Or is knowledge always partial, imperfect, and distorted, because
even Womacks cherished technical manuals are expressed through the medium of
language? And even if one could achieve un-mediated access to reality, what does it
means that our comprehension must be expressed through language and its repertoire

42. In Evans, John Womack (interview), 257 58, Womack shied away from the label radical histo-
rian, although he did say that so far I belong to no party, but I consider my political principles as those of
a communist. When it comes to politics, I try to associate myself as much as I can with socialist activities.
In 1978, he helped found the journal Marxist Perspectives and served as coeditor with another controver-
sial Marxist, Eugene Genovese, although the journal quickly foundered and came to an end a few years
later. See Richard S. Blatt, New Marxist Journal Formed: Womack Will Serve as Co-Editor, Harvard
Crimson, May 26, 1978.
43. Ladner, Harvard Marxism.
44. Womack, Doing, 293, 262, 265.
 F r e n c h a n d J a m e s / T h e R e s t le s s Wa n d e r in g s o f J o h n Wo m a c k J r. 107

of representational and narrative forms? In this sense, all communication is miscom-

munication. One has to represent and to narrate, but in doing so one is false to what
one is attempting to express because the outside world cannot be represented in all of
its infinite detail and uniqueness, much less its passage through time (narration). And
finally, what is the impact of the fact that all forms of communication, including lan-
guage, are inevitably social processes that operate within cultural and linguistic sys-
tems which play out within larger economic and political institutions and dynamics
of a given society at a given point in time?
In his restless wanderings, John Womack has stubbornly failed to avail him-
self of the insights that might have helped overcome his paralyzing impasse. In a 1983
interview, for example, he inadvertently revealed the pressure he felt because of the
incommensurability between reality and what the historian produces. Having once
contemplated writing, say, five thousand pages on workers in Veracruz, he sug-
gests that he now realizes that a thousand will be plenty.45 Yet why does he reject
questions of representation and narrative so sharply? It appears that Womack does so
because he finds them trendy and faddish, a part of what he thinks of as a new cul-
tural history that he rejects. In sharp contrast with this charming nonsense,46 he
prefers to style himself a hard-nosed industrial engineer, a practical man of knowl-
edge with no patience for affectation. But in truth these theoretical debates are prob-
ing the very conditions that make possible the effectiveness of Womacks writing at
his most eloquent. His best writing is found when he forsakes the pretense of being
a scientist, a neuro-biologist, or a heart surgeon. He is most moving when he is full
of emotion, metaphor, and biblical allegorywhen he embraces what representation
and writing involve.47
His resistance reflects, in part, a positivist strain in his philosophy of history
(the more facts the better) marked by a limitless drive for comprehensiveness and
some version of perfection. Asked by Judith Evans in 1983 about history as a discipline
that, as she put it, has the sense of being every thing, Womack replied: Yes, I think
that history is everything that ever happened and the infinity of questions about it.
There is always bound to be something else that happened that we dont know yet.48
Yet a price is paid for this unending and unbending ambition, and it leads Womack
into a valiant but futile struggle to discover a vocabulary or conceptualization capable
of uniting all of the disparate groups of workers he had studied, in all of their multi-
faceted diversity across a half century or more. Even if unfulfillable, Womack takes

45. Evans, John Womack (interview), 260.

46. Womack, Doing, 278.
47. See Womack, Doing, 271, for his discussion of work in Genesis. Or one might cite the cadences
of Womacks opening to his Chiapas reader: Americans tend to think of Mexico as an exotic place, which
allows them endless fantasies about it. But Mexico is real. It is a big complicated, vastly Catholic, still
deeply-old fashioned, nevertheless largely modern, and largely poor country. . . . Mexicans love their coun-
try intensely. But for most of them it is a hard place to live, work, or do much good. Of all its hard places,
the hardest has long been Chiapas, Mexicos Mississippi. Womack, Rebellion, 3 4.
48. Evans, John Womack (interview), 260.
 10 8
4:2
R
BO
LA
this ambition to be a mark of personal pride on the part of someone who wishes to
be seen not as a man of emotion and feeling but of material power and manly com-
mand. The ultimate scientistic utopia sought is, as he puts it in the JHS, to achieve a
physical, industrial objectivity.49
To give substance to his self-image as engineer, Womack adopts an intellectual
process of abstraction or, better put, subtraction that he narrates in the JHS. This ana-
lytical procedure represents Womacks attempt to resolve the contradiction between
the tools at the historians disposition, the infinite multiplicity of historical experiences,
and the abundance of possible interpretations. It also exemplifies the objectivist illu-
sion criticized by Jean-Paul Sartre in the late 1950s as characteristic of many bour-
geois social science disciplines and several variants of lazy Marxism.50 In radically
rejecting the subjective dimension of reality (which Womack stylizes as feelings),
the researcher denies his or her own role in the production of knowledge. This effort
to put the researcher out of the experimental field involves a refusal to problematize
the relationship between the researcher as subject (the thinking agent) and the object
of his research (whether living human beings or the remnants of past human lives).
This stance resolves by fiat the problem posed by the gap between subject
and object, and the imperfections of knowledge it inevitably entails. In denying the
researchers own subjectivity, the resulting intellectual product is transmuted into a
mystified objective knowledge superior to and set apart from the researcher, the
researched, and the reader. We can see this procedure in operation with Womacks
concept of strategic position, which is presented as if it were inherent to the objec-
tive reality being studied. Thus his role is merely to unveil an underlying guiding
abstractionstrategic positionthat operates above the historical actors, the sum of
whose actions and interactions make up the phenomenon being discussed. Thus the
abstraction Womack creates is real, while individuals, their subjectivities, lives, and
culture can only be fictions and phantom presences compared to the deeper and
more valuable objective truth discovered by the scholar. To use Sartres terms,
Womack has transformed a process, a dynamic relation, into a static thing (strate-
gic position); and it is this abstraction whose logic is imposed, through an a pri-
ori deductive method, upon the localized realities he seeks to analyze. In discussing
U.S. social science, Sartre identifies this procedure as a synthesis of externality that
results from a premature totalization of knowledge and the consequent abolition of
real human beings.51
Needless to say, this hyper-objectivist method produces authoritative dis-
courses, permeated with notions of ineluctable progress, and cloaks them in the sym-
bolic capital of Science (hence, Womacks analogy to heart surgeons and molecular
biologists). The result is an abstract, universalistic, and powerfully normative intellec-
tual product that aggressively claims to occupy a value-free high ground of neutral-

49. Womack, Doing, 276.

50. Jean-Paul Sartre, Search for a Method (1963; repr., New York: Vintage, 1968), 70 71.
51. Sartre, Search, 78, 68.
 F r e n c h a n d J a m e s / T h e R e s t le s s Wa n d e r in g s o f J o h n Wo m a c k J r. 109

ity and/or objectivity.52 In Search for a Method, Sartre discusses the intellectual dam-
age caused by this hyper-objectivist sleight-of-hand. Those so infatuated can discover
nothing by this method of pure exposition. The proof is the fact that they know in
advance what they must find. Such a scholar may claim to discover the object in the
historical process and the historical process in the object. In actuality, he substitutes for
both alike a collection of abstract considerations,53 with an accompanying loss of local
moorings including, in the case of Womacks Veracruz, the specificities of peripheral
industrialization within this particular regional space within Mexico at that time.
The favored posture of Olympian aloofness discourages serious engagement
with the intellectual work of others. Whether prompted by fear or hate or laziness,
they read those with whom they disagree by peremptorily rejecting their work out of
hand. As Sartre notes, and is clear in Womacks case, the results are predictable: they
literally do not understand a word of what they read. The irony, as Sartre rightly
suggests, is that even their own interests would be better served through a more open
approach that would allow them to reject and condemn more precisely, to refute
more triumphantly, exactly insofar as they first know what it is they are damning and
refuting.54 Blind to this possibility, all encounters are one-sided and serve merely to
confirm an overweening confidence in their own opinions. As the jocular saying goes,
minds are like umbrellas, they work best when theyre open and nothing is more
subjective or partial than a Womackian engineers version of history.

Mired in a Quagmire without a Map : On the Surprising Relevance of Borges

Putting aside the sound and fury, Doing Labor History is haunted by a yearning
for something uncontaminated by the messiness of culture and even the concept of
the social. Yet the object of his desire is revealed most clearly through imaginative
identification with manly engineers, generals, warriors, and communist central com-
mittee members.55 And in the very paragraph where he shifts from bildungsroman
to generalized invective, Womack poses an odd but immensely revealing rhetorical
question: is what I propose only a Borgesian exercise, a maniacs scheme for an end-
less, ever updated, ever more complex encyclopedia of industrial archaeology? Could
it make any useful sense, now, ever?

52. The discipline of economics is the quintessential example of hyper-objectivism in contemporary

U.S. academic life. Interestingly enough, Womack and some of his associates have in recent years moved
into this space, especially economic history, in an effort to find a hospitable home.
53. Sartre, Search, 133, 135.
54. Ibid.
55. In Doing, 265 66, Womack says he seeks an engineers idea of industry and industrial plants
like a generals idea of geography and junctions, an industrial map a syndicalist warrior might have drawn
for strategically important positions, or which a communist central committee used to decide on strategy.
There is a certain implausibility to these identifications on the part of a life-long resident of a particularly
august Ivory tower (Womack entered Harvard in 1955 as an eighteen-year-old student and never left).
What is more surprising, however, is that a self-styled master strategist like Womack would have chosen to
publicly declare war in 2005 on all other published labor historians, a sure formula for defeat.
 110
4:2
R
BO
LA
It is likely that Womacks invocation of Borges was intended to refer to On
Exactitude in Science, a story about the mapmakers of an ancient empire who, driven
by their desire for accuracy, built larger and larger maps. In time, those Unconscio-
nable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the
Empire whose size was that of the empire. Yet their search for scientistic perfection
turned out, in the end, to be an illusion and later generations saw that the vast Map
was Useless and delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters.56
Before turning to another Borges story, let us review the past thirty-eight years
of John Womacks professional life. In its simplest form, it is the story of how the cel-
ebrated author of Zapata and the Mexican Revolution initiated a research project that
gradually spun out of control in multiple dimensions. What originated as the story of
a single massacre of workers on one date in one place soon grew into a study of two,
six or eight additional working-class occupational groups across more than a half cen-
tury. From there, the young professor took up the study of the industries in which
they worked and from the social relations of production set out to study the machines
in those industrial workplaces while coming to identify with the engineers who
designed their use in production. As it grew in scope and ambition, Womack began
to search ever more desperately, but alone, for a powerful and compelling abstraction
that would discipline the unruly and ever-increasing multiplicity of facts that he had
accumulated. It had to be something big whose grandeur would justify the long wait;
the pressure must have been enormous, all the more so with each passing decade.
In the JHS article, Womack emphasizes his quest for the abstraction he has
come to call the strategic, but a careful reading of two available pieces from his
project suggest that he is caught up in the descriptive, awash in details, indeed drown-
ing in them. His thirteen-page 1999 article on Work in the Moctezuma Brewery is
an entirely empirical account of the mechanics of brewing, and this descriptive bent
is also characteristic of his longer 2005 article, published in Mexico, entitled Tech-
nology, Work, and Strategic Positions in the Oil Industry in Mexico, 1908 1910.57
Although covering only two years, the article offers an incredibly detailed reconstruc-
tion of the technical aspects of laying oil pipes and building oil tanks. While contain-
ing a few interesting insights, the article stands out for its mind-numbing level of
detail: the exact dimensions of spacing between rivets, the units in which the rivets
were transported, the thickness of pipes, the length of their segments, the weight of
hammers, and the exact brands and capacities of boilers and pumps.58 The level of

56. Jorge Luis Borges, Collected Fictions, trans. Andrew Hurley (London, New York: Penguin,
Vintage 1999), 225.
57. Womack, Work; John Womack Jr., Tecnologa, Trabajo y Posiciones Estratgicas en la Indu-
stria Petrolera de Mxico, 1908 1910, Boletn: Archivo Histrico de Petrleos Mexicanos 6 (2005): 49 86
(cited from www.economia.unam.mx/amhe/publi/rev02.html). Unable to locate the original Mexican pub-
lication in the United States, we draw from an English text by Womack entitled Technology, Work, and
Strategic Positions in the Oil Industry in Mexico: Development, 1908 1910 (October 25, 2004), down-
loaded from www.economia.unam.mx/amhe/memoria/simposio20/John%20WOMACK%20Jr.pdf.
58. For a good example, see the passages in Womack, Technology, 9.
 F r e n c h a n d J a m e s / T h e R e s t le s s Wa n d e r in g s o f J o h n Wo m a c k J r. 111

detail in Womacks article recalls the character Ireneo Funes depicted by Borges in
the story Funes, the Memorious.59 What was striking about Funes, we are told, was
that his perception and his memory were infallible. . . . He remembered the shapes
of the clouds in the south at dawn on the 30th of April of 1882, and he could com-
pare them in his recollection with the marbled grain in the design of a leather-bound
book which he had seen only once, and with the lines in the spray of an oar raised in
the Rio Negro on the eve of the battle of Quebracho.60
So Funes enjoyed full dominion over the world of facts in their most indis-
putable form. Funes not only remembered every leaf on every tree of every woods,
but even every one of the times he had perceived or imagined it. Yet Funes was
profoundly dissatisfied with language because of its inadequate representational
capacity. He disliked, for example, the fact that the generic term dog embraced so
many unlike specimens of differing sizes and different forms.61 In 2005 Womack
expressed similar dissatisfactions with the fact that the word strategic or strategic
position was used in many diverse ways by labor historians, none of which met his
standards for exactness.62 Or we might cite Womacks lament: how could I narrate
thousands of acts simultaneous and continual, not in a Tolstoyan battle, but making
trains run?63
As for Funes, far from being an idiot savant, he did understand on some level
that to think is to forget a difference, to generalize, to abstract. This lead Funes to
create a system designed to organize his overly replete world of . . . details, almost
continuous details. As the narrator reports, Funes decided to reduce all his past
experience to some seventy thousand recollections, which he would later define
numerically. Yet even after deciding upon his objective and method, Funes still
was not free because two considerations dissuaded him: the thought that the task
was interminable and the thought that it was useless.64 Like Funes, Womack has
expressed similar fears: I hope it doesnt take me longer to figure it out and write this
history than it took to happen.65 In Borgess story, Funes experienced his extraordi-

59. Jorge Luis Borges, Funes, the Memorius, Ficciones, trans. Anthony Kerrigan (New York:
Grove, 1962), 107 15. There were other similarities between Funes and Womack as well. Without effort
he [Funes] had learned English, Portuguese, Latin, while Womacks 2005 essay displays his linguistic tal-
ents with translations from German, French, and Italian. Borges, Funes, 115.
60. Funes, the narrator notes, once told me: I have more memories in myself alone than all men have
had since the world was a world. And again: My dreams are like your vigils. And again, toward dawn: My
memory, sir, is like a garbage disposal. Borges, Funes, 112.
61. Ibid, 114.
62. Womacks disputatiousness about the use of the word strategic in labor history has a parallel with
the larger rationale for Funess quest for abstraction as it was described by Borgess narrator: Locke, in the
seventeenth century, postulated (and rejected) an impossible idiom in which each individual object, each
stone, each bird and branch had an individual name; Funes had once projected an analogous idiom, but he
had renounced it as being too general, too ambiguous. Borges, Funes, 113 14.
63. Womack, Doing, 260.
64. Borges, Funes, 114 15.
65. Evans, John Womack (interview), 252.
 112
4:2
R
BO
LA
nary mental gifts as a painful curse since he was, like Womack, a solitary and lucid
spectator of a multiform world which was instantaneously and almost intolerably
exact. The unfortunate Ireneo had few defenses, we are told, against the heat and
pressure of reality that converged upon him, while Womack has more than once
spoken of the writing of history as a monastic form of self-discipline and suffering;
as he put it in 1983, intellectually, history is unending and incessant. Its more than
we can bear.66
Before we end, let us make clear that neither the authors of this article nor
Borgess narrator would deny that the projects of both men, although perhaps lack-
ing in sense, . . .[do] reveal a certain stammering greatness. 67 Yet the element of
pathos is far stronger in the case of John Womack Jr. because he was aware early on
that he was contending with powerful internal tendencies that he had to come to fear.
We can better understand this dimension of the quagmire in which Womack finds
himself if we go back to a story he told an interviewer in 1983. With admirable self-
awareness, Womack said he had briefly contemplated becoming a journalist after
receiving his bachelors degree from Harvard in 1959:
I discovered very quickly that I couldnt write as fast as journalists had to. I couldnt
just write that ten cars had been stolen off a certain street last week. Id have to find
out what color they were, if they were all blue, if ten blue cars had been stolen off
other streets of the same length, what the pattern was. Pretty soon Id have an outline
for a treatise on car theft while the newspaper just wanted last nights police report.68

The Limits of Mechanical Causation in

Understanding the Material and Immaterial
Yet epistemological and theoretical issues must be given equal weight to this Funes-
like gift/curse if we are to understand Womacks scholarly dead end. An exegesis of
Womacks discussion of our 1997 edited book entitled Gendered Worlds of Latin Amer-
ican Women Workers proves revealing in this regard. At the end of the JHS article,
Womack is withering in his attack on the editors introduction and conclusion while
praising five of the nine essays as admirable (the editors receive no credit for this
happy result). He then offers a larger critique that they all involve the social rela-
tions of work, but nothing of the relations among workers in work, just doing their
work. Whether or not workers in work, just doing their work is a model of ana-
lytical clarity, Womack does offer a clearer definition of his unrealized ambition: to
write abstract histories of industrial work, featuring workers only as labor power.
It would thus seem a natural next step for Womack to offer a few observations about
what might be lost and gained through subtracting the human element, while draw-
ing suggestive illustrations from the chapters of our book on a very different sub-
ject. Instead he ends in a flurry of sarcastic misquotations and jeering, before declar-
ing what he believes to be true about us: that his analytical abstractions would be

66. Ibid., 260; Borges, Funes, 114.

67. Borges, Funes, 114.
68. Evans, John Womack (interview), 248.
 F r e n c h a n d J a m e s / T h e R e s t le s s Wa n d e r in g s o f J o h n Wo m a c k J r. 113

rejected as deterministic moves against humanity or at least reductionist tricks on

humanists.69
We do indeed have a difference with Womack, but not centered on the straw
man he sets forth. Not only are we by no means opposed to abstraction, but we have
never denied the importance of the material. Indeed, abstractionas Funes (and
Marx) recognizedis an unavoidable stage in any meaningful process of apprehen-
sion of material reality. Rather the issue is what Womack understands by abstrac-
tion, what purposes it serves in his project, and the theoretical underpinnings of his
abstract method. Here, once his polemical invective is stripped away, the reader of his
JHS article finds few useful clues. At times his invocation of the abstracted world of
production shorn of the cultural, the social, the political and the ideologicalwhat
we have called abstraction by subtractionseems to resemble a Weberian ideal type.
Yet Weber himself was insistent that an ideal type was a heuristic device, an analyti-
cal construct which in its conceptual purity . . . cannot be found empirically any-
where in reality. It is a utopia.70 It is the task of historical analysis to measure the
usefulness and adequacy of this utopia for an understanding of reality, and such
analysis was by definition cultural analysis for Weber. It was above all a device for
testing theories of historical and social causation.
It is here (and not in some imputed opposition to abstraction for which no
evidence is cited) that our differences with Womack can be seen most clearly. Based
on an exegesis of his 1979 project description, we criticized Womack in 1997 for pos-
iting a unilateral model of social causation and identity formation . . . [in which]
a single determining factor is given exclusive sway over the lesser realms of social
reproduction and human subjectivity and consciousness.71 In our view at the time,
Womacks notion of causation was based on an entirely dichotomous understand-
ing of the relation between the material and the immaterial.72 This is no small mat-
ter since it leaves Womack with no way of establishing (even if so inclined) the pos-
sible linkages between his abstracted utopia of a world of production pared down to
its essence and the multiple complimentary and contradictory levels of any complex
social formation as it develops historically.
Within the Marxist tradition that Womack has in the past evoked as his
own, the nature of such linkages has been a fundamental point of debate. Indeed,
Gramsci placed this issue at the center of his attempt to rethink classical Marxism.
More recently, theorists like Stuart Hall have attempted to develop an alternative to
both overly structuralist and culturalist resolutions of the issue of determination

69. Womack, Doing, 283. Despite his claims of resistance to the study of industrial labor, the Latin
American labor history field actually has a fine 2003 English-language monograph that executes a com-
parative multi-industry study of another important Mexican industrial city, Michael D. Snodgrass, Def-
erence and Defiance in Monterrey: Workers, Paternalism, and Revolution in Mexico (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003).
70. Max Weber, Methodology of the Social Sciences (New York: Free Press, 1949), 84 90.
71. French and James, Squaring, 2.
72. Womacks predilection for false dichotomies was illustrated in 1979 when he juxtaposed expla-
nations from political factors and materialist explanations. Womack, Historiography, 749.
 114
4:2
R
BO
LA
through a solution that does not embrace the radical contingency of some post-
structuralist thinkers. Hall has called this a theory of articulation, and although
Womack is under no obligation to accept this approach, some engagement would
seem advisable. Instead, Womack appears entirely unaware of the debate while quib-
bling with our reference to the articulation of gender and class. The word we
should have used, Womack informs us in characteristically condescending fashion,
was inflection,73 a claim that is either theoretically nave or just plain sloppy since
the set of theoretical issues associated with articulation are in no way connoted by the
word inflection. As a result of this casual dismissal, Womack is left with an entirely
mechanical notion of causation that lacks a dialectical sense of a two-way process
through which the broadly material and the immaterial influence each other, rather
than the first exclusively dictating the second.74
The utility of any analytical and methodological approach can only be judged
by its results, and his 2005 article on the oil industry provides discouraging evidence
in Womacks case. After discussing John Dunlop at the outset, Womack proceeds to
establish which of the groups being studied held industrially or technically strategic
positions according to his own rigorous definition. Yet despite his profound descrip-
tive understanding of work processes, he arrives at an anticlimactic conclusion: there
is no evidence that these groups had exercised their power, whether formally or infor-
mally. The best he can do, in the last two paragraphs, is offer hypothetical answers
about their failure to act as his theory suggests they should. The first possibility, he
says, is that these groups may have received some rent based on their strategic leverage,
and therefore did not need to do so (although he says he lacks the evidence on differ-
ential compensation to prove this). Based on circumstantial evidence, he then offers
a second explanation: that these groups, which were composed of U.S. citizens, lacked
social, political, legal, or cultural protection, were easily replaced, and worked in
practically complete social isolation, culturally helpless, incapable of communicating
with most of their fellow workers (Mexicans) and subject politically and legally to
immediate deportation. In other words, his grand search for the strategic ends not
with a technical explanation, but with an imprecise and very humdrum social, politi-
cal, legal, and cultural one.75 He appears to have labored to produce a mouse.

73. Womack, Doing, 283: they can explore the articulation [sic, for inflection] of gender and class
all they please. On articulation theory, see Ernesto Laclau, Towards a Theory of Populism, in Politics
and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism, Fascism, Populism (London: NLB,1979), 160 164, and Lawrence
Grossberg, On Postmodernism and Articulation: An Interview with Stuart Hall, Journal of Communica-
tion Inquiry 10, no. 2 (1986): 45-60.
74. In Doing, 282, Womack criticizes the two chapters he likes best in our collection because their
authors do not focus on the technical dependence of their particular workers regardless of skill or gen-
der; [and] both miss its inductance of cultural imperatives, alterations of identity, and pressure to mobi-
lize (emphasis added). Beyond the implied hierarchy and technological determinism, one might note the
implausible breadth of Womacks claim about culture, identity, and mobilization.
75. The very last sentence of Womacks article buries any final pretensions of having discovered a
generalizable theory of strategic positions. He simply reiterates a basic truth, spoken and written by thou-
sands going back to the nineteenth century: if some workers could use industrial and technical divisions of
 F r e n c h a n d J a m e s / T h e R e s t le s s Wa n d e r in g s o f J o h n Wo m a c k J r. 115

Conclusion: John Dunlop and the Always-Already-Social

For all its fire and brimstone, Womacks JHS piece ends on a surprisingly plaintive
note when he observes that the details in my studies may seem overwhelming,
drawn as they are from his accumulated welter of data. Yet he desperately wants
the reader to know that there is a method to them that will, I hope, make them
intelligible. This is followed by a final curious declaration that industrial relations
(IR) expert John Dunlop had got the key concept right the first time he wrote his
theory, now more than 60 years ago, as labor history, and he kept getting it right ever
after.76 Had he not been so blind, Womack wishes us to believe, he would long ago
have realized that the answer he was seeking had been nearby all along, somewhere
off Harvard Square where John Dunlop has taught since 1939.
In declaring his identification with an older Harvard colleague, Womack
seeks to associate himself with a truly practical man of the world who has exercised
power in both the government and private sector throughout his life.77 Yet the fact
that Womack understands his new hero no better than he did his old ones is sug-
gested by the comments Dunlop offered in a long 2002 interview in the Industrial and
Labor Relations Review. What stands out most strikingly are Dunlops repeated warn-
ings against the very enterprise of abstraction-through-subtraction that John Womack
Jr. has indulged in for almost four decades. Even when asked about his own theories,
Dunlop emphasizes that models are very abstract and leave out so much that no
one should take them too seriously. Asked about fifty years of IR model building, he
only grudgingly admits that at some fairly general, abstract level these models cap-
ture important aspects of behaviour. But I have to say that most of this work is an aca-
demic exercise, no doubt interesting to those who do it and perhaps of some insight
to fellow academics, but they have little to do with reality.78
In terms of Womacks declared ambitions, Dunlops most poignant answer
comes when he is asked to distill to one page the two or three most important les-
sons or truths you have learned in the arena of industrial relations over six decades.
Given the possibility of opining most grandly, Dunlops reply is especially relevant to
a would-be scientistic engineer who strives to expunge the social as well as the cul-
tural. In listing his number one contribution, Dunlop says: as I stated in a [1948 book]
chapter, Any group of human beings associated together for any length of time devel-
ops a community in which there are recognized standards of conduct and admitted
leaders. No continuing workplace is ever completely unorganized. These informal
relations often underlie more formally structured labor and management organiza-
tions.79 That Dunlop accords such importance to informal social relations is strik-

labor against the company, the companies could use social and political divisions of labor against all their
workers. Womack, Technology, 34, 36 37.
76. Womack, Doing, 283.
77. Womack, Doing, 285n15.
78. Bruce E. Kaufman, Reflections on Six Decades in Industrial Relations: An Interview with John
Dunlop, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 55, no. 2 (2002): 327, 333.
79. Kaufman, Reflections, 336.
 116
4:2
R
BO
LA
ing, precisely because they are so powerfully permeated by all that Womack seeks to
exclude, be it cultural, psychological, sociopolitical, racial or ethnic, aged or gendered
in nature. As such, Dunlops sage advice can be seen as a warning to immodest schol-
ars who become dominated by the abstractions they themselves create. In doing so, he
tells us, they risk losing contact with the always-already-social dimensions of human
existence, be it in a factory or in academic and intellectual life.
The story we have unraveled in this article has an unquestionably tragic
dimension. We are dealing, after all, with an extraordinarily talented scholar who
once spoke of his desire to write a synthesis of the Mexican Revolution. Unfortu-
nately, John Womack Jr. will in the end never escape from Veracruz, nor will he
return in print to Morelos, the site of his early triumph, and all of us will have missed
the insights that this brilliant historian might have offered if he had tackled the eco-
nomics and power politics that converge on and emanate from the Federal District of
Mexico City. All in all, we have no doubt that there are travails in doing labor his-
tory, but in the case of the JHS polemic, they are pecurliarly those of John Womack
in his lonely and restless wanderings.