South African Labor History: A Historiographical Assessment¶
Jon Lewis (1990). South African Labor History: A Historiographical Assessment. Radical History Review 46/7.
| Type | journal article |
| Scope | Economics and economic history of apartheid |
| Method | synthesis review |
| Period studied | 1900–1989 |
| Regions | South Africa, Witwatersrand, East Rand, Natal/Durban, Southern Rhodesia (Chibaro) |
| Themes | unions strikes, labour markets wages, mining migrant labour, resistance social movements, comparative theory, methods data sources, politics ideology elections, origins segregation |
| Citation key | lewis1990 |
Argument¶
Lewis argues that South African labor history revived in the 1970s in a narrow form tied to the immediate needs of the emerging independent unions, especially FOSATU. It focused on the workplace, industrial relations machinery and union organization. That link was both a strength and a weakness. In the 1980s it produced a bifurcation: labor history stayed on the workplace while a separate social history studied the oppressed outside organized industry. He traces the field from activist and liberal traditions through the class analysis of the 1970s, the Poulantzians, labor-process work and political unionism. He calls for dissolving the 'artificial division of labor' between labor and social history, and for filling gaps such as unorganized workers, early resistance and TUCSA.
Evidence and method¶
A historiographical survey of secondary literature: books, journal articles (e.g. South African Labour Bulletin, Labour Capital and Society), theses, seminar papers, union newspapers and popular histories. It also draws on the author's own experience and work. The author states it is a selective review, not a comprehensive one.
Place in the debates¶
- Liberal vs revisionist/radical interpretations of race, class and capitalism in South Africa (see Liberal vs revisionist: was apartheid functional or dysfunctional for capitalist growth?). Sides with the 1970s class analysts (Trapido, Legassick, Wolpe, Johnstone) against liberals such as de Kiewiet and van der Horst. Also cautions that the 1970s emphasis on class over-reacted and neglected national oppression.
- Workerism vs populism (class-based unionism vs the Congress tradition) (see Black trade unions: growth, wage effects, Wiehahn and strategy). Argues that labor history became tied to the narrow 'workerist' survivalist tradition. He sees political unionism (Lambert) as a needed corrective that links unions to national liberation.
- Labor history vs social history (see Worker consciousness, strikes and conflict on the mines and shop floor). Defends a distinct labor history focused on production and industrial relations, but urges that the division between it and social history be eroded.
- Origins of white labor racism and colour bars (see The job colour bar, white labour and its erosion). Following Johnstone and his own labor-process work, he treats racial division as neither inevitable nor unchanging. Employers and the state helped structure it, and white workers in state-run industries or mines most readily adopted exclusion.
Findings¶
-
Labor history's origins in union concerns shaped its narrow research agenda and produced a split from social history. (p. 1)
While labor history focuses on the workplace, industrial relations, and working-class organization, social history considers the fate of the working class and other oppressed groups outside of industrial production.
-
Liberal historiography treated racism as economically irrational and denied that it contributed to growth. (p. 5)
they saw racism as economically irrational and inimical to economic growth and development.
-
The 1970s revisionists argued that racial oppression served capitalist development and itself needed explanation. (p. 5)
racial oppression was conducive to capitalist development; that racism in South Africa was not an unalterable given; that racism did not provide an explanation of South African reality but itself required explanation
-
Johnstone distinguished exploitation color bars from class color bars on the mines. (p. 5)
exploitation color bars"-the often repressive means adopted by mine employers to secure a cheap black labor force
-
The 1970s focus on class was an over-reaction, and labor historians were slow to address national oppression. (p. 5)
the preoccupation of the 190s with issues of class represents something of an over-reaction to the conventional wisdom.
-
The 1970s unions' 'survivalist' FOSATU strategy shaped the research agenda of labor historians. (p. 6)
the character of the new unionism exercised a profound effect on the research agenda of labor historians and helps explain their abiding concern with issues of organization and democracy
-
Poulantzian state-focused work neglected worker struggles but did contribute to the study of industrial relations machinery. (p. 9)
for their tendency to ignore the struggles of workers and oppressed groups and the impact of such struggles on ruling-class strategies
-
Labor-process analysis shows that the conditions for class unity were greatest in secondary consumer industries, while state-run industries and mines bred exclusion. (p. 16)
It was white workers in state-run industries or the mines who were most likely to adopt strategies of racial exclusion and look to the state rather than to their own organization
-
Craft unions shifted to explicitly racial strategies when deskilling intensified during the Second World War. (p. 16)
But, when deskilling intensified during the Second World War, craft unions increasingly adopted explicitly racial strategies.
-
Black union membership grew rapidly despite recession. (p. 22)
African trade union membership grew from 70,000 in 1979 to approximately 1,500,000 in 1988.
-
Lambert's political unionism holds that repression and exclusion pushed unions into a leading role in the national liberation movement. (p. 18)
Repression and the political exclusion of blacks have necessitated a vastly expanded role for trade unions which now combines militant workplace organization with an increasingly leading role
-
Most black workers remained unorganized until the 1980s, and the author's agenda is to write their history. (p. 19)
in most sectors of the economy, trade unions for black workers were only firmly established in the 1980s.
Evidence ledger¶
Sources used¶
| Source | Kind | Period | How used |
|---|---|---|---|
| African trade union membership figures, 1979 and 1988 (source not given) | official statistical series | 1979-1988 | A single round-number membership estimate shows that the black union movement grew rapidly, which explains labor historians' continued focus on industrial relations. |
| 1979 industrial relations legislation granting legal recognition to black trade unions | legislation gazette | 1979 | Presented as the event that made industrial relations machinery a central concern of labor history and labor studies. |
| FOSATU Worker News labor history series (early 1980s) | newspapers periodicals | early 1980s | Cited as evidence that trade unions spread labor history to a wide readership, not as a source for historical claims. |
| South African Labour Bulletin (established 1974) | newspapers periodicals | 1974 onward | Cited as a union-linked periodical set up to record union struggles, which supports the argument that labor history is tied to the labor movement. |
| Interview with a surviving relative of Dan Koza (black distributive workers' union leader, 1940s) | interviews oral history | 1980s interview on 1940s events | A passing example of research prompted by union education work, not evidence for any main claim. |
Inference¶
Quantification: Illustrative figures.
This is a historiographical essay. It reviews and characterizes secondary literature, grouped by tradition (activist, liberal, class-analytic, Poulantzian, social history, labor-process, political unionism). It links the shape of the literature to the political context of the union movement and gives only brief reference to the author's own earlier research. The argument rests on interpretive synthesis, with no systematic primary data.
Key claims¶
| Claim | Basis | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| South African labor history split from social history in the 1980s, with labor history confined to the workplace and industrial relations. (p. 1) | Characterization of the secondary literature; no primary data. | Asserted |
| The research agenda of 1970s labor history was shaped by the survivalist, factory-based strategy of the new (FOSATU) unions. (p. 6) | Interpretive reading of the literature and of union history, with the 1979 legislation and union press and periodicals as context. | Illustrative or anecdotal |
| CUSA unions were neglected in the literature, and the claim that CUSA was ineffective has not been tested. (p. 8) | Review of the literature, with an admission that no research exists on CUSA's practice. | Asserted |
| The 1970s preoccupation with class over race was an over-reaction to liberal orthodoxy. (p. 5) | Historiographical judgment based on a reading of the revisionist literature. | Asserted |
| The union movement grew rapidly in the 1980s despite recession, which helps explain the continued focus on industrial relations. (p. 13) | A single membership estimate (70,000 in 1979 to about 1.5 million in 1988) given in a footnote without a source. | Partial data |
| Class unity was most feasible in the secondary consumer products industries, while racial exclusion was concentrated among white workers in state industries and mines. Labor-process analysis shows that racial division is neither inevitable nor unchanging. (p. 16) | The author's own earlier research, summarized without detail on sources. | Illustrative or anecdotal |
The author's caveats¶
The author states that the review is selective and not comprehensive, and notes that little is known about CUSA's practice and about early informal worker resistance in secondary and tertiary industries.
Gaps in the evidence¶
The argument that union concerns drove the research agenda would be better tested by a systematic bibliometric count of publications by topic and union affiliation. It could also draw on funding records, conference programmes and author interviews, all of which could have been collected at the time and could still be today. The claim that CUSA was neglected needs a quantified comparison of coverage of FOSATU and CUSA, plus CUSA and union archives. The membership figures need an identified source such as union returns or Department of Manpower registrations.
Replicability: Not applicable.