Studies of identity have proliferated over the last three decades; race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and nationalism all have been explored at length. Writing now in 2006, we can look back on a substantial body of theoretical and empirical work that has forever changed conceptions of identity formation. Although divisions persist between scholars of identity and those writing labor and working-class history, many have called for greater intellectual exchange across the class-identity divide. We hope to further that exchange by bringing together essays on working-class subjectivities and sexualities in this thematic issue.

This article investigates the changing construction of masculine identities among working-class males in a large Canadian factory city, Hamilton, Ontario, in the half century before the Second World War. It argues that, long before individual working men embraced the patriarchal identity of breadwinner and head of family, they had learned and practiced how to be “masculine” in family homes, schools, city streets, workplaces, and pleasure sites. The result was a complex bundle of contradictory attitudes and practices in which the processes of class, ethnic/racial, and gender formation were closely interwoven and in which the male body became a crucial vehicle for expressing gender. The article stresses that working-class masculinities were not fixed, static, or universal, but shaped in specific ways in different contexts and subject to challenges and re-negotiation over time. In the period under study here, working-class males faced new forms of institutional regulation in schools, workplaces, streets, and military trenches, the commercialization of many of their pleasures, and new independence and assertiveness in the pubic sphere among the women of their communities. Negotiating these challenges brought both continuities and significant changes in masculine identities.

This article examines the impact of the capitalist economy, colonial rule, and wage labor on African masculinity and how African ideas about manhood impacted behavior and expectations of work in the coal mines of the Enugu Government Colliery in southeastern Nigeria from 1914 until the great depression. These mines were a “site” where racism became a crucial part of British strategies to control African labor and is one of the first places African workers experienced the “colonial masculinity” of racist white bosses. Both the workplace and the development of the city of Enugu encouraged subordinate local men (local slaves, unmarried men, poor men) to challenge the hegemony of powerful elite rural men in the form of rural revolts by men pressed into the mines and waves of industrial protest against conditions in the mines. Coalminers' presence in and political ties to rural villages led them to push for increased wages used to enhance their standing as men in their communities. Also, both the material and ritual requirements of rural male status and the masculine ethos of coalmining figured critically in workers' assessments of a “just” wage and respectful working conditions. Finally, miners drew strength from their position as “modern,” self-improving rural men to challenge racist (the African “boy”) and emasculating treatment in the mines. At the same time working men drew strength from their jobs in a “modern” industry (and the income they generated) to challenge the power of authoritarian colonial chiefs and elite men in the rural village. The article suggests that by factoring race and masculinity into the analysis of African laboring men scholars can gain new insights into the consciousness of workers.

This article examines the “levee camp” as a social and cultural site for reconstituting rural black workers' masculine identities in the early twentieth-century Mississippi-Arkansas Delta. The construction of the Mississippi River's levees during this period depended heavily on the labor of black mule-drivers drawn from the Delta's cotton plantations. In spite of this dependency, the levee camps' exploitative commissaries and harsh disciplinary violence quashed workers' efforts to reclaim a sense of autonomy that was increasingly denied them on the region's plantations. However, partly in response to the perceived erosion of their authority within the sharecropper family, levee workers successfully used the notorious after-hours culture of the levee camps to construct a hyper-masculine image of themselves as “rough mens” who had been to the levee camps, enjoyed the sexual attention of camp women, and were manly enough to survive the murderous violence of white bosses and other “rough mens” alike. Using a series of 1930s labor investigations as well as early Delta blues hollers and songs about the levee camps, this article shows how black workers' efforts to cultivate this hyper-masculine levee worker image ultimately proved detrimental to their class interests. Levee contractors and foremen welcomed levee camp gambling, prostitution, drinking, and fighting as ways of reducing workers' wages and maintaining labor control in the camps. Ultimately, the levee camps provide a useful example of an all-male work site where gender had important, if unintended, ramifications for workers' class position.

This article examines Mexican migration to the US during the Bracero Program, the unofficial name for the series of US-Mexico agreements that brought Mexican men to work in US agricultural fields from 1942 to 1964. Juxtaposing Mexican and US states' goals for the Program to migrants' understandings of their journeys, the article shows how this migration disrupted men's subjectivities, even as it simultaneously provided the mechanisms to resecure gender and class subjectivities and claims in crucial way. Revealed, ultimately, is what was forged in the wake of this migration: a new kind of historical actor, transnationally gendered and classed.

A neglected aspect of the perceived “embourgeoisement” of the British working-classes in the 1950s was the representation of a blurring of class difference around questions of sexuality. In different ways, female bodies and sexuality in the postwar period became a means of talking about changing class identity and the modernization of society. In the 1920s and 1930s, the working-class body and working-class sexuality served as counterpoints to largely middle-class ideas of modern femininity and sexuality. Working-class women's inability to control their reproduction was portrayed as one cause of the deprivation experienced by the working classes. In the fifties, by contrast, working-class bodies and sexuality had become signifiers of the modernization of British class society. Working-class women were perceived as being able to control the size of their families. Such control was, with full employment and better housing, a mark of a modern, affluent working class. At the same time, working-class marriage was represented as increasingly incorporating notions of companionability and sexual pleasure previously only seen in middle-class life. “Embourgeoisement” in postwar Britain was thus represented as having a sexual aspect.

Desirable dress on the job, whether pants, sweaters, or mini-skirted uniforms, contains symbolic meaning, but whose sexual subjectivity it expresses is not always clear. Appearance may be a proxy for other forms of contestation or just be a conveyer of pleasure that makes work just a little more humane. This essay rethinks two cases where issues of self-fashioning, appearance, sexuality, employer strictures, and state policy intertwined: the shop floors of the Second World War and the flight cabins of postwar airlines: the first, male dominated manufacturing in which women labored “for the duration”; the second, a prototypical female service industry in which fierce competition led to selling sexual allure along with comfort and safety. However mediated, voices of wage-earning women in both the 1940s and 1960s announced new expectations of womanhood, beauty, and sexual expressiveness. But while management attempted to suppress women's bodies in the shipyards and other wartime workplaces, by the 1960s airlines promoted the body of the flight attendant. In both examples, state mediation—through sources available as well as actual public policies—complicates our attempt to unravel pleasure and constraint in dressing, grooming, and sexual presence on the job. Whether or not dress requirements disciplined employee bodies, served as a guarantee of efficiency or a check against accidents and the expense of worker compensation, or opened new possibilities for sexual or gendered identities was hardly predetermined. Employers could demand slacks, women could wear them, but what dress was desirable varied with the beholder.

While historians have provided insights into the ways women's work culture and labor organizing were infused with issues of sex, sexuality and appearance, they have not similarly examined the white male working body. This article discusses the significance of this different analysis for our understanding of men workers and for its ability to continue to marginalize women at the workplace. It considers how to incorporate the “bodily turn” in history by examining three conceptual themes in research on working-class masculinity: masculinity crises, muscular masculinity, and homosociality.

Recent research on consumer culture and working-class femininity in the United States has argued that attention to fashionable clothing and dime novels did not undermine female working-class identities, but rather provided key resources for creating those identities. In this essay I consider whether we can see a similar process of appropriation by working-class women in Latin America. There women employed in factories had to contend with widespread denigration of the female factory worker. Looking first at the employer-run “Centers for Domestic Instruction” in São Paulo, I argue that “proper femininity” in these centers—frequented by large numbers of working-class women—reflected middle-class notions of the skilled housewife, and situated working-class women as nearly middle class. What we see is a process of “approximation,” not appropriation. I then look at the case of Argentina (especially Greater Buenos Aires) where Peronism also promoted “traditional” roles for working-class women but where Eva Perón emerges as a working-class heroine. The figure of Evita—widely reviled by women of the middle and upper classes—becomes a means to construct an alternative, class-based femininity for working-class women.

This article explores the complicated relationship between narratives of working-class America and formations of national Otherness. Arguing that class, sex, and ethnicity are deeply relational, it seeks to map the symbolic terrain and emotional depth of class difference as it circulates in the American imaginary. It ask how we might think about the cultural poetics of class difference in ways that make a difference—in ways that register class narratives as participants in constructions of the Nation and the “normal,” the irregular and the queer? Attending to the kinds of emotional and conceptual services stories of class perform, it locates “class” as part of a discursive imaginary topography that structures and turns narratives of working men and women into spaces of encounter, contest, and containment.

Vera Shlakman had an extraordinary effect on my work and on that of a generation of labor historians. Quietly, unobtrusively her interpretive insights and the methodological innovations she introduced paved the way to a more eclectic and integrated discipline. A full seventy years after its publication in 1935, her Economic History of a Factory Town: A Study of Chicopee, Massachusetts still provides an intellectual and conceptual guide, not only to a changing field, but to the persistent questions it raises.