|
|
|
Book Review
| Labor and the Environmental Movement: The Quest for Common Ground. By Brian K. Obach. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004. x + 338 pp. Figures, tables, notes, bibliography, index. Paper $27.00.
|
| Obach approaches his subject personally, as a labor and environmental activist, and professionally, as a sociologist. The book seems to be aimed primarily at those three audiences. He begins by describing the conflict he felt marching with environmentalists during the Redwood Summer demonstrations in 1990, when his group was confronted by counter-protesters who were concerned about losing their jobs. The experience of being the target of worker protest motivated him to try to understand the relationships between unions and the environmental movement, in the hope that this understanding would help to create a "just and sustainable economy." Obach ably utilizes organizational theory and qualitative as well as quantitative research techniques toward that practical end. |
1
|
|
The book is based on two phases of research, beginning with a survey of state labor federation leaders conducted from December 1997 to July 1998, to gauge relations between unions and environmentalists in each state and to identify key issues. Obach published the results of this research in Social Science Quarterly in March 2002. He gives a brief summary of the results of his survey in chapter 2, and describes the methodology in the appendix. Building on this work, Obach selected five states for qualitative analysis: Maine, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin. The states, he says, "were selected based on certain similarities that some had with one another and on important differences that would allow for comparison" (p. 308). The qualitative analysis was based on interviews with "over 70 labor, environmental, and other social movement leaders and activists" in these states, to first identify themes and then to analyze the data using NUD*IST (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing) software. The research was oriented by four hypotheses: (1) that organizations with broader agendas would have better relations with one another, that relations and cooperation between unions and environmental groups would be improved by (2) increased organizational interaction and by (3) the presence of "coalition brokers" who understand the values and goals of both sides. Finally, (4) that class and culture barriers would not be as significant between union and environmental leaders as those between grassroots members. Chapters 5 through 8 are based on each of these themes, while the first four chapters provide theoretical, historical, and political background. Oddly, only chapters 5–9 and the appendix contain endnotes. Chapter 2 summarizes national patterns found in the first phase of research, as well as the theoretical context. Chapter 3 gives a brief history of labor-environmental relations in the United States. This chapter especially could have used endnotes, but nevertheless is a fair summary of the literature. It focuses on the last three decades, is arranged thematically, and includes sections on health and energy, right-to- know legislation, clean air, and international trade. Chapter 4 provides overviews of labor and environmental relations in the five case study states. |
2
|
|
Although laden with sociological theories and jargon, Labor and the Environmental Movement is fairly accessible. Readers seeking a history of the relations between labor and environmentalists may be disappointed, but the book will be of great interest to those seeking to understand the complex relationships between labor and the environmental movement. |
3
|
|
Eric D. Olmanson is a researcher for The University History Project at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He holds a Ph.D. in geography, and is currently revising a manuscript, "Romantics, Scientists, Boosters, and the Making of the Chequamegon Bay Region on the South Shore of Lake Superior, 1820–1900s." |
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|