shop of his own." Shoemakers in Lynn "remembered the self-reliance of the artisan," according to Dawley, "and recalled the time when the tasks of shoemaking intimately intermingled with the tasks of family and community life [and] ... the journeyman was both shoemaker and householder, whose daily activity followed the intertwining rhythms of both roles." It was this background of "household independence" and "prefactory customs," Dawley argues, that underlay the solidarity of factory workers during the early stages of industrialization. "The militancy of the factory worker is hard to imagine without the legacy of artisan protest against the encroachments of capitalism into the sphere of production."

Most of the new labor historians would probably disown Calhoun's emphatic statement that workers acknowledged the "priority of community over class"; but their work leaves no doubt that the working-class movement drew both moral and material support from local communities in which industrialization threatened an older way of life. Small businessmen, shopkeepers, and even professional people sometimes sided with the workers in their struggle against outside capital. In Braidwood, Illinois, a sheriff disarmed Pinkerton detectives sent in to put down a strike of miners, declaring that he feared the miners "a good deal less" than "a lot of strangers dragooning a quiet town with deadly weapons in their hands." The support workers received from local editors, lawyers, and law enforcement officers helps to explain why their ideology stressed the solidarity of the "producing classes" and identified "parasitic" bankers and speculators, not employers, as the real enemy.

By shifting attention from unionization to the study of working-class culture, the new labor historians have shown that a whole way of life was at stake in the struggle against industrialism. Workers were defending not just their economic interests but their crafts, families, and neighborhoods. The recognition that economic interests are not enough to inspire radical or revolutionary agitation or to make people accept its risks suggests a more sweeping conclusion. Resistance to innovation, it appears, is an important, perhaps indispensable ingredient in revolutionary action, along with a tendency to identify innovation with the disruption of older communities by invasive forces from outside. In the twentieth century, revolutions have typically taken the form of wars of national liberation, and something of the same impulse, it can be argued, underlay working

-215-