This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 02 November 2014, At: 22:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

New Political SciencePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cnps20

SnapshotGeorge KatsiaficasPublished online: 18 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: George Katsiaficas (2000) Snapshot, New Political Science,22:3, 317-318, DOI: 10.1080/713687955

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713687955

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 2

2:53

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

New Political Science, Volume 22, Number 3, 2000

Snapshot

Most visible in the streets of Seattle in 1999, resurgent trade unions are poisedto help lead a diverse array of oppositional groups. The revival of the labormovement in recent years is a phenomenon that will be studied by politicalscientists for decades to come. We are pleased that this issue of New PoliticalScience focuses on questions dealing with problems relevant to working classpolitics.

Carl Swidorski examines the role of the labor movement in the expansion offreedom of expression between 1877 and 1919. Conventional scholarship has notaddressed labor’s signi�cance in this struggle, but Swidorski persuasivelydemonstrates how the labor movement’s actions raised signi�cant questionsabout freedom of expression and played a major role in compelling the judiciaryto expand First Amendment rights.

Anita Kranj provides an account of the main public education tactics used inthe early American labor and civil rights movements. She �nds that both thelabor and civil rights movements relied on a rather similar mix of societallearning tools, including informal schools, independent media and/or communi-cation networks, mass meetings, and protest songs. Kranj draws a number oflessons for contemporary movements.

Rohit Lekhi challenges the theoretical position suggesting that class politicsis at an end. Discernible to some theorists most clearly in the recent proliferationof emancipatory projects constituted around non-class axes where class appearsto be of little, if any, relevance, this position suffers from a rigid de�nition ofclass. By contrast, Lekhi suggests that class is still important for our understand-ing of political struggles, including ostensibly non-class struggles, and proposesa concept of class that is ever evolving and never fully constituted.

One of the goals of New Political Science is to inject more discussion anddebate into a discipline that is far too often content with one-way communi-cation and ponti�cation from on high. To that end, we include in this issue anexchange between Ricardo Blaug and John Ehrenberg related to the issue ofhierarchy and freedom. Since 1968, the dialectic of consciousness and sponta-neity has received increased attention largely because emergent social actorsrefuse to be contained in organizational forms inherited from the past. In thisexchange, some of these same issues reappear in theoretical relief.

In our newly inaugurated column, What Is Political Science? What Should ItBe?, we include Mark Roelofs’s article on the Gettysburg Address. Roelofssimultaneously recognizes and criticizes the “mantra status” of the Address.While he agrees that it is a tribute to the power of its language and concernsbasic social needs, he also �nds its shortcomings indicative of larger problems.In Commentary, James Block relies on a rather unique rhetorical device to bringJohn Locke and Thomas Hobbes back to life in our contemporary context.Re�ecting on the relationship of the individual to the state, Block touches onmany of the same issues discussed by Blaug and Ehrenberg in their exchange.

ISSN 0739-3148 print/ISSN 1469-9931 online/00/030317–02 Ó 2000 Caucus for a New Political Science

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 2

2:53

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

318 George Katsia�cas

Our expanded Reviews section contains thoughts on nine newly published booksas well as an introduction that outlines plans for Volume 23.

George Katsia�casWentworth Institute of Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 2

2:53

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14