The Knights of Labour and the Failure of the Arbitration Platform, 1886–1887: Ideology, Hegemony, and Contextually Generated Opportunities for Frame Success

Abstract

This article examines the reasons why the Knights of Labour, a labor movement that enjoyed enormous popularity and success during the penultimate decade of the 19th century, were unable to construct a resonant cultural frame in support of their platform of arbitration. The theoretical framework employed in this article is constructed by importing two concepts from political process models of social movement action into culturalist accounts, historical environment (or context), and opportunity. This framework allows me to look at how historical environments offer transient openings for the effective construction of counterhegemonic or subversive collective action frames. I argue that opportunity for framing has to do with the intersection between the signification requisites of framing practices, and the systemic features of cultural environments. I find that the nature of this opportunity in the years between 1885 and 1887 helps explain why movement practice within the Knights of Labour diverged so significantly from the practices advocated by its leadership.

NOTES

Notes

¹ I borrow the concept of interpretative repertoire (or the totality of symbolic tools available to social actors at given historical junctures) from Mooney and Hunt. See Mooney and Hunt (1996), Jasper (1997), and Stanbridge (2002).

² I borrow Oliver and Johnston's (2000:43) definition of ideology as “a system of meaning that couples assertions and theories about the nature of social life with values and norms relevant to promoting or resisting social change.” In addition, as these authors suggest, ideologies are further distinguished by two important features: First, ideologies are experienced by movement constituents as deeply held moral, ethical, and normative principles, and second, these principles inform the theories of society that structure the political contents of movement culture (Oliver and Johnston 2000). The significance of these attributes and functions of organizational ideology to the act of effective frame construction is threefold. First, because movement participants are generally deeply committed to the principles embodied within organizational ideologies, the relationship between framing processes and ideological content is obligatory: To be effective, collective action frames must be commensurate with ideological, moral, ethical, and normative principles. Second, as theories of social life, the symbolic contents of organizational ideologies fulfill two distinct functions, namely, as diagnostic and prognostic visions. Prognostic language has the added feature of suggesting patterns of effective action. The movement practices conveyed by collective action frames need therefore be aligned with ideologically derived prognoses of social grievances. Third, the diagnostic language of ideologies is grounded in structural and political experience; that is, in addition to being cultural constructs, ideologies have a structural presence.

The role of hegemony in the symbolic tool kit of social movement actors has at least two distinctions. First, as opposed to being a discrete meaning system, hegemony operates as disparate and hierarchically arranged symbolic elements with a wide range of structural referents (Mouffe 1979). In part, hegemony exercises its influence through language, by shaping the interpretative possibilities of the vocabulary that all actors have at their disposal (Lears 1985; Burawoy 2001, 2003). Second, as with ideology, hegemony is culture with a structural presence, in so much as hegemonies express the ideas, values, and lived experiences associated with structural advantage.

³ John O'Neill was a member of Congress from the city of St. Louis, chairman of the House Committee on Labor as well as a supporter of the KOL.