Full text of DOI:10.1111/1467-954X.00215

Self-organization and trade union democracy
Jill C. Humphrey
Abstract
This article is an offshoot of a three year study into the self-organized groups for
women, black members, disabled members and lesbians and gaymen which have
been enshrined in the constitution of the UK's public sector union UNISON. The
argument is that self-organization has become a significant axis around which trade
union democracyis being reconstituted in the late twentieth century. However, our
understanding of this phenomenon has been obscured bythe ascendancyof
mainstream union perspectives over self-organized perspectives, which has unfortu-
natelybeen compounded byacademic researchers. A re-conceptualization of self-
organization proceeds in three stages. First, it is contextualized politicallyand
theoreticallyin terms of trade union histories, new social movements and models of a
diversified democratic polity. Second, it is re-signified by attending to its actual
unfolding over the past two decades and the self-understandings of its activists.
Third, is problematized with reference to exogenous pressures towards bureaucracy
and oligarchy, and endogenous pressures towards essentialisms and exclusions.
Introduction
This article considers the political philosophyand practical unfolding of self-
organization within the British trade union movement with specific reference to
the four self-organized groups (SOGs) for women, black members, disabled
members and lesbians and gaymen which emerged in the local government
officers' union NALGO in the 1980s, and which were enshrined in the
constitution of the public sector union UNISON in the 1990s. The material
upon which this article is based derives from a three year research project
conducted bythe author between 1995 and 1998 (Humphrey, 1998a), but the
inspiration behind the article is twofold. On the one hand, an evaluation of self-
organization in the trade union movement is long overdue ± the TUC has
increasinglyendorsed self-organized forums in its own structures and in those
of its affiliates in respect of women (TUC, 1990), black members (TUC, 1991),
disabled members (TUC, 1993) and lesbians and gaymen (TUC, 1995). On the
other hand, a re-conceptualization of self-organization is the necessary
prerequisite for such an endeavour ± if we relyupon existing conceptual
#
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000. Published byBlackwell Publishers,
108 CowleyRoad, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Self-organization and trade union democracy
schema, we are likelyto miss the significance of self-organization for its
subjects and its embeddedness in wider histories of social movements.
During the 1980s, the main researchers to studyall four NALGO SOGs
were Cunnison and Stageman (1995). Their cardinal error was to mobilize
an `analytic standpoint' to overturn the `subjective standpoint' of the self-
organized activists. According to the analytic standpoint, only groups which
harbour the characteristics of numerical majoritystatus and cultural
cohesiveness (defined in terms of a commonalityof identity, historyand
culture) are in need of an SOG, and onlywomen and black people are
deemed to meet the relevant criteria. This reasoning is intrinsicallyflawed on
various counts. For one thing, we should note that self-organization offers
itself as a solution to the marginalityof minoritygroups ± even the women's
group in NALGO began as a minoritygroup, and its acquisition of majority
status under UNISON has not been propitious for its self-organized
struggles. And of course the black members' group is a minoritygroup,
deemed to be a majoritybythe researchers onlybydint of considering black
people as a global constituency, which is of dubious relevance. Moreover, we
should remember that the cohesiveness imputed to larger collectivities is
extremelysuspect ± witness the fracturing of feminist politics (eg, Griffin,
1995) and the hybridities in anti-racist politics (eg, Werbner and Modood,
1997). And of course it is the smaller collectivities which have been
successful in constituting themselves as distinct `ethnic' groups, appropriat-
ing shared identities, histories and cultures ± hence the lesbian and gay
community(eg, Epstein, 1987) and the disabled peoples' community(eg,
Shakespeare, 1993).
During the 1990s, the main research expedition into the UNISON SOGs has
been led byColgan and Ledwith, and their initial publications on women's self-
organization suggest that the failure to adopt a self-organized standpoint is
resulting in the erasure of the historyof SOGs and the concept of self-
organization itself. First, theydefine self-organization as a rulebook require-
ment and as a vehicle through which the other rulebook requirements for
proportional and fair representation can be attained (Mann et al., 1996). Such
a conceptualization is inaccurate on the level of historical facticity, insofar as
self-organization pre-dated the UNISON constitution byover a decade, and
inadequate on the level of union politics, insofar as SOGs have been the
vehicles for cultural as much as structural changes in terms of inserting new
identities and issues into the union. Second, theyanalyze self-organization in
terms of separatism, leaving them with the question of whether the groups are
engaged in a fully-fledged or an interim form of separatism ± which leads to an
impasse since theyacknowledge that even if self-organization is onlyan interim
separatism, it maystill be oriented towards either integration into the union or
new separatist unions which are women-onlyetc. (Colgan and Ledwith, 1996).
This wayof framing the existence of SOGs is unfortunate since it conflates the
enforced separatism of a few women-onlyorganizations in the late nineteenth
centurywith the creation of SOGs within a particular union in the late
#
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000
263

Jill C. Humphrey
twentieth century, when SOGs exist in symbiotic unity with the host
organization, their autonomygranted on the condition of accepting account-
abilityto the union.
Myown research project was predicated upon a self-organized standpoint.
Its premises were that equal value and validityshould be accorded to all
groups; that the groups could onlybe comprehended in terms of local and
wider histories; that the political philosophyof self-organization can onlybe
broached bya careful attention to the narratives of its advocates and activists.
This standpoint was facilitated bymyown status as a self-organized activist in
the NALGO then UNISON lesbian and gaygroup, and bymyparticipation in
various `equal opportunities' forums which brought together members from all
four SOGs. However, the cluster of insider knowledges brought to bear upon
the project was conducive not onlyto a broader and deeper appreciation of
self-organization, but also to a broader and deeper critique of it. Whilst
traditional researchers mayhave inadvertentlyplayed into the hands of the
opponents of self-organization ± those who would prefer to regard the SOGs
as transitional phenomena or as subversivelyseparatist, or to find reasons to
disband some of them ± myown research invites both mainstream and self-
organized activists to reflect criticallyupon SOGs and the union in which they
are embedded in order to promote an even more robust and diverse union
democracy. Of course, my own research was non-representative ± participant
observation was confined to self-organized forums; the fortyinterviewees were
self-organized activists who had pioneered self-organization in NALGO and
who remained among its contemporaryleaders in UNISON; and mainstream
union views were accessed onlyindirectlyvia union documents. Therefore my
account is partial and perspectival, intended as a necessaryantidote to previous
analyses, and a fruitful starting-point for future research.
The rest of the article undertakes the dual task of re-thinking and re-
evaluating self-organization. Re-thinking self-organization entails an analysis
of the concept in historical contexts, locating the praxis within models of
democratic diversityand analzying the narratives of its protagonists and
opponents. Re-evaluating self-organization involves a sympathetic but critical
appraisal of the actual unfolding of SOGs in UNISON, which is re-inserted
into the debates about democratic diversity. Future prospects for self-
organization are considered in the conclusion.
Contextualizing self-organization
Whilst there maywell be points of intersection between self-organization and
separatism, theyare conceptuallyand politicallydistinct phenomena. As a
generic term, self-organization literallydenotes the processes wherebya group
of people organize themselves in pursuit of a common cause, and some kind of
identityand interest politics inheres in these processes insofar as theymust
demarcate the criteria of belongingness and the parameters of activities and
#
264
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000

Self-organization and trade union democracy
agendas. In practice the term has, however, been associated with and
appropriated by, subordinated groups whose trajectories were forged under
conditions of adversitywhich heightens the awareness of the double jeopardy±
the perils of self-organizing against the status quo and the perils of not self-
organizing thus succumbing to the status quo. On the level of the national
polity, the trade union and civil rights movements are prime examples of self-
organization. However, self-organizing propensities can also operate within
subnational or supranational polities, in corporations, trade unions, charities,
federations and the like, and myown studyis about the storyof self-organizing
groups within a broader self-organized movement.
The important point is that self-organization is born from a position of
exclusion from or subordination within a wider polity, and that it is geared
towards inclusion into that polity, or integration on more equitable terms. An
ongoing moment of `separatism' is a necessarycomponent of self-organization
insofar as disprivileged groups will require separate spaces to debate their
predicaments prior to negotiations with dominant groups. But self-organiza-
tion is successful onlyto the extent that it results in these negotiations, in
reserved places in the polityetc, which are emblematic of integration. The self-
determination sought bya self-organizing group should be decoded in terms of
the desires to control its own group boundaries, to preserve its separate spaces,
and to ensure that its sapiential authorityon its own issues is respected byother
groups in that polity. By contrast, separatism is ultimately about the quest for
self-governance in a separate polity± the dream of a women-onlyunion, a gay-
onlyworkplace, a black-onlynation-state etc. It is not that self-organized
movements have never dreamed the dream ± revolutionarysocialist, Black
Power and radical lesbian feminist movements hearken preciselyto such
separatist visions ± but the dream has little to do with the contemporarytrade
union movement or its SOGs.
Historiographies illustrate that the `separatism' imputed to subordinated
groups arises from a prior `segregation' instituted bydominant groups. In the
bourgeois public sphere, it was white male elites who construed themselves as
universal citizens (Young, 1989), leaving a host of dispossessed people to create
alternative institutional spaces, such as trade unions, women's charities, black
churches and gaybars (Fraser, 1995). In the British trade union movement, it
was white male leaders and members who construed themselves as universal
proletarian subjects, leaving manyworkers out in the wilderness. Worse, the
combination of a labour aristocracyand a reformist agenda resulted in the
displacement of the `enemywithout' (ie, capital) byvarious `enemies within'
(eg, working women and immigrant labour), and the substitution of ultimate
goals (ie, a socialist economy) by various intermediary goals (eg, a family wage
and a white British labour force). Boston's (1980) historyof women workers
illustrates that their enforced exclusion from trade unions impelled them to
create separate unions from the late nineteenth century, but that women
aspired to integration into the malestream labour movement and voted to
disband their women-onlyorganizations as soon as inclusion was offered.
#
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000
265

Jill C. Humphrey
Ramdin's (1987) historyof black workers shows that whilst theysubscribed to
whitestream unions, theyalso had to create their own workers' associations
alongside this, without which theycould not have survived strike actions which
were taken in protest at racial inequalities in payand prospects, but without
1
anysupport from their unions.
Disabled and lesbian and gayworkers had to await the emergence of their
own civil rights movements in the late twentieth centurybefore their self-
organization as trade unionists became possible, demonstrating the umbilical
cord that has existed between SOGs in trade unions and wider social
communities and political movements. Indeed, self-organization is precisely
what Stewart (1995) names as an active citizenship, wherebythose who suffer a
form of subordinate citizenship mobilize their collective resources in pursuit of
a genuine integration into a more egalitarian polity, and in the process unravel
hitherto hidden dimensions of citizenship.2 Of course, the dichotomybetween
`old' and `new' social movements must be deconstructed if we are to
comprehend the birth of new civil-rights or status-based groups within the
womb of the old labour or class-based movement ± a task already
countenanced byScott (1990). But this must also be articulated with the birth
of new agendas and new agents.
In Fraser's (1995) typology, it will be necessary to think through the
convergences and divergences between the politics of redistribution and the
politics of recognition. The politics of redistribution stems from the inequalities
generated byeconomic and political structures, which signifyexploitation and
deprivation for working classes and underclasses, leading to an advocacyof
redistribution in respect of material resources like income, propertyand
welfare. The politics of recognition stems from the cultural symbolic processes
of representation and communication which signifymarginalization and
stigmatization for those deemed to be `different' qua `deviant', resulting in
demands for disrupting `normalizing' discourses and revaluing alternative ways
of being, doing and relating. Whilst in practice manycitizens maylabour
simultaneouslyunder both regimes, and to ameliorate one set of injustices may
have positive repercussions upon the other, theyare analyticallyand politically
distinct, and those who subscribe to one agenda mayrepudiate the other. In
Bauman's (1995) schema, the demise of the Old Left and the withering awayof
the working class as the agent of historical change renders it imperative that the
New Left reassembles itself from diverse citizenries and re-orients itself to a
new ethico-political project of democracy, autonomy and diversity, beyond
equality simpliciter.3
To explain the advent of the four SOGs in NALGO in the late 1970s and the
early1980s we must appreciate that theyarose at a unique conjuncture in
which exogenous and endogenous influences operated in a mutuallyreinforcing
manner. The exogenous influences were those emanating from the New Urban
Left which took root in Labour-controlled London boroughs and citycouncils
at this time. Cooper (1998) illustrates how municipal socialism from the
grassroots upwards in opposition to the Conservative government was
#
266
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000

Self-organization and trade union democracy
conjoined with an identitypolitics which reversed the hierarchical exclusions of
the politybyre-imagining a host of subordinated peoples at the core of the
community. This movement reached its zenith in the Greater London Council
and its attempts to institute a diverse democracybyenticing elderl,y
unemployed, disabled, black, ethnic minority, lesbian and gay subjects into
active citizenship.4
The endogenous influences were those alreadyinscribed within NALGO
and pertain to its two-dimensional autonomywhich probablyfacilitated some
kind of `capture' byNew Left ideologies. On the one hand, NALGO was not
affiliated to the Labour Partywhich provided its activists and officers with
more leewayto reflect upon non-class-based dimensions of inequalityand to
enter into alliances with civil rights movements (Lawrence, 1994). On the other
hand, NALGO branches enjoyed autonomy from the National Executive
Committee (NEC), and several `radical' branches were known to breach
mainstream union policies in the service of `minority' causes and other local
convictions (Terry, 1996). The net result is that branch-level groups for black,
ethnic minority, lesbian and gay members existed in the absence of any
constitutional remit or national-level recognition, and even flourished in spite
of the hostilityfrom the majorityof members and officers towards SOGs (see
NALGO, 1987, 1988). Virdee and Grint (1994) testifyto the birth of new
collectivities, naming the SOGs as `class-and-status groups'. Perhaps we can
also speak of the birth of new subjectivities, as self-organized activists are not
onlyhybrid creatures who straddle the divide between class and status, but
often more complex creatures with overlapping memberships of different
SOGs.
When UNISON enshrined rights to self-organization for women, black
members, disabled members and lesbians and gays in its constitution, alongside
other rules on proportional and fair representation, it embarked upon a radical
implementation of Iris Marion Young's model of a group-differentiated
democracy.5 It is therefore worth reconstructing the steps outlined byYoung
(1990) in more detail. First, she regards such a group-differentiated democracy
as the necessarycorollaryof a heterogeneous public, and as the emblem of the
irreducibilityof differences which cannot simplybe collapsed into a general
interest or indeed re-presented byothers who do not inhabit that collective
subject-position. Since the groups entitled to recognition, resources and
representation are those which experience oppression in one or more spheres of
social life, their entitlements also counteract histories of discrimination.
Second, resources are released for self-organization which enables oppressed
peoples to debate their predicaments in safe and separate spaces, and which
acts as the vehicle for their collective education and empowerment. Third,
group representation in policy-making forums is mandatory so that each group
can explain how anygiven policyproposal is likelyto affect its members and
advance alternative policyproposals, and this is essential to inclusion. Fourth,
this kind of democratic polityis said to maximize practical wisdom and
equitable outcomes in decision-making insofar as a varietyof group
#
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000
267

Jill C. Humphrey
perspectives are shared and insofar as each group must take into account the
equal value and validityof all other groups. The resultant laws and policies are
likelyto harbour a dualitybetween universal rights for all and group-specific
rights to respect the bodilyor cultural integrityof some citizens, such as
disabled people, pregnant women or minoritylanguage-users. It is of course
not the case that either elites or majorities are eclipsed bythis democratic
diversity± rather, theyare re-positioned as groups among other groups, re-
signified in the particularityof their identities, interests and narratives.
Moreover, it is claimed that such an articulation of a democratic polityis
applicable to modern nation-states as well as the various institutions under
their auspices. The rest of this article offers an explanation of the emergence of
a group-differentiated democracyin NALGO and an evaluation of this model
in relation to UNISON SOGs.
Re-signifying self-organization
Although the NALGO SOGs shared a similarityof narratives ± about
discriminations suffered in workplaces, unions and wider society± they
exhibited diverse origins and orientations. The women's group was nurtured
under the auspices of the National Equal Opportunities Committee, created
after the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and in the light of the massive under-
representation of women at all levels of the union. This committee came to be
regarded bythe other SOGs as an `other-organized group' insofar as it had
been established byNEC fiat and insofar as it reserved places for men (who did
not in practice take their seats). The disabled members' group can be construed
as a hybrid group ± the Disability Consultative Committee was created by the
NEC in 1985, and non-disabled officers were crucial in releasing the resources
to make the union accessible in terms of its environmental infrastructure and
communications media, but as soon as progress was made disabled members
insisted on making the committee a disabled-onlygroup. The black and lesbian
and gaygroups were fullyself-organized from the outset ± theywere setting up
groups in branches from the late 1970s and convening national conferences and
committees from the early1980s, mobilizing around the problems of
immigration and racism on the one hand and homophobic dismissals and
harassment on the other. Theywere deprived of recognition and resources
from the leadership, and stood accused of importing `alien agendas' and
`perverse identities' respectivelyinto the union. However, bythe late 1980s
their vision of self-organization became the template for the other groups, and
bythe early1990s this template was written into the UNISON constitution. In
the words of a disabled activist:
DM: Those of us involved in self-organized politics have hung onto the
existing self-organized structures because theyhave delivered what we
want against the wishes, to some extent, of the oppressing majority.
#
268
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000

Self-organization and trade union democracy
Perhaps the ultimate significance of this historyof self-organization will reside
in its implicit critique of other-imposed models of organization on the one
hand and rational-discursive and majority-voting conceptions of democracy on
the other.6
Although the three partner unions which came together to form UNISON
in 1993 adhered to verydifferent conceptions of union democracy, the resulting
constitution proved to be the most radical in the historyof British trade
unionism.7 It is undergirded bya conception of democracywhich weaves
together autonomy, diversity and equality, attempting to devolve maximum
rights and responsibilities to a differentiated membership, in ways which
should in principle be congruent with the praxis of self-organization. In terms
of diverse locations of members, there are three main dimensions of
democracy. First, the geographical dimension guarantees autonomy and
authorityto each region in respect of its priorities and practices, which
Á
becomes particularlypoignant a propos Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,
which each harbour their own socio-legal systems, national-ethnic identities
and now elected assemblies. Second, the occupational dimension allows each
service group to convene separate conferences to generate specific bargaining
agendas, thus respecting that the predicaments of health service workers, local
government officers and employees of privatized utilities could be very
different. Third, the status dimension pertains to the differences of `race',
gender, disabilityand sexualit,y which cut across the geographical and
occupational axes of identification, but which are equallysalient in structuring
the labour market positions of the membership, even if this salience only
becomes visible from the perspective of the disadvantaged (see COHSE-
NALGO-NUPE, 1992).
In terms of the diverse identities of members, there are three main rules
codified into UNISON's internal governance. First, there is the rule of
proportionality, which states that women and men will be represented in all
committees and conferences in proportion to their numerical strength, such
that the 70% majorityof women should be reflected throughout the union,
although it is onlyfullyenforced at national level. Second, there is the rule of
fair representation, which expresses a general intention that all union forums
should mirror the diversityof the membership as regards occupations, skills,
qualifications, racial origins, sexual orientations and disabilities, although this
rule entrains neither monitoring nor enforcing mechanisms in its wake. Third,
there is the rule of self-organization, which specifies that the four SOGs for
women, black members, disabled members and lesbians and gaymen will be
entitled to hold meetings, committees and conferences at branch, regional and
national levels of the union, and to dispatch delegates and motions to the
various mainstream union conferences (see UNISON, 1994). It is important to
note that the first two rules pertain to the surface structures of representation,
whilst the rule on self-organization transports us into deeper cultural waters, as
it provides the vehicle for the education and empowerment of disadvantaged
groups, without which theymaynot be equipped to take their seats in the
#
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000
269

Jill C. Humphrey
union structures, or to bring distinct issues and insights to mainstream union
agendas. It is in this sense that self-organization acquires priorityover the rules
on proportional and fair representation.
Nevertheless, a certain marginalization continues to haunt self-organiza-
tion. Unlike the bona fide geographical and occupational constituencies,
SOGs continue to be treated as quasi-illegitimate constituencies, and branch
and regional autonomyin terms of rule-interpretations and resource-
deployments means that many local SOGs are still subjected to ridicule,
resentment, resource-starvation and bureaucratic obfuscation. Even at
national level, SOGs did not enjoythe immunities of other rule-commit-
ments, which were ring-fenced during the 1994 financial crisis and
unchallenged during national debates, such as that occasioned bythe 1995
General Secretaryelection ± one of the candidates to this election secured a
quarter of the votes on a platform which revolved exclusivelyaround a
diatribe against SOGs and a determination to eradicate them from the
rulebook. Indeed, self-organization is regarded as dispensable bysome more
moderate members and officers, as part of a reductive manoeuvre which
enthrones proportional representation for women as the golden rule of union
democracyand paper policies on other issues as the touchstone for union
equality(see Humphrey, 1998a).
It is of course under these conditions that self-organized activists have had
to articulate their raison d'eÃtre, and it is mycontention that a re-
conceptualization of self-organization in the union needs to commence from
these localized self-understandings. The terms of this debate have been
structured bythe question as to whether SOGs exist as a `means-to-an-end' or
as `ends-in-themselves', a question which has been inherited from the NALGO
era, but infused with new meanings under the UNISON constitution. An
analysis of interview transcripts elucidates the double-binds which have littered
the trail of self-organization as follows. In public, advocates of self-
organization have embraced a sales mythology version of the `means-to-an-
end' clause, wherebySOGs exist to further the ends of the mainstream union.
In other words, SOGs are configured as the conduits through which people
who would otherwise be estranged from the union can be recruited into
membership and then active participation, not onlyin self-organized settings
but also in mainstream ones. This makes economic and political sense on all
sides of the ideological spectrum and becomes the glue to bind together self-
organized activists with mainstream officers. However, the SOGs must
necessarilyventure beyond the ends of traditional unionism, becoming the
channel through which other identities and issues are inserted into the
mainstream, in ways which interrupt both the traditional consciousness and the
traditional constituencies of trade unions. This is where their opponents rail
against them for damaging unity, diverting resources and dissipating energies.
And this is where the rationale for self-organization undergoes a metamor-
phosis ± theyexist as a means to an end, but the end is to combat the
#
270
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000

Self-organization and trade union democracy
prejudices of the majorityand to thus to change the mainstream union, as
testified bythe following lesbian:
L: There is a significant proportion of the union's members who think that
lesbians and gaymen at best should be neither seen nor heard, and at
worst should be lined up against a wall and shot. And that's what we're
here for, isn't it? Because that's the prevailing social attitude. I see that as
our bread-and-butter work ± to organize, to educate, but also to prevent
± when we can't educate, 'cos of bigotry± to prevent them from getting
their way.
There is another sense in which SOGs exist as a means-to-an-end, inasmuch as
theyare supposed to bring about equalityfor their members in workplaces and
unions alike. However, this leaves them vulnerable to a process of gradual
elimination, since theymaybe deemed transitional arrangements, to be
jettisoned as soon as the end is nigh. This argument has ironicallybeen
strengthened under UNISON, on account of the aforementioned reductionist
decodings of democracy(ie, that proportionalityis just around the corner) and
equality(ie, that there is an abundance of equalitypolicies). The inadequacies
of this argument were captured bya man from the black members' group:
BM: The reason I don't agree with people who sayit is a means-to-an-end is
that you've got to have an end and you've got to be able to
conceptualize that end. I can't ... The end is, we have total equality.
But for two thousand years ± or longer than that, whatever the time is
that people have been on this earth ± we've had discrimination. I can't
see us eradicating that in fifty years or a hundred years-Self-
organization is not even a baby ± it's still a seed.
It is scarcelysurprising that some self-organized activists retreat into the
sanctuaryof the `ends-in-themselves' clause. There is a genuine sense in which
`being there' is an end-in-itself for marginalized subjects whose existence has
historicallybeen disregarded or disparaged in the labour movement, and under
the threat of extinction in the wider polity.8 However, to be recognized,
represented and resourced as black, disabled, female, lesbian or gaysubjects is
anathema to mainstream officers, who allocate scarce resources on the basis of
what members are planning to do, not on the basis of who they are. Indeed,
SOGs have accepted the priorityof doing over being. The following
interviewee explained how the conversion to a fully-fledged self-organization
among women in the late 1980s had ushered in a legitimacycrisis:
W: There were people who seemed to think that self-organization was an
end-in-itself ± once you got that, you could do marvellous things, and
you didn't necessarily have to define them ± the object was to become
self-organized and to be recognized as self-organized ... The idea of
#
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000
271

Jill C. Humphrey
being a woman trade unionist became a thing-in-itself, without
something that you're going to be a trade unionist about ... Once self-
organization was validated as policy... we became a kind of feminist
without going through the rite de passage. And at the end of that we
were left with a personalityand we'd lost the agenda.
Finally, the notion of `ends-in-themselves' evokes the spectre of separatism.
Advocates of self-organization simultaneouslyrepudiate and reframe separat-
ism. On the one hand, theypoint out that it is often mainstream officers who
propel SOGs into a separatist corner and then lambaste them for sectionalism
± some officers seem content to sign cheques for SOGs to convene a few
meetings `out there' on the proviso that theydo not return to take up their
representational rights, which could disturb the modus operandi of the union.
On the other hand, theyindicate that the dream of separate unions for various
disadvantaged groups is unfeasible and=or undesirable, and that it is precisely
self-organization within pre-existing union polities which ensures that even the
dream of separatism is no longer on the agenda. In the words of a black
activist:
BM: These [separatists] are the same people, to me, who argue that Black
people one daywill have to return to Africa ... the same people who
tell me that all white people are racist ... But we are not in a majority±
we're not in a position to survive here byourselves ± we don't have that
luxuryand we have to work with the majoritycommunity.
To summarize, the dwelling place of self-organization to date has been marked
bya double-bind. The injunction from the mainstream union is `You can exist,
but on our terms, within our traditions, and as a transitional phenomenon';
and the rejoinder from the SOGs is `For our existence to serve anypurpose, we
must breach your terms, interrogate your traditions, and as a permanent
presence'. As the offspring of miscegenation processes, self-organized subjects
occupya quasi-bastardized position in the union. But SOGs are neither a
problem-free nor a prejudice-free zone, as will be explained in the next section.
Problematizing self-organization
An immanent critique of the UNISON SOGs requires the disentanglement of
at least two types of problems, which may be depicted as exogenous and
endogenous. The first cluster of problems revolves around the bureau-
cratization of structures, processes and outcomes. Since these are problems
endemic to the wider union polity, which become reflected in the SOGs insofar
as theybecome institutionalized as part of the union apparatus, critics maydo
better to suspend judgement on self-organization as such, and to interrogate
#
272
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000

Self-organization and trade union democracy
the wider polityin which it is embedded, whilst contemplating how it might be
possible for SOGs to challenge and change that wider polity.
I would contend that this bureaucratization has been detrimental to self-
organization in a double sense. First, it has been inimical to the development of
intra-group democracy. Self-organized subjects began from a position of
marginality, experiencing the modus operandi of the mainstream union as
mystifying and disempowering, as jargon and rulebooks were wielded by
existing leaderships often in the service of maintaining the status quo (cf.
Michels, 1959; Cockburn, 1991). However, a mimetic relationship between the
SOGs and the mainstream union seems to be a vital ingredient of the successful
integration of SOGs. In other words, SOGs have had to evolve hierarchies
which parallel the mainstream structures in order to liaise effectivelywith each
layer of the union; their leaders have had to assimilate terminology and
procedures in order to playbythe rules of the game; the dialogues can rapidly
become adversarial which fosters a combative style of negotiating for survival;
and so we turn full circle, as novice self-organized activists can become
estranged from and perplexed byvarious aspects of their own SOGs. This was
borne out bya detailed case-studyof the lesbian and gaygroup, although the
leadership had begun to recognize and redress some of these dynamics in terms
of induction and training courses for newcomers (see Humphrey, 1998a).
However, it even resonates in the smallest group, the disabled members' SOG,
where a chasm has opened up between the national leaders (dubbed `icons' or
`elites') and the grassroots members (see Humphrey, 1998b).
Second, bureaucratization has been inimical to the promotion of substantive
equality. Self-organized leaders have been offended by the disparity between
the union's equalitypolicies and the discriminations routinelysuffered bytheir
memberships, but the mimetic ironyresurfaces here too, since the national self-
organized conferences tend to issue a stream of their own paper policies, which
mayprove just as impotent in redressing members' grievances. It is not so
much that the civil rights agendas emerging from these fora are not valid as
testimonies to discriminations or valuable in disclosing desiderata. It is rather
that similar agendas are repeated year-on-year without many tangible
improvements at the grassroots and that education and empowerment of the
membership has increasinglybeen tied up with writing and speaking to
conference motions, in an inward-gazing fashion (see Humphrey, 1998a). This
mayof course gesture towards problems intrinsic to civil rights agendas,
insofar as their surface acceptabilitymayconceal a deeper inabilityto dislocate
the oppressive cultures which circulate around the lives of marginalized peoples
(cf. Cooper, 1994; Gamson, 1995).
The second cluster of problems pertains to the essentialism which is endemic
to self-organization as a species of identitypolitics. Insofar as this seems to be
an endogenous growth, it can be construed negativelyas a problem which may
recur independentlyof the wider polity, or positivelyas a problem which is
potentiallywithin the control or cure of SOGs themselves. Myconcern here is
to sketch out the three kinds of exclusions which flow from this essentialist
#
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000
273

Jill C. Humphrey
conception and enactment of self-organization, which militate against both
equityand efficacy. First, there is the essentialism which is written into the
boundaries of each group in such a manner that some potential members of
those groups maybecome ineligible for membership. Whilst it is impossible to
know whether and when all relevant voices have been included (see Phillips,
1996), it is easyto detect deliberate exclusion. For example, the black members'
group purports to rallyaround blackness as a political categoryrather than as
a colour-coding, but it does not in fact admit `white' ethnic minorities like Irish
and Jewish people, leaving some Irish groups to self-organize `illicitly' in
London, and indeed an `unofficial' colour-hierarchywithin the group itself.
Likewise, the lesbian and gaygroup has been vigilant in patrolling its
own boundaries and, in particular, expelling anybisexuals in its midst
(Humphrey, 1999c).
Second, there is the essentialism which clings to each collective identity
category, enclosing each group in a quasi-mystical circle, and segregating it off
from the other groups. The institution of self-organization in theoryoffers an
ideal platform for what Reagon (1983) refers to as `coalition politics', whereby
marginalized groups journeyfrom the safetyof `home' to the politics of `the
streets', banding together for survival in a hostile world. Later writers like
Phelan (1995) suggest that in the process, identities will not onlybe
transfigured, but also supplanted byissues, as manypeople from diverse
social groupings discover that whatever divides them is counterbalanced by
what unites them, so that theycan embark upon shared campaigns. However,
myresearch demonstrated that there are manybarriers to coalitions, which can
be exacerbated bysize and power differentials between the SOGs (ie, the larger
ones can dictate the rules of engagement as regards inter-group liaisons), and
bygame-playing tactics from hostile mainstream officers (ie, theycan propel
SOGs into competitions over a single restricted budget). As a general rule,
coalitions seem to have become instrumentalized as tactics on the floor of
mainstream union conferences, designed to ward off the possibilityof
conference failing to ratifythe motion of anygiven SOG. Elsewhere, there is
a possessiveness about issues which hinders a multifaceted approach to
grasping and tackling them, as evidenced in the lesbian and gaygroup's lengthy
and unilateral campaign around the HIV=AIDS crucible (Humphrey, 1999a).
It might be apposite to digress here and revisit Iris Marion Young's
formulation. Myown reading is that she is deeplyambivalent on these matters.
She recognizes that pressures towards homogenization of identities and inward-
looking interest group politics are probablyinevitable (Young, 1990a; 1995). She
believes that intra-group diversitycan be preserved byinstituting caucuses for
minoritymembers and that solipsism can be staved off byinter-group liaisons or
`rainbow politics' (Young, 1989, 1990a). But she also offers a philosophical
critique of communitywhich suggests that its metaphsyics of co-presence
between similar-and-symmetrical subjects is intrinsically oppressive insofar as it
annihilates alteritybyabsorption or expulsion, and she is adamant that respect
for otherness is the linchpin of democracy(Young, 1990b, 1996). The UNISON
#
274
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000

Self-organization and trade union democracy
experiment is indicative rather than conclusive here, and arguablycomplicates
rather than simplifies these matters. The SOGs exhibit a far more sophisticated
conception of communityand democracythan is typicallyappreciated, insofar
as theyprovide for caucuses within each group (eg, the lesbian and gaygroup
has caucuses for lesbians, gaymen, black lesbians and gays, disabled lesbians
and gays) and cross-representation between groups (ie, each SOG has reserved
seats on everyother SOG at national level), as well as allowing for some inter-
group liaison and training. Yet more than a decade later, it seems that this has
failed to bring about a sustainable rainbow politics, or a loosening of the
boundaries of community, or indeed a deep appreciation of hybrid identities
(Humphrey, 1999a,c).
Finally, there is the essentialism which results in the exclusion of mainstream
members from self-organized debates. This mayappear a strange concern,
given that the entire ethos of self-organization is predicated upon the exclusion
of those who do not identifyas women, disabled, black, lesbian or gay, and it is
not myintention to undermine this principle. Rather, myconcern resides in the
dilemmatic juxtaposition of inclusivityand exclusivityat the heart of self-
organized praxis, the resultant double-binds that can envelop even (and
especially) sympathetic mainstream officers and members, and the ways in
which this can prevent issues of disability, gender, `race' and sexuality from
being recognized as relevant to the entire union membership. In other words,
participation in SOGs abides bya logic of exclusivityso that, for example, only
women can join the women's group, and onlywomen can decide the agendas
for change. Yet ownership of the outcomes abides bya logic of inclusivity, so
that the entire union is expected to ratifythese agendas, lest it risk accusations
of prejudice. Thus it transpires that mainstream unionists mayreact with a
certain apathyor alienation when theylisten to the desires and demands of
their self-organized counterparts ± theyhave been excluded from the ongoing
process of dialogue, but are expected to endorse and implement the outcomes.
The gravityof this situation should be underscored, given that anychange in
gender relations, for example, will be contingent upon the engagement of
dominant as well as disadvantaged subjects (see Segal, 1990; Messner, 1997).
Conclusion
I have argued for a re-conceptualization of self-organization which begins from
the self-understandings of the agents in localized contexts, and which calls into
question the prevailing conceptual frames to be discerned in much mainstream
union and academic research literature. In the process, I have illustrated that
trade union SOGs have a vital role in promoting a more diversified democracy
and a more robust equalities agenda, but that a double jeopardylooms over
their capacityto deliver the goods, in the guise of outer pressures towards
bureacratization and inner pressures towards homogenization. Of course there
are limits to what we can reasonablyexpect trade unions or anygroups
#
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000
275

Jill C. Humphrey
operating within them to achieve ± and on the efficacyscore, SOGs seem to
compare quite favourablywith their host organization in terms of service-
9
deliveryto their respective constituencies.
In terms of the futures of SOGs under UNISON, it is extremelyunlikelythat
theywill be disbanded ± theyare becoming part of `the Establishment', although
their quasi-bastardized origins lingers on in the collective memory, and their ends
are still regarded as illegitimate in some quarters. Indeed, their leaders have been
at the forefront of promoting self-organization in the wider trade union
movement (see TUC, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1995). It is rather more likelythat self-
organization will continue to re-mould the UNISON democracyfrom the inside,
although in ways which its pioneers neither wanted nor anticipated ± for
example, there are demands bysome men for a `men's SOG' in recognition of
their status as the new gender minority, and desires by some bisexuals and
transgendered people for a `queer SOG' in virtue of their exclusion from the
lesbian and gaygroup. But the most significant constitutional change has been
the recent creation of Youth Forums across the union to complement the Retired
Members' Section (UNISON, 1997). This arises from the recognition of age as an
important dimension of stratification in workplaces, the under-representation of
younger (and older) people in the union, and of course the recruitment
imperative. It is of interest here that the Youth Forums have been welcomed by
the mainstream union without anysuspicions about disunityand the like, and
indeed that SOG activists are rather unsure about these new creatures, refusing to
regard them as properlyself-organized (read `self-creating' and `stigmatized')
groupings. Indeed, the re-configuring of UNISON constituencies means that the
10
entire notion of a `mainstream union' mayhave become obsolete.
Self-organization has been less influential in the private sector unions. It is
not just that there is a lower union densityin the private sector, and indeed the
emergence of a `Bleak House' or union-free zone (Hyman, 1997), but also that
there is a more tenuous link with extra-occupational issues or what we might
call a New Left-free zone. Indeed, trade unions mayhave to reconstitute
themselves more in accordance with the Works Councils model of information
and consultation rights, and anyminorities within them mayneed to adapt
their desires for recognition and representation to the model propounded by
the Involvement and Participation Association (Undy, 1999). Or rather, even
the marginalization of trade unions cannot side-step the questions of employer
duties and employee rights, so that equality and democracy remain vital issues,
even if theyare displaced from trade union to workplace sites.
Whilst New Labour and the New Unionism overhang both public and
private sectors, there are obvious risks in attempting to `read off' prospects for
self-organization from the conjuncture of these discursive practices. Thus it is
important to remind ourselves that the NALGO SOGs flourished preciselyin
the era of the New Right offensive against trade unionism, and that the radical
UNISON constitution was ratified bythe Commissioner for the Rights of
Trade Union members which had been established in part to deter unions from
these kinds of `excesses', with powers to intervene in internal union governance
#
276
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000

Self-organization and trade union democracy
(Elias, 1990). The laws enacted byNew Labour and the words espoused by
contemporaryunion leaders do, however, involve an emphasis upon individual
rights as always undergirding and occasionally overriding collective rights
(Undy, 1999). Whilst this is undoubtedly problematic in terms of traditional
trade union solidarities, it mayprove more fruitful from the perspective of
those who aspire to self-organize from a marginal position. I would suggest
that there maybe more leewayto legislate on novel stratifications under New
Labour as opposed to the New Right, and more space to negotiate on novel
subjectivities under New Labour as opposed to Old Labour. However, this
should not be read as an endorsement of New Labour, which has abandoned
manysignificant strands of both the Old Labour and the New Left during its
metamorphosis, indeed in ways which bring it perilously close to the New
Right. Rather, the role of activists and critics will resemble that of the bricoleur
who sutures together the remaining fragments of Left and Labour praxis and
harnesses them to the circumstances of the new century.
Open University
Received 6 November 1998
Finallyaccepted 8 November 1999
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge an ESRC research grant (award number R00429534160);
co-operation from UNISON members and officers during a contentious project; supervision from
Lydia Morris et al. during doctoral studies at the Universityof Essex; and opportunities to continue
reflecting upon these issues with John Clarke et al. at the Open University.
Abbreviations
COHSE
FTO
GLC
NALGO
NEC
Confederation of Health Service Employees
Full Time Officer
Greater London Council (abolished 1986)
National Association of Local Government Officers
National Executive Committee
NUPE
SOG
TUC
National Union of Public Employees
Self-Organized Group
Trade Union Congress
UNISON
UK Public Sector Union (amalgamation of COHSE, NALGO,
NUPE)
Notes
1 There is a significant difference between self-organization in the histories of women and black
people respectively. Women trade unionists always prioritized integration over separation, and
the influence of radical feminism upon female trade unionists was muted, but the black workers'
#
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000
277

Jill C. Humphrey
movement has been more interested in exploring the feasibilityof a black-onlytrade union, and
more influenced bythe Black Power Movement. This difference is probable attributable to the
more radical exclusion suffered byblack and ethnic minoritypeople in Britain (see Ramdin,
1987). There is also a significant difference between how women's unions were understood by
women and men respectively. Whilst women conceived of self-organization as a vehicle for their
empowerment, equalization and ultimate inclusion into the labour movement, men supported
women's self-organization on the grounds that it brought more workers under the auspices of
the labour movement whilst retaining the gender segregations in workplaces and unions which
were endemic to women's subordination. It is also noteworthythat the abolition and absorption
of women's unions in the 1920s resulted in the almost complete absence of women in trade
union conferences and delegations from the 1930s onwards (see Boston, 1980).
2 For an overview of these dimensions of citizenship, see Barnes (1991) on the myriad aspects of
disabled peoples' citizenship; Evans (1993) on varieties of sexual citizenship; Paul (1997) on the
position of black and ethnic minoritycitizens in Britain; and Lister (1997) for feminist readings
of citizenship.
3 Whilst all the major social theorists have broached the territories of new social movements, their
schema are typically inadequate to account for SOGs in the trade union movement. For
example, Habermas (1991) posits a radical disjuncture between `old politics' which seek
economic expansion and `new politics' which are in revolt against such materialism, but this is
more appropriate for the ecological and anti-nuclear movements than civil rights movements.
Giddens (1991) does address civil rights movements, but regards such `life politics' as emerging
from the partial victories of `emancipatorypolitics', and this leaves little space to address the
ongoing struggles for basic material survival experienced bymanywomen, black and disabled
people. Moreover, these theorists have little to offer substantive debates on democracyand
equalityin workplaces or unions ± Habermas (1996) offers a purelyprocedural and universalist
model of democracyand Giddens (1998) discusses substantive democracyin civil societ,y
nation-states and beyond without considering `economic' democracy.
4 The GLC experiment is significant here, given its affinitywith the NALGO experiment in SOGs
± myinformation is that the trade union and GLC activists were aware of, but not directly
involved in, each others' respective experiments. Whilst myown reading of the GLC would be a
positive one, given its care and courage in stretching the boundaries of democratic citizenship, it
was of course far from unproblematic. Some have claimed that there was a miscarriage of justice
in relation to ordinaryworking class citizens, citing the fact that the GLC erected centres for
women, lesbians and gays whilst presiding over cutbacks in jobs and services, and lamenting the
proliferation of `equal opportunities categories' which maymis-recognize and trivialize the
politics of ethnos (see Anthias and Yuval-Davis, 1992). Others have argued that there was a
miscarriage of justice in relation to oppressed minorities, pointing to the Labour Party's
enthusiastic embrace of `identitypolitics' and its equallyrapid retreat from stigmatized subjects
when confronted with accusations of `loonyLeftism' in the media, and critiquing the
assumption that lesbians and gays were simply newly discovered species of working class
subjects, which maymis-recognize and trivialize the politics of sexuality(see Tobin, 1990).
5 Diluted versions of self-organization have been evident in the Labour Partyand some local
authorities which installed committees and caucuses for women, black and ethnic minority
people and lesbians and gays ± these are `diluted' in the sense that they are often not
underwritten byconstitutional guarantees and theyoften do not result in robust commitments
to representation (see Cooper, 1994; Solomos and Back, 1995). The temptation is perhaps to
impute the strongest version of self-organization and group representation to the Canadian
polity, which allows for the recognition, resourcing and representation of Aboriginal, French
Quebecois and English peoples. However, this would be to conflate self-organization with
separatism. Kymlicka (1996) points out that these three groups conceive of themselves as
distinct nations, and are agitating for self-government in distinct territories. In other words,
nationalist pressures towards secession are antithetical to an integrated citizenship, and he
juxtaposes this to the special rights to exemptions and entitlements for other cultural minorities
and subordinated groups, who aspire to greater inclusion.
#
278
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000

Self-organization and trade union democracy
6 Whilst manyacademic commentators have endorsed varieties of active citizenship in a
diversified democracy, there is a tendency to transform these into `models' to be applied to
various polities (eg, Held, 1987) and this fails to appreciate that it is preciselythe celebrated
processes of self-organization from the grassroots or `margins' which attracts so much calumny
from anygiven leadership or `mainstream', since self-organization is preciselythat which is
beyond their control and comprehension. Furthermore, whatever the progress towards
`diversity' in contemporary academic debates on democracy, the hegemony of rationality in
the discursive democracyand the sovereigntyof majorityvoice
=vote remain intact (eg,
Benhabib, 1996). It was clear during myown research that self-organization owed its success to
the unintended consequences of a vaguely-worded conference motion in 1985, that SOGs were
smuggled in through the union's backdoor bythe tenacityof its advocates and assistance from a
few friends in high places, and that the majorityof union leaders and members were opposed to
self-organization in general, and the black and lesbian and gaygroups in particular (see
NALGO, 1987, 1988). From the perspective of manyof myinterviewees, the prospect of a
`majority' voting for `minority' rights was bleak.
7 Terry(1996) provides a balanced overview of this, on the basis of his academic-advisoryrole to
the partner unions during their negotiations, and shows that each enactment of democracycan
be regarded as having its own rationale and merits. Previous researchers had acclaimed the
`participatorydemocracy' of NALGO (eg, Fosh and Cohen, 1990; Cunnison and Stageman,
1995) and juxtaposed this to the `benevolent paternalism' of NUPE (eg. Fosh and Cohen, 1990)
and the patriarchyor fratriachyof COHSE (eg, Cunnison and Stageman, 1995).
8 I would make a distinction here between the women's group and the other `minority' groups.
Genocide is etched into the historyof black people (eg, Collins 1990), gaymen (eg, Hekma et
al., 1995), disabled people (eg, Barnes, 1996) and of course Jews (eg, Bauman, 1989). Whatever
the subordination of women, their wholesale extinction is never contemplated, if onlyon
account of their vital role in reproduction (see Pateman, 1992), and when their outright
destruction occurs, it tends to be linked to their membership of these minoritygroups (see Bock,
1992). Or rather, the suggestion is that self-organization mayhave additional laeyrs of
significance for men and women in minoritygroups.
9 Academics who write about trade unions from a mainstream vantage-point have tended to
deride SOGs `from the outside' and without substantiating their claims ± for example, McIlroy
(1988) simplyasserts that the NALGO SOGs do not tackle `bread-and-butter' issues and are
`ineffective' in the issues theydo tackle. It is clear however that trade unions have long ceased to
be effective in their bread-and-butter issues ± average wage-rises for non-unionised firms are
higher than those for unionised firms, and the strongest public sector unions are securing the
worst wage deals ± but this is not treated bysuch writers as a reason for disbanding trade
unions, since theyhave a prior commitment to a deeper value-orientation around solidarityand
justice, and theyrespect the myriad constraints which impinge upon trade union activities and
accomplishments. SOGs have brought manypeople into union activism for the first time,
notablydisabled people (Humphrey, 1998b), and have made manyinroads into exposing and
counteracting workplace discriminations (Humphrey, 1999b), but they are also constrained by
inadequate resources, discriminatorylaws and public prejudices.
10 The `mainstream union' was always an overburdened concept as it conflates several categories
of people ± FTOs, layleaders and ordinarymembers. It also oversimplified realityby
presuming an overriding homogeneityamong these people, and then equating their typically
white, male, heterosexual, non-disabled profile with the existence of institutional racism, sexism,
heterosexism and disablism. It has been retained in this paper on account of its prevalence
throughout the critical literature on trade union democracy, its congruence with my own
interviewee's narratives, and its usefulness in framing the scene of trade union democracyfrom
a self-organized standpoint. Nevertheless, in the UNISON context, it is rapidlybecoming an
anachronism, since women are now the majorityin manylaycommittees and conferences
(although not among FTOs), and disadvantaged minoritygroups are increasinglysecuring
representation in all kinds of forums (although not on the NEC). In other words, there remains
a task of displacement and replacement.
#
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000
279

Jill C. Humphrey
Bibliography
Anthias, F. and Yuval-Davis, N., (1992), Racialized Boundaries. Race, nation, gender, colour and
class and the anti-racist struggle, London: Routledge.
Barnes, C., (1991), Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination, London: Hurst and Company.
Barnes, C., (1996), `Theories of disabilityand the origins of the oppression of disabled people in
western society', in Barton, L. (ed.), Disability and Society. Emerging Issues and Insights, Harlow:
Addison WesleyLongman Ltd.
Bauman, Z., (1989), Modernity and the Holocaust, Oxford: PolityPress.
Bauman, Z., (1995), `The Left as the Counterculture of Modernity', in Lyman, S.M. (ed.), Social
Movements. Critiques, Concepts, Case-Studies, London: Macmillan.
Benhabib, S., (1996), `Towards a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy', in Benhabib, S.,
(ed.), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, New Jersey: Princeton
UniversityPress.
Bock, G., (1992), `Equalityand Difference in National Socialist Racism', in Bock, G. and James, S.
(eds), Beyond Equality and Difference. Citizenship, Feminist Politics and Female Subjectivity,
London: Routledge.
Boston, S., (1980), Women Workers and the Trade Union Movement, London: Davis-Poynter Ltd.
Cockburn, C., (1991), In the Way of Women. Men's Resistance to Sex Equality in Organizations,
London: Macmillan.
Colgan, F. and Ledwith, S., (1996), `Sisters Organizing: Women and their Trade Unions', in
Ledwith, S. and Colgan, F. (eds), Women in Organizations. Challenging Gender Politics, London:
Macmillan.
Collins, P.H., (1990), Black Feminist Thought. Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of
Empowerment, New York: Routledge.
Confederation of Health Service Employees, National Association of Local Government Officers
and National Union of Public Employees, (1992), The Final Report. Final Report of the COHSE,
NALGO and NUPE National Executives to the 1992 Annual Conferences, London: COHSE,
NALGO, NUPE.
Cooper, D., (1994), Sexing the City. Lesbian and Gay Politics within the Activist State, London:
Rivers Oram Press.
Cooper, D., (1998), `Regard between Strangers: Diversity, Equality and the Reconstruction of
Public Space', Critical Social Policy, 18 (3): 465±492.
Cunnison, S. and Stageman, J., (1995), Feminizing the Unions, Aldershot: Avebury.
Elias, P., (1990), `Law and Union Democracy: The Changing Shape', in Posh, P. and Heery, E.
(eds), Trade Unions and their Members. Studies in Union Democracy and Organization, London:
Macmillan.
Epstein, S., (1987), `GayPolitics, Ethnic Identity: The Limits of Social Constructionism', Socialist
Review, 17: 9±54.
Evans, D.T., (1993), Sexual Citizenship. The Material Construction of Sexualities, London:
Routledge.
Fosh, P. and Cohen, S., (1990), `Local Trade Unionists in Action: Patterns of Union Democracy',
in Fosh, P. and Heery, E. (eds), Trade Unions and their Members. Studies in Union Democracy
and Organization, London: Macmillan.
Fraser, N., (1995), `From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ``Post-Socialist''
Age', New Left Review, 212: 68±93.
Fraser, N., (1997), `Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually
Existing Democracy', in Fraser, N. (ed.), Justice Interruptus. Critical Reflections upon the
`Postsocialist' Condition, New York: Routledge.
Gamson, J., (1995), `Must IdentityMovements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma', Social Problems,
42 (3): 390±407.
Giddens, A., (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Oxford:
PolityPress.
#
280
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000

Self-organization and trade union democracy
Giddens, A., (1998), The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy, Oxford: PolityPress.
Griffin, G. (ed.), (1995), Feminist Activism in the 1990s, London: Taylor and Francis.
Habermas, J., (1991), `New Social Movements', Telos, 49 (35): 33±37.
Habermas, J., (1996), `Three Normative Models of Democracy', in Benhabib, S. (ed.), Democracy
and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Hekma, G., Oosterhuis, H. and Steakley, J. (eds), (1995), Gay Men and the Sexual History of the
Political Left, New York: Harrington Park Press.
Held, D., (1987), Models of Democracy, Oxford: PolityPress.
Humphrey, J.C., (1998a), Self-Organization in the British Trade Union Movement, unpublished PhD
Thesis, Universityof Essex.
Humphrey, J.C., (1998b), `Self-organize and Survive: Disabled People in the British Trade Union
&
Movement', Disability Society, 13 (4): 587±602.
&
Humphrey, J.C., (1999a), `Disabled People and the Politics of Difference', Disability Society, 14
(2): 173±188.
Humphrey, J.C., (1999b), `Organizing Sexualities, Organized Inequalities: Lesbians and Gay Men
in Public Service Occupations', Gender, Work and Organization, 6 (3): 134±151.
Humphrey, J.C., (1999c), `To Queer or Not to Queer a Lesbian and Gay Group? Sexual and
Gendered Politics at the Turn of the Century', Sexualities, 2 (2): 223±246.
Hyman, R., (1997), `The Future of Employee Representation', British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 35 (3): 309±336.
Kymlicka, W., (1996), `Three Forms of Group-differentiated Citizenship in Canada', in Benhabib,
S. (ed.), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, New Jersey:
Princeton UniversityPress.
Lawrence, E., (1994), Gender and Trade Unions, London: Taylor & Francis.
Lister, R., (1997), Citizenship. Feminist Perspectives, London: Macmillan.
Mann, M., Ledwith, S. and Colgan, F., (1996), Women's Self-Organizing and Trade Union
Democracy. Proportionality and Fair Representation. A Case-Study of the U.K. Public Sector
Union UNISON, Working Paper: UNISON.
McIlroy, J., (1988), Trade Unions in Britain Today, Manchester UniversityPress.
Messner, M.A., (1997), Politics of Masculinities. Men in Movements, California: Sage Publications.
Michels, R., (1959), Political Parties. A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern
democracy, New York: Dover Publications.
National Association of Local Government Officers, (1987), Positive Action in NALGO. Report of
the National Executive Council's Positive Action Working Party, London: NALGO.
National Association of Local Government Officers, (1988), The National Executive Council's
Report on Positive Action. Submitted to the 1988 Annual Conference, London: NALGO.
Pateman, C., (1992), `Equality, Difference, Subordination: The Politics of Motherhood and
Women's Citizenship', in Bock, G. and James, S. (eds), Beyond Equality and Difference.
Citizenship, Feminist Politics and Female Subjectivity, London: Routledge.
Paul. K., (1997), Whitewashing Britain: Race and Citizenship in the Postwar Era, New York: Cornell
UniversityPress.
Phelan, S., (1995), `The Space of Justice: Lesbians and Democratic Politics', in Wilson, A.R. (ed.),
A Simple Matter of Justice? Theorizing Lesbian and Gay Politics, London: Cassell.
Phillips, A., (1996), `Dealing with Difference: A Politics of Ideas or a Politics of Presence?', in
Benhabib, S. (ed.), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Ramdin, R., (1987), The Making of the Black Working Class in Britain, Aldershot: Gower.
Reagon, B.J., (1983), `Coalition Politics: Turning the Century', in Smith, B. (ed.), Home Girls. A
Black Feminist Anthology, New York: Kitchen Table Women of Color Press.
Scott, A., (1990), Ideology and the New Social Movements, London: Routledge.
Segal, L., (1990), Slow Motion. Changing Masculinities, Changing Men, London: Virago Press.
Shakespeare, T., (1993), `Disabled People's Self-Organization: A new social movement?', Disability,
Handicap and Society, 8 (3): 249±64.
Solomos, J. and Back, L., (1995), Race, Politics and Social Change, London: Routledge.
#
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000
281

Jill C. Humphrey
Stewart, A., (1995), `Two Conceptions of Citizenship', British Journal of Sociology, 46 (1): 63±78.
Terry, M., (1996), `Negotiating the Government of UNISON: Union Democracy in Theory and
Practice', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 34 (1): 87±110.
Tobin, A., (1990), `Lesbianism and the Labour Party: the GLC Experience', Feminist Review, 34:
56±66.
Trades Union Congress, (1990), Charter of Equality for Women within Trade Unions, London:
TUC.
Trades Union Congress, (1991), Research Report. Involvement of Black Workers in Trade Unions,
London: TUC.
Trades Union Congress, (1993), TUC Guidance. Trade Unions and Disabled Members, London:
TUC.
Trades Union Congress, (1995), Lesbian and Gay Rights at Work, London: TUC.
Undy, R., (1999), `Annual Review Article. New Labour's ``Industrial Relations Settlement'': The
Third Way?', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 37 (2): 315±336.
UNISON, (1994), UNISON Rules. As Amended at the 1994 Conference, London: UNISON.
UNISON, (1997), 1997 National Delegate Conference Decisions. Motions and Amendments,
London: UNISON.
Virdee, S. and Grint, K., (1994), `Black Self-Organization in Trade Unions', The Sociological
Review, 42 (2): 203±26.
Werbner, P. and Modood, T. (eds), (1997), Debating Cultural Hybridity. Multi-Cultural Identities
and the Politics of Anti-Racism, London: Zed Books.
Young, I.M., (1989), `Polityand Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal
Citizenship', Ethics, 99: 250±74.
Young, I.M., (1990a), Justice and the Politics of Difference, New York: Princeton UniversityPress.
Young, I.M., (1990b), `The Ideal of Communityand the Politics of Difference', in Nicholson, L.J.
(ed.), Feminism =Postmodernism, London: Routledge.
Young, I.M., (1995), `Together in Difference: Transforming the Logic of Group Political Conflict',
in Kymlicka, W. (ed.), The Rights of Minority Cultures, New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Young, I.M., (1996), `Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy', in
Benhabib, S. (ed.), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
#
282
The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2000