{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","uuid":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","normalized_title":"timeforthingslaborleisureandtheriseofmassconsumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","isbns":["9780674250529","9780674250536","9780674979512"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":355,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Time%20for%20Things%20Labor%2C%20Leisure%2C%20and%20the%20Rise%20of%20Mass%20Consumption","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/search"},"page":{"printed_page":301,"pdf_page":309,"physical_index":309,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"d7c000933e1889581e448a7e22c96d74f41b114511b1ce7f0e3e6b651c966827"},"chapter":"FOR","content":"4. As I argued in the last chapter, one can make a distinction between the internal legitimacy of an institution such as feudalism—which is a matter of the degree to which the institution in practice lives up to its normative ideals—and the legitimacy of a normative system itself, which can be challenged on the external grounds that it violates other norms and customs, or is in tension with changing expectations.\n\n5. Here I’m invoking the distinction made by Karl Polanyi (1968) in his analysis of market society.\n\n6. Wierzbicka argues that there is no word in other European languages exactly equivalent to the English term fair. Insofar as it was in an English-speaking country that industrial capitalism first developed, her findings are consistent with the argument that the modern concept of fairness had something to do with the emergence of capitalism. Moreover, Wierzbicka admits that this concept is nowadays widespread in modern capitalist societies. It should be noted that other linguists have disputed Wierzbicka’s suggestion that the modern, ethical sense of the English word fair cannot be found in other languages.\n\n7. As Wierzbicka comments (2006, p. 152): “values like ‘equity’ and ‘equal distribution of goods’ have become so important for many people that they have come to see them as the essence of ‘fairness,’ and when they try to define fairness, many people do so along the lines of ‘equity.’”\n\n8. The matter is complicated, however, by the degree to which a given exchange is seen as taking place under coercive conditions. If a given exchange were unequal, yet both parties agreed to its terms under completely noncoercive conditions, would it be regarded as unfair? The question raises complicated issues. Objectively unequal exchanges that are knowingly and noncoercively entered into might not be categorized as a narrowly economic exchange—the kind that occurs in markets—and instead fall into something like charity or gifting. On the other hand, some theorists subsume gifting under an expanded concept of formal economic exchange (Akerlof 1982).\n\n9. The list of historians whose research has shown the degree to which legitimacy was not accorded to the institution of wage labor in the early years of capitalism is extremely long. It would include E.  P. Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, and other luminaries of British social history, as well as pioneers of American social and labor history such as David Montgomery, Sean Wilentz, David Roediger, Eric and Philip Foner, and Herbert Gutman.\n\n10. It was only in the last quarter of the nineteenth century that wage earners in America finally came to outnumber the self-employed.\n\n11. In part, this was because employers often specified very stringent terms in their labor contracts. For example, Stanley notes that the so-called ironclad contracts drawn up by employers, which forbade collective bargaining, were a cause of much ire among workers. The rise of the written labor contract laid bare class divisions and conflicts of interest, became a focal point for industrial action, and so propelled the “labor question” into national consciousness.\n\n12. The phrase wage slavery was not unique to America—it was also used by the Chartists in Britain and by Friedrich Engels, in his journalism.\n\n13. Indeed, the Adkins ruling was in efect overturned with the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.\n\nNotes to Pages 124–130\n\n301","previous_page":300,"next_page":302}