Union Democracy as a Foundation for a Participatory Society: A Theoretical Elaboration and Historical Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay argues that union democracy (in the sense of active direct democracy at local levels in combination with highly accountable representative systems at more general levels) can be an important foundation for efforts to build a participatory society. It establishes, through a literature review, that pessimism about the capacity of unions to be functioning democracies is overstated; and then offers corrections for three weaknesses in the classical theory of participatory democracy. The first weakness – failing to analyze how participatory processes are gendered, racialized, and sexualized – is overcome by drawing upon feminist ideas for creating highly inclusive group processes. The second weakness – believing that an exaggerated consensus can be created through participation – is remedied with insights drawn from agonistic pluralism. The third weakness – assuming that participation in workplace governance is the essential, participatory training ground – is corrected with insights drawn from research on deliberative democracy. After enumerating eight reasons to pick unions as a focus for participatory efforts from amongst the various alternatives, the essay concludes with a historical example of how the combination of direct democracy and representative democratic accountability in the five United Mine Workers of America locals in the Crowsnest Pass, Canada, in the mid-20th century “spilled over” into this regional coalfield society, thereby nurturing a fledgling participatory society. Cet article soutient que la democratie syndicale (dans le sens d’une democratie directe dynamique aux niveaux locaux en conjonction avec un systeme representatif tres comptable aux niveaux plus generaux) peut etre une base importante pour les efforts de construire une societe participative. L’article etablit, par une analyse de la litterature, que le pessimisme a propos de la capacite des syndicats d’etre democraties efficaces est exagere; par la suite, il propose des corrections par rapport a trois faiblesses dans la theorie classique de la democratie participative. La premiere faiblesse – le manque d’analyse relative aux dimensions sexospecifiques, racialisees et sexualisees des processus participatifs – est reglee en tirant des idees feministes pour la creation de procedes de groupe vraiment inclusifs. La deuxieme faiblesse – la conviction qu’un consensus global entraine de la participation – est resolue avec des connaissances tirees du pluralisme agonistique. La troisieme faiblesse – la supposition que la participation au sein de la gouvernance en milieu de travail est le lieu essentiel de formation participative – est corrigee par des apercus de la recherche sur la democratie deliberative. Apres avoir enumere huit raisons d’axer sur les syndicats, parmi les differentes alternatives, comme centre des efforts participatifs, l’article conclut avec un exemple historique de la maniere dont la combinaison de democratie directe et de responsabilite democratique representative dans les cinq locaux du syndicat United Mine Workers of America dans le Crowsnest Pass, Canada, au milieu du XXe siecle a touche cette societe regionale de bassin houiller, encourageant ainsi une societe participative naissante.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".