Cooperatives, women and political practice

Cooperatives, women and political practice*

by Anna Whyatt

Cet article ersaie d’ examiner le rapport socio-culttircl/politique entre I’etat et I’id6ologie dominante et les nouvelles initiatives en Grandc-Bretagne en matit-re de coopiration ourvrikrc, notamment en ce qui concerne les fcmmec en situation urbaine. I1 cnvitage les mtthodec de rtcuperation et d’intcrdiction d’une participation ouvrikre active, et recipro- quement, lec conditions ou la participation ouvrit-re change i son tour la politique de I’ttat et apporte dcs changenients aux structures sociales imposter par une idbologie dominate. I1 pose aussi des questions thioriques sur le fait de posseder dcs aptitudes, la connaissance, et I’efficacitt de groupes coopkratifs urbains travaillant a contre-courant de la culture dominante. De plus, au sein du cadre theorique qui entoure ces problkmes, il interroge le rapport qui exirte actuellement entre la thioric universitaire et la pratique, son rapport avec les besoins de la grande masse de la population urbaine, et propose diverses formes de discussion dialectique entre ceux qui font I’expPriencc et ceux qui I’Ptudient-formes qui englobent et encouragent une pratique socialement transformatrice. II essaie, particulikre- ment en ce qui concerne les femmes, de dkfinir la facon dont la pratique coopirative, en ce qu’elle forme de nouvelles catkgories et de nouveaux rapports sociaux, met en question le fondement des rbles intrasociaux que la plupart des feinmes tiennent et les changcments qui doivent suivre ti les femmer sont appeltes i jou i r de la pleine participation au meme titre que les hommes.

The relatiomhip between theory and practice arc far more partial and fragmentary. . . . The relatiomhip which holds in the application of theory is never one of resemblance. . . . N o theory can develop without eventually encountering a wall and practice is necessary for the piercing of that wall. . . . A theorizing intellectual, for us, is no longer a subject, a representing or representative consciousness. . . . Those who act or struggle are no longer represented. Who speaks and who acts? I t is always a multiplicity even within the person who speaks and acts . . . (I>eleuze, G. in Foucault, 1977).

The significant increasc ofinterest a t governmcnt level in Britain during the past two years in the cooperative ideology and cooperative methods of organization’ has been predominately reflected in schemes affecting urban areas. These have, in the main, been dircctly or indirectly concerned with unemployrncnt. The new Special Temporary Employment Programme, the Youth Opportunities Programme and the proposed Youth Training Workshop Scheme have all been inclined to cooperativc management. The previous Job Creation Scheme (just finished) for the Manpower Services

Conference 1978, Sussex University, on Culture.

Development Agency Bill, 1978

* Much of this article was originally prepared for the British Sociological Association

‘See, for example. The Industrial Common Ownership Act, 1976, the Cooperative

Anna Wliyatt 539

Commission actually included a cooperative development unit for the development of small-scale cooperative enterprises employing young people. The present Urban Aid programmes concerned with raising the standard of provision in inner city areas also this year contains a clause suggesting the importance of promoting small-scale cooperative enterprises among community groups. At least three local authorities Wands- worth, Fifeshire, the Western Isles, have already set in motion schemes for the promotion of cooperative enterprises creating employment for the out-of-work. Several others are proposing to follow suit. Three regional areas covering large industrial complexes-the NE and Tyneside, Leeds/ Huddersfield, and North Wales have set up steering committees for the establishment of Cooperative Development Agencies in the area, compris- ing major interests in the cooperative movement as well as Local Social Service Groups and Voluntary and Community Organizations.

Considering that many of these developments are taking place both in inner city areas and with the backing of many voluntary and community organization, i t could be argued on this basis alone that the question of cooperative development is one which may eventually be vital for urban studies. But more than this, we are looking a t a movement which could affect greatly not only the social interrelationships of people in cities but also their geographical organization-the distribution of resources, the relationship between home and work. If the city is the dominant face of capitalism, then cooperative practice questions in its very organization the systems of relationship which maintain both.

But in order to make a theoretical analysis of this development and its significance for women in the city, two basic shifts of approach seem to me to be required. The first is that we should cease to see the present structure of the city either as an inevitability or the pinnacle of technological achievement (attitudes maintained as stringently by the majority of analy- ses of the left as of the right) and adopt an analysis which looks behind the facade of the city at the actualities of the relationships within it (see Friere, 1974). The second is that we need to break down the categorization of unities of theoretical analysis hitherto held sacred; to move not from certain predetermined concepts, ‘urban’, ‘theory’, ‘practice’ to posit certain arguments within a particular framework, but to move within both theory and practice. Not to practise theory upon others but to work with them to alter practice through theory. W e need to discuss new frames of reference, to try to locate new ‘surfaces of emergence of certain types of discourse’ (Foucault, 1972) so that new forms of relationship may legitimately be described. This is of particular relevance to the practice of ‘cooperativism’. As I want to go on to argue, it is precisely the breaking down of such categories which is an inevitable process of that practice. And it is precisely the subversion of such categories that creates space in which new forms of practice, new understanding of other forms of identity may take place. In this I follow in part, although not absolutely, the work of Foucault (197.2)

540 G ~ o p e r a t i v e s , wornerr arid pol i t iral praitire

a n d Friere ( I 970; I 974) to urge tlic creation o f tie\\’ relationship bct\\~cen theory and practice. And in this essay I propose to employ ttvo concepts. The first concerns Foucault’s primary’ LIW of the notion o f nfi.sioirr.sc> ‘is 1 understand it: as a mode of ordering an area o f kno\vlcdge in Lvhicli all the relevant conditions of the production o f ntid dissemination o f kno\\,ledge are c o n s i d ~ r e d . ~ The second refers to Frierc’s emphasis o n the importance of the sirkjcrr to rid!jr‘rt relationship in Lvhich the subject (one individual) identifying himself :is equal a i d ~iutoiioniou\ rather than objectifying the other to whom he relates, speaks to him as equal. Thus in Frierc’s terms thc relation\hip o f subcultiiral groups t o the doniin,iiit culture in particular is no t that o f the subject to subject relationship but rather the subcultural g roup is objectified, denied the right t o speak o r act in the terms o f tlic dominan t group.

I t Lvill be noted that both thew ~pproac l ies are from \vitliin the field of cultural analysis. I take as a basis ofassumption ofthis article that in looking a t the structiire o f the city a n d its in te r re la t ions l i i~~~ w e should not jus t look a t geographical o f economic relations alone but should actively privilege the examination o f thow work cultures a n d patterns of social interrelation- ship which make up the fabric o f peoples’ lives and which wil l , hopefully, continue to reassert themselves under whatever conditions people find themselves. This emphasis is already one of the most important in feminist analysis. W h a t is needed is work which can adequatcly put togctlier proposals for urban reorganization Lvliicli can take account of these arcas. I n ranging in this article from theoretical discu\sion t o empirical analysis I a m attempting to move someway towards a n integration o f precisely these problems.

Hut this attempt t o integrate theory, practice a n d experience in itself runs counter t o the modes o f discourse within which we normally o p e n t e . Every practice (Foucault, I 972) has its own mode ofdiscourse, with its o w n boundaries and sites Lvhich will in turn determine the limitations of its receptivity t o other modes o f discourse. T w o stances are possible, within the discourse and outside of i t (that is, within another). Stance define5 categot ies and categories will define argument. Ilialogue, the appropria- tion and examination o f mediating reality between those who stand in subject to Fubject relationship to each other (Frierc, 1974), rarely takes place between discourses, which are bound by their o w n political/social conditions of utterance. Thus the discourse o f social work will no t be introduced into the discourse o f psychiatric medicine even though that information may be vital to it. Even more important perhaps, the discourse of political practice cannot be introduced into the discourse o f academic analysis. The examination of mediating reality between those involved in the t w o discourses is never made possible. I n most cases the subject speaks to his

‘ Foucdult’s uw of tlic notion of discoursc variec according to cliarlges in context. That IS, all the conditions, including soc-ial organization, e c o ~ i n m ~ c rclationc, under

w h ~ c h a form of knowlcdge will be produced dnd the methods by whlch it will be cpread.

Atina Whyat t 541

o w n discourse, rarely jiorrr i t to another discourse. In attempts t o define a sociology o f the \voincns’ movement as ‘1 subcultural group, lack o f such dialogue and the consquent breakdo\vn in comprehension between t w o discourses will result either in the domination o f one discourse by another (wonicns’ consciousness delineated only in the terms of a dominant, predomiiinntly male di\coiirse-‘tlie indignity o f speaking for others’ ( I >eleuzc in Foucault, I 977) or the complete obliteration of one discourse, including its mode of language Lvlicrc, ,ilthougli active, i t is no t heard, constituting a culture o f silence (Wandor rv N I . , I 974). Similarly, attenipts to theorize practice within a discoursc outside o f that discourse rejult in the same refusal to admit certain ineanings which iti‘iy exist outside o f those theoretical determinations. T h e theoretical context may degenerate into ideology, o f any deterniination, administrated, preserved and transmitted from institutions of whatever type. Theory milst fLinc-tion, not for itself, bu t within practice. If education is a n act o f knowing (Friere, 1974) then what is needed is an active dialogue between theory and practice: as between discourse and discourse: what will result is a socially transformative practice with a new discourse. As I want to devzlop later, an appreciation of this is vitdl both for an understanding o f the practice of cooperativism and its importance for studies of urban development dnd for an understanding o f the relationship between theory and practice. Within the stucture of present society, one of the fundamental consequences o f the implementation o f the structures o f workers’ control scenis the possibility a t least o f the breaking down of prcviously held categories in all areas no t solely theoretical. Institutions, conversely, arc in the main opposed t o such transmutation of limits. Little of this practice has been documented and the thinking behind it IS only just beginning to be isolated.

I draw iipon the empiricdl evidence o f experiments in worker-coopcra- tive structures in this country and abroad, that is, the Mondragon Coopera- tives, Northern Spain (see Campbell et a/., 1977; Whyat t , r977a; Johnson, I 976). the Industrial C o m m o n Ownership Movement , LUCUS Aerospace Shop Stewards Combine , numerous unfederatcd groups working with worker cooperative s t ruc t i i r~s in England, Portugal and California, and particularly, the Federation o f Northern Wholefoods Collective5, a loose fcderation o f 34 retail worker cooperatives in Northern England and Scotland with w h o m I have worked since 1 9 7 ~ . ~

There are currently 250 groups organized within the terms of common ownership in the industrial and commercial sector, and several hundred groups in service areas, organized within the framework o f workers’ control. (See Chaplin and Cawe, 1977.) T h e internal social organization of such groups is their common factor, although there are large differences in the forms that that organization wi l l take. But the basic mode o f organization is a refusal to admit hierarchies, an emphasis on cooperation, collective

Scc The hie, r d d iary . Pluto Prec\, 1978; L‘tidcrrrrrreti~s, March/April 1978; Peact Nrpws, June 1977.

542 Cooperatives, women and politicul practice

holding of all assets, whether financial or in the areas of knowledge, and usually a commitment to the coniniunity and social aspects of labour. These groups range from large commercial concerns, such as the John Lewis partnership, and industrial firms such as Meridian and Scott-Baader, to fringe theatre groups, retail shops, publications, distribution, printing, some womens’ refuges, friendly societies, arts labs, community work groups, some areas of shop floor trade unionism, food buying clubs, housing associations, community association. There are numerous other groups, within acadeniic practice or in wonien’s groups, for example, who have no corporate identity within law but which practise the structures and ideology of workers’ control in relation to their own arcas of production. The large-scale, industrial groups tend, as one would expect, to group themselves in or around urban complexes and their practice of participation differs greatly from that of the smaller, more radical groups. Generally, large-scale cooperatives have a much less radical ideology than small groups, although they are economically morc successful, and their internal organization is on much more conventional business lines with a managerial/worker split.

Groups of women workers (although many of the groups mentioned above it should be stressed are mixed) are in the minority, and tend frequently to an ideological or internal organizational, rather than economic, bias. Fewer women’s groups have a registered cooperative structure in law, in comparison to mixed groups. Most women’s groups have a specifically feminist ideology and operate predominantly in the city. Where they do not serve the ‘service’ areas, for exaniple Women’s Aid, Women’s Therapy Centres, Rape Crisis Centres, they are primarily concerned with publications and presses, theatre and music. Very few women collectives apart from a minute number of building cooperatives work in manual trades or unskilled occupations, except for the larger, industrial cooperative groups, such as the Fakenham workers. And here the implementation of managerial structures means a split of responsibility in which decision-making positions are held once again by men.

Individual cooperatives do not, exist in isolation. Whatever the ideological basis ofthe group is, its organizational structure admits the possibility of affiliation to larger federations concerned with participation: for example, the International Cooperative Alliance, the Industrial Coop Society and the Coop Union. The introduction of legislation on worker ownership in 1976, the establishment of the Scottish Cooperative Development Board, the cooperative development agency of the Enterprise Workshop Division of the Manpower Services Commission, the much publicized and discussed intervention of the Arts Council5 and the proposed Cooperative Develop- ment Agency all enlarge the potential areas for expansion. Yet affiliation and expansion raise the problem of incorporation. There are vast ideological and organizational differences between these bodies and the groups a t

See Wedge I , Red Letters no. 6, ctc.

Atinn Wliyntt 543

grass roots level, as a result their very liaison poses complex problems concerning the effectiveness o f worker cooperatives as instruments for social and cultural change. While affiliation and considerable variation in styles o f cooperative practice may raisc problems, there are t\vo positive aspects which I wish to stress here. Firstly, the infrastructure and the ideological base of such a g roup is realized in its basic organiz‘ition rather than in a creed. As such it promotes the possibility (although not always realized, as I go on to discuss) of dialogue bctwcen any g r o u p \\.hich adhere to the cooperative structure. Secondly, this organizational form offers the potential for the breakdown of such categories and divisions a ~ : class, counter-culture and conventional culture, labour/leisure, soci,il/industrial, and male/feniale roles. It is on thc basis o f the notion o f thc disintegration o f previous categories by such groups that w e can begin t o see the areas o f potential and prohibition which exist in their rclationship t o the dominant culture and in their contribution t o thc devclopnicnt o f that culture.

T h e practice o f the woiiicn’s liberation nioveinent and other forms o f ‘counter-cultural practice’ have been largely disniisred by the straight left as inadequate revolutionary practice. But this has largely been, we \zould suggest, the result o f an analysis which constitute5 such practices as simply a negation of the niass culture-a negation whosc forni and content are an inversion and a reversal o f inass culturc. As in the view that the ‘politics o f subjectivity’ Uacoby, 1973) is only the cry o f the oppressed but does not form the basis for the overthrow o f that oppression. However, this is a simplistic account assuming, for example, a direct unmediated reflection of class interests. Wi th this view the negation is a transparent one-it is only maintained by the object which it seeks to negatc-and as a result its form and its content are predicated--they are always the inversion o f dominant cultural modes. Thus the content is unimportant-it has n o significance outside the dominant culture and so i t is transient and bears no relationship to that which is desirable in the long term.

To avoid this simplistic account what is required is that w e begin to define specifically the form of the dominant culture arid the precise relationships which exist between it and the forms which also exist within a society but which are subject to exclusion (exclusion from what, under what circumstances and in what way). But, simultaneously, there is no t one form o f dominant culture. Thus what is needed is to develop an hierarchy o r topographical account of dominant forms o f knowledge/culture/practice, etc., which will take account o f the way in which culture can parade as counter culture and the way in which some forms of counter culture are tolerated-others negated-others coopted, etc. Reformism and revolution are not mutually exclusive nor can they be pre-defined-understanding shared by both the women’s liberation movement and cooperative practice.

Within such a topographical account as w e propose, ‘counter-culture’ is

not one theoretical object but rather a dispersion o f practices Lv1iic-h have variegated relations to political, social, economic and ideological structures. The oppositions \vhich these practices credte in particular areas of conflict with dominant structures d o not then represent their only significance. They are not once and for all neg~itions, rather they are sites of opposition which serve to fracture a specific wries of dominations and in doing s o create a range of potential developments \vhich may o r may not be realized in practice. We need both to distinguish thcse variations, and t o raise questions concerning the nicisiniization o f potentialities and the ways in which this is countered or represed by dominant culture and structure.

To do this we pwi t three primary divisions from which a re:iding o f b o t h dominant cultural practice m d countercultural practice within coopcra- tives can be given and from Lvhich wc can look for c o n f l u ~ n c ~ : ideological, economic and social organization. At m y one time both the intcrn,il structure of the coop will be constituted from these thrce clcnient, as w d l the dominant ideology. At the same time there Lvill be set up an intricatc set o f relationships between the t w o groups, either oppositional o r in areas of impingement, which may operate Lvithin any o f these areas o r occasionally within all three at oncc. Thus, acadcniic collective p rx t i ce may be seen in oppositional relationship to the dominant culture in the field o f ideology o r internal social organization, bu t no t in its essential c c o n o m ~ c basc. Similarly a distinction can be made between such groups as radical publications groups arid theatre groups where there is confluence in the areas of opposition in ideology a id social organization and certain {ections o f shop floor trade unionism where internal social orgmization corresponds to that o f the dominant group although the ideology is a t variance. T h e base area o f rclationship between groups is the cooperative structure (and, as w e will argue later, this ic o f great significance). But the ideologies o f groups can be as far apart as those informing conimunities which arc basically nnarchictic in origin and the broad socialist ideology o f firms (which nevertheless rely on straight business nianagenient techniques) \vithin the C o m m o n Ownership Movement .

In the ternis o f this analysis most cooperatives will be identified according to certain socinl/orgnnizatiori'il/ideol~~gical premises kvithout their necessarily having a strong independent financial base. (Although they may be supported by grants.) This indentification en~bles the activities o f most of these groups to be categorized bvithin the service areas of community and voluntary action, housing, women's health groups, etc. Exceptions to this are the so-called communities which d o have a strong economic base in capital (although often with inadequate income), social organization contrary to the dominant culture, but :in ideology which prohibits strong oppositional activity. In connection with this w e would suggest that cooperative activity is weakest where it falls into psychologism and preoccupation with internal conflict. It is strongest where there is a confluence o f the three factors mentioned and where a change in the

eco n o mi c re la tio n sli i p of m .in/ \vo ni :i 11 to 1 a bo LI I- prod 11 ccd t I1 c po csi t i 1 i t y of new forms of social organization m d ideology atid wlicrc idcoiogy ,ind social organization in turn reflect back and Ater tlic economic \tructiirc creating netv forms o f economic practice. We would suggest tli'it thic o ppo si tiona 1 i nfl uencc, co nst i t u t i t 1 g t ra t i sfo r m J t i v e so zi J 1 p r <i ct i cc i \ t i r t 11 c r a t its strongest kvhere some form o f vertical intcgr,ition ,itid collccti\.c economy is practised (The Feder'ition of Northern Wholefood C:ollectt\,c\, M o nd r a go n) .

But contrary to the implicit supposition of both left- .ind riglit-~.\.tng group\ alike the viability of cooperative groups,' in coninion wi t l i . i l l

subcultural groups, does not lie within the intern;il structiirc cilotic. < : L w c i i t i

states within the relationship t o the domin<int ideology 'icttvely prohibit that effectivity. It is only within <in understanding of t l i ec opcraticm\ th,it the potential o f cooperative groups c ~ 1 1 ~ l s o be seen.

If w e accept Fricre's i ~ o d e l , ~ then tli.ilogue bc.conic\ ,in 1111 port,iii t elcinetit in determining the effectivity o r other\\~i\c of,i c ~ o o p ~ r ; i t i \ ~ group. both in relation t o its infr;istriicturc ,ind in i ts rclatioti t o the out\iclc n.orld. Hiit dialogue, so defined, can only exist tvit l i in ,I cul~.je~.t-to-\til,ject rcl,i- tionship. And the infrnstructure o f the c-oopcrati\:c group in f i t rcvc.iI\ the state of'alienated man/\voman'. I'rcviouc reality .I\ i t :I\ tliouglit doe\ n o t correspond to the reality l>cing lived objcctivcly. WIic-rc.;ic , i t i t o t i o t i i y. \kil l a n d comniunic~t io t i arc iommoi i ly \ ~ i p p o x d t o be too l \ civ:iil,il~lc .I

matter of course in post-indu\tri,d \ocictie\. the c-oninion cxp-ricnce of cooperative g ro i t ps, p:i r t i c i i 1 a rl y t\, i t h i t 1 t h e <i re ;i ( 1 f 1 a b o LI I', $1 I o \\. \ t h . I t outside of roles s c r i b e d to them Lvithin thc dotiiin,int c-ulturc, pcoplc ~ r c without all three. Lack of sufficient skills. particiiLirIy i t 1 the .irc,i\ ot' management, financial managcnicnt is matched b y tnsuffic.iimc-y ot . Im- guage skills to dcterminc a n d describe practice. The j trugslc of rhc. Liii.<i\

Randall J I I ~ Southgate ( 1 ~ 7 7 ) ~ l \ o \how th,it iritcxi'il c(~nflic t I \ l c ~ \ \ I~hc l> to oc . (ur where there I \ congructicc bct\rccti thc p r i r r i ~ r y t . i \k, rnct,i-gonl .itid \pcc-itic p r in i . i r ) t~t\l, (Kcich and Homey) \vithin J \pccific rc.ility \ \ t ic re tlic cconoi i i i t h.i\c I\ .I fc~.iturc o f t i ic organiz.ition. Exception\ .ire the f'lilcd S c o ~ t d l I h i l y .Y~,IIJ> ,1111cirig ot1ic.r 111ciu \ t r1~1 c o i ~ p \ . \rhcrr \ve \vould arguc the 1.ich of ,I colic\ivc ~dcoI~igi<,il t u w \\ licrc tlic IY (*iminic. I> , I \< , I \

dependant, a \ it \$a\ in thi5 CJ\C, upon tlic doniiii.itit idcology I t I\ i ~ n p o r t ~ i i t t o I I o t I c c t h . i t all three group\ i n \vhich we cuggc\t thdt w a ~ l l y t rCir i~f~ir i~i . i t i \ c p i . i c t ~ c r . I\ . i t It\ \ t r o ~ ~ g c \ t conipotc J culturdlly homogencous group.

T h e FNWC, thc only group 111 thi\ co~i i i t ry t o p i - , i < t i c \c r t i ( , i l iiitt~gr,itiori. \ u p p o r t i ~ ~ ~ .I

warehouse \vith a p.a. tiirnovcr of L5oo ono JIIJ M it11 .I collc,c.ti\,c t u r ~ i ( i \ ' c ~ t i f ~ ~ p p r ~ ) ~ i ~ i i , ~ - tely A875 ooo ha \ a coherent. clearly \ub\crihcd ~dcology w ~ t h J \u\t.llncd p r i n t ~ p l c o f didlogut. and s t r ~ i ~ t i i r e ( to allow that t o tdkc phcc. ' I would here return to my earlier argument th.it the onin in ion ~ i i f r ~ \ t r u c t u r e ot-thc c-oop

group and the fragnicntation of earlier ccitc~gorlc\ I\ o f fiitidinicrit.il iriipcirt.i~:~~c 111 thc creation of A common identity. T h c tr.iiirformation of iniddle-c~l:i\\ )uuth to \\orAcr\ through practice A n d the worker to ~ntcllcctunl tliroush the \tudy c i ! rhcoi-y. O n c of thc mo\t \triking acpcct\ of coopcrdtivc ;ictivity I\ the iii(-idence of coninioti prohlcni \ <icro\\ class and national houndarie\ in relation to thc Joniin.int culture.

" That i \ . the thcorctital cmtitext o f ~ ~ n ~ / ~ l ~ ~ t ~ i n t i ~ ~ ~ t i o t r , i . ~ ' . , ,i\king cl i ic \ t lc i i i \ RIIJ c,illlng ~ n t o quettion to\vard.; JII authentic act o f krio\ving 'I\ .in iniplitit ~ T ~ ~ I I ~ C I I I C I I ~ for o u r ( ~ , i t c q i r i c ~ ~ for effectivity

546 Cooperatives, women and political practice

Shop Stewards Combine shows clearly the effort needed to create discourse which is both the result of participating dialogue and can answer to the discourse of the dominant c u l t i ~ r e . ~ The prerequisite, in Friere’s terms, to autonomy, critical thought, has to be developed and learnt over long periods of time. Knowledge, becoming power, rest once again with the dominant culture. The building up of such tools is subject again and again to prohibitions from within the dominant culture, primarily in the refusal to work ‘with’, substituted for by the ‘giving’ of knowledge in a subject/ object relationship where need is determined by the dominant group, qf both right and kfi.

Instead of a transformation of reality in conjunction with others, reality is once again predetermined and organized. Thus, Jay’s proposal, among many others a t goverment level, to ‘legislate’ for worker cooperation, making it compulsory within law-whilst areas in which real needs articu- lated by the subcultural group are ignored or specifically prohibited- women’s refuges, the Lucas corporate plan. But at the same time as these prohibitions take place, prejudging of the ineffectivity of the subgroup, also ascribes to it an identity ofinoperability’O (at government level, within the press, etc.). Convinced of its own intrinsic inferiority, it become$ paralysed by the identity ascribed to i t by the dominant culture, both left and right, whilst a t the same time an r f e d v e identity is demanded of it. Constituted in social organization, economic base and ideology in opposition to the dominant culture, it can only define its success or failure in the terms of that to which it is opposed, in order to survive-that is economic success, material gain.’ ’

In such a situation it is also prohibited from recognizing and using the conditions ofsuccess in the terms ofits own ideology. It remains, in Friere’s terms, in a object relation: the ultimate seat ofdecision by and large remains with the dominant group. Since engagement in transforming the world is only possible through the identification of autonomy in relation to it, Friere’s further notion of conscienrisacion, the growth in consciousness associated with a growth in conscience, is very important here, as all worker cooperatives struggling to establish autonomy will recognize. Education, the giving of knowledge becomes of paramount importance. ’ Prefabricated knowledge, that is, in terms of the dominant culture, pro- vides, as I have said, indifferent tools for the creation of autonomous

Note here the essentially suspicious and reactionary responce of Trade Upionr to cooperative activity.

I would suggest that the recent requirements of the Manpower Service Job Creation Grant scheme is an example of thic where cooperative groups were expected to operate schemes involving many complicated levels of practice, with few rewurcec and little help.

Note the different formc of arbitrary categorization here by both left- and right-wing groups. Retail shops, although economically viable, are discounted by the Left as ideologically suspect; The Other Cinema, ideologically sound i \ criticized for i t s inability to maintain a viable ecoiiomic business.

I 2 See Senor Calleja, Director, Management Services Division, Mondragon Coopera- tives, SCOP I 975.

Atzna Whyart 547

practice. In addition, the practice of coopcrativisni in the labour areas accentuates very often the need for change in the cultural/social areas‘ 3-

but the meeting point between those involved in cooperative practice in the areas of labour and those w h o recognize the necessity o f creating a clowr relationship between the t\vo areas is rarely achieved.

T h e understanding and experience o f sex-role change and the emotional/practical problems for the domestic situation which arise from the implementation of those changes a t kvork, for example, possessed by those working in small, radical cooperative groups is rarely commLinicatcd to those working in larger-scale cooperative At the sanic time, the procesc o f building up the self-idcntificatioii necessary for the group to operate may become its primary object, as i n , sonic women’s groups, isolating i t from others involved in the saiiie practice. 1 >iscourse becomes locked in onc mode o f practice o r another-very often cooperative groups o f one ideology may not understand the practice, o r be frightened o f the practice o f a cooperative group with another ideology.

T h e prohibitions to effective operation for women in mixed o r single sex groups are singularly worse. All that I have said in respect of the relationship o f cooperative, grass roots groups t o the dominant culture can be applied two-fold in the case o f women. T h e inherent inferiority o f workers, particularly manual workers is added to the inherent inferiority o f women. For young women the identity ofinadequacy offered since birth and the actualities of reactions to women effecting their o w n work-situation is prohibition enough; for older, married women the situation is even m o r e fraught. T h e world mediated to woman through a husband does not teach autonomy. T h e parameters o f the working/domestic world o f the woman-wife are themselves bounded by service areas, school, playgroup, clinic, etc. Her relationship to the social order, the only relationship she is allowed, is that o f consumer, and as such she may never act as protagonist, only as critic o f an order in which she is allowed n o effective part. She effects directly only through the mediations o f those, husband, doctor, teacher, with w h o m she is in relationship. As Lee Comer (1974) and others have pointed out , the design of shopping areas, distribution o f other resourses such as playgroups, are in no way subject to the suggestion of those millions w h o also ‘work’ in them, shopping, washing, caring for children.

In a situation in which all self-supporting groups require income such

I 3 Pete Smith, ChJirnian of Industrial Common Owner\hip Movement, in private conversation, 1976.

I4The demand for socially useful work from the Lucac Aerocpace Shop Steward\’ Combine as a result of the influence of the Greeii Ban5 Movement in Australia, and the change5 of attitude of w m e managers in large-scale cooperatives ‘is J result of meeting women from other cooperative groups are case5 in point.

Perhaps one ofthe most distressing aspects ofthc women’s niovemcnt in thic country is

the (often implicit) split between manual workcrs and others-the superiority with which intellectual women often endow themselves.

inherent lack of self-confidence and self-identity as I have outlined, the lack of experience of ‘effecting’ rather than ‘rccieving’ 4tiiations, i s an initial handicap. But this implicit identification (Friere 1970; 1974) is matched by more practical prohibitions. The education of girls by and large does not include management skills, particulary business managenient, book-keep- ing, economics, law16 a t any level of tlie educational process. Girls are encouraged to take up ‘service’ careers: typing, soci,il work, nursing, among the ‘status’ careers. I t is of significance that in the main on leaving secondary school the skills they will have ~cqui red in the trade area will be catering, sewing, hairdressing. They are equipped t o operate in the lowest- paid areas of the business world or to take on unski l ledjobs~sl iop assistant, fictory worker-if they are encouraged to take up careers a t all. The experience of girls trying to join govcrnnient retrnining schemes or T O P S courses reflects the policicsof the Youth Employment Schemes which were conspicuously geared t o opportunities for employment of young malcc. The business sector, in which self-supporting cooperatives work, is notor- iously opposed to the participation of women, even within its unions. A s was pointed out a t a recent conference the organized left ofthis country is as much concerned as any conservative group t o keep i t s omen workers in subsidiary, ‘service’ positions. None of this is new analysis. I3ut i t serves to highlight the position of women workers in cooperative groups who muTt learn new attitudes, new skills and abilities before they can even begin to attempt to take on a system in which they can only describe themselves, as I have tried to outline before, in tlie ternis of a dominant group.

Within the present org,inization of niwt cities, access even to information about new ideas and such opportunities as there are is limited, particularly to women from poorer areas. All this is aside of the first Lind most major problem of a l l such groups-that i c initial capital. As the experience of recent cooperative experiments in the industrial sector l 7 have shown the raising of finance is a troubled area, and one most open to incorporation.

The refusal to work ‘with’ of the dominant culture; the propensity to predetermine and organize ‘for’ in relation t o cooperative groups as subcul- tures as a whole is reemphasized again in the case of women. AT Hilary Rose’s analysis shows, lR attitudes to Women’s Aid, ranging from the patriarchal ‘helping’ attitude to the mediated refusal t o Jdmit the realities of women a t the Local Authority level, are a classic case. But it i s by no means the only example. Collective housing, an important practical method for women to escape the inevitability of ‘couple’ grouping, or the loneliness of rearing children alone, is ghettoized and legislated against. Mortgages are refused collective owners and building societies refuse to mortgage the sort

I h Cooperative cnterprires have the same statiis in law a \ Limited Companies. Some

l 7 Sirriday Times, Colour Supplement 26 February 197X; The Guardinti, Small Burinesc

I ” See article on Women’s Aid i n this issue.

knowledge of company law is ewtitial.

page, 12 May 197X.

of housing, often in depressed, short-life areas which can only hotlce collective groups. The refusal to acknowledge even the cxiFtencc of need I \

reflected again in the area of child-care facilities which in urban ,irc<i\ do not even match the present need, let alone the desire of women to w o r k repressed because of the lack of such facilities. The non-presence o f \ v o m c i ~ with children in cooperative groups a t present is only a n extcncion of the general situation. The struggle of small businesses to ect,iblidi t h c n i w l \ . c ~ ~ leaves no facility to pay women the wages needed to enwre child-c,ire facilities as well.

The importance of the creation of the self-identity of ,I group t l i u ~ , becomes doubly important in the case of women. Often they n i t i x t con- stantly reinforce that identity for the group to survive, particul,irly bvhcrc, as in the case of lesbian groups, for example, they face deep ho\ t i l i ty to t h ~ t identity. As I have said before, if the attention of the group beconic5 tot , i l ly absorbed with the maintenance of identity, then i t may become xc\.crcbl>. isolated-again making it very difficult for it to work with other group\ t o

build up i ts financial base. Most women-only co-op groups are strongest a t a point of confluen(-e

between ideology and internal organization. In this area they ~ 1 - c k-~r stronger than most mixed groups of whatever size for the obvioui re,i\on that without the normal prohibitions and limits of the usii;iI \ex-role exchange, the ability of men and women to work together is in ;I \t ,itv o c flux. But if the opposition to the dominant culture i s Ttrongeyt ,it .I

confluence of ideology/economic organization and social o r g ~ n i r ~ t i o n then it is painfully clear that i t is a t the level of the economic t h t \vomcn'< groups are weakest. This is not merely in their practice but in tlic'ii-

economic analysis a s well. This places women in a weak position. Where they still remain outside the economic system a t whatever level they ,ire

very much subject to the vicissitudes of the dominant ideology. The), remain isolated within the service areas.

I t is necessary to understand these relationships in order to undcrst.irid finally the relationship of the group to the state. Fundamentally concerned with incorporation, this is a very complex question, and n o t one \vliich c - ~ n be resolved here. All that can be done again is to raise certain tictor\. Wirh the conditions set down by the Register of Friendly Societies for thc lc-g~l registration of cooperative groups, we see the infrastructure ofthc coopc.r,i- tive-where it is implemented-as its strongest force against incorpoi-;l- tion. Where it is weakest and incorporation is most likcly t o take p l ~ c c , I \

where there is lack of confluence between ideology/rociJl org,ini~.i t i o n economy, particularly a t the level of ideology and economy. ( A l t t i o i i ~ l i . paradoxically, where these three factors are present, we would ~ i - g t i c tli.;t opposition to the dominant culture is a t its strongest.)

A t the level ofideology, workers' control, long held to '1s ;i b,ittitwq. of the political left, is no guarantee of socialism per se, altho\igh we would maintain that where the internal organization is maintained there will

5 5 0 Cooperatives, women and political practi(e

necessarily be some maintenance of basic socialist practice. Workers’ cooperatives, absorbing unemployment could weaken trade union organization in the interests of large capital, implemented a t government level. A t the level of economy, Mondragon shows the complexity of the problem. Raised to a significant place within the dominant culture (turnover in 1976 of L2oo million pounds, Spain’s largest manufacturer of machine tools) and maintaining a coherent social organization of workers’ control, with a strong cocialist ideology, i t has been accksed by Spanish marxists of cooperative capitalism. Recent transformations in China’s internal econo- niic/social policies and the experience of workers in Allende’s Chile reveal the extent to which internal socialist economies are inevitably dependent upon and must respond to the demands of world capitalism.

I offer no clear analysis here in respect of the position of women to this question, but it is an area in which further work needs to be developed. I t is clearly the case even within socialist economies, that the predominant tendency is to relegate women to inferior positions where they will not take decisions concerning policy, particularly economic policy. This gives further emphasis to my later argument of the need for women to move out of service areas in which they feed, both metaphorically and actually, l 9 the structure and demands of world capitalism a t all levels. This negates to some extent, in my view, the arguments of those who propose wages for housework, for example. We do not need a mere increase in the number of paid women workers, limited in their autonomy by the same restraints suffered by working people a t present. W e need a change of structure of the social order which will allow all people to participate in determining the ordering of their societies.

But i t is not enough merely to look a t the relationship between cooperative practice and the state from the basis ofa simple model ofincorporation. Some attempts have already been made to analyse it within a very specific framework20 with the inevitability of incorporation as a basic assumption and with muddled theoretical basis. We would argue again that the oppositions which these practices create are not solely negations. As sites of opposition which serve t o fracture a specific series of dominations their incorporation or otherwise by the state will be a question of complex interventions, not one simple one of incorporation. At the economic level, in particular, states of impingement and apparent incorporation may well occur a t the same time. At an international level this is clearly the case with the Mondragon Cooperatives; in Britain, i t is the condition experienced by all groups interfacing with the current economic system. The inevitable involvement of a group or federation practising some form of collective

l 9 The question of the politics of food production and distribution are issues which have been largely ignored by the left and feminist analysis alike, in spite of the fact that the majority of women still take part every day in the handling of food (Moore Lappe and Collins, 1 ~ 7 7 ) .

2o See Wedge, I and 2.

Anna WIiyatt 5 s I

economy (Chedwell, 1977) within the current economy may well be seen as a form of incorporation. At the same time the creation of new rmrkets, new relationships between production and consumption, and the formation of larger and larger networks of socialist economic pr'ictice thro~igli the redeployment of capital cvill by its practice alter the face of the current economy although it will not depose it. I t is for this reason Jmong other^ that we see the viable economic practice of the workers' co-op .is i t \ strongest oppositional strength.21 As we have said, it is in tlie creation of new forms of social organization which in turn alter the economic- structure and create new forms of economic practice, that we see the grc,itc\t ideological impingement upon the dominant culture. ConimunIty .ic.tion in many areas but especially urban areas created the knowledge of \vhJt autonomous action could achieve in campaigns in service are<i\---but this never gained economic independence for underprivi Icdged group\. I n this way their relationship t o the state was not greatly changed, but m'ide niorc bearable. Cooperative ownership and control (which is by no means new) indicates what can be achieved a t the level of the economic, albeit con- tinuously, a s we have tried to show, set in dialectical .ind dmbivalent relationship to the economies of capitalism. Doniinant modes of production must give way to other modes where their cotnbined economic strength is sufficient.

At tlie same time, new forms of law created by the worker cooperative movement must realize new forms of practice. This can be secn both a s incorporation-counter-revolutionary activity, or impingenient upon thc state in an area central t o the operation of the dominant economy. (See Whyatt , I')77b; c.) Again, it i s important to distinguish the structures that the cooperative group as counter-culture engages and conflicts with \ince i t i s this distinction which enables one to identify minimal and rn,iximal strategies for opposition. Once more within the limitations of this paper we do not have time to discuss this in detail but can only offer areas for further discussion.

A range of minimal and maximal potential for conflict and change exists. Maximal potential can only be achieved when, as we have already FUS- gested, there is congruence between the internal organization of the cooperative and its understanding of its relationship to the macrocosm. Although the area of greatest impingement lies, a s w e see it , ul t ini~tely within the economic area, the base area from which that impingement must conie is undoubtedly the intern'il/external changes in social organization, person to person, person to labour. I t is the cooperative group as the basic social unit which constitutes an infrastructure which cre'ites space for new meanings and new definitions and different types of discourse t o t'ike

'' W e would like to emphasize the fact that we are not cconomictc, and o u r ana ly \ i s x \ lacking in thic respect. Nevcrtheless we are convinced that this area \hould be given the importance we ascribe to it-and that i t i c this fundamental connection between labour. capital arid social/cultural organization that inuct be emphasized.

5 5 2 Cooperatives, women and political practice

place. In this sense, although this type of practice may have emerged as an ‘alternative’ to current systems of organization, we see its strength, not where it attempts, always unsuccessfully, to remove itself from its place within the dominant culture, but where it remains to run counter to the dominant ideology and engage with it whilst a t the same time maintaining its own structures. In this sense it is more likely to impinge upon other subcultural groi.ps first, although the acceptance of changes in practice among groups within the dominant culture-academic/social work/community groups/psychiatry shows the points a t which i t also impinges upon the dominant modes of practice.

A s we have Taid, within the infrastructure the primary function of the cooperative is to break down the traditional relationship of alienated subject and objectified labour, where there is alienation of the individual from his labour and where he is objectified as a means of production.22 The experience of almost all groups using a cooperative structure shows that Frierc’s (1970) description of functioning within the body with no reason to think or speak is not (especially in the case of women) by any means the exclusive prerogative of the third world. The opportunity to think and to speak provided by the cooperative structure reveals the absence of the capacity to do

The second and related function is to create through dialogue the possibility of new relationships and new forms of discourse creating new meanings, and new structures. ‘Language (in dialogue) is not intended to be reducible to a linguistic structure. Its first object is to produce knowledge, imaginary creation’ (Ellis, 1976). Most cooperative groups acquire a diversity of knowledge which opens up possibility for individuals to move beyond the roles ascribed to them by the dominant culture. The complexities of the implementation of this type of language are very great. It cannot be totalizing, and must encompass the breakdown in categories before described. The fragmentation of many worker cooperative groups is frequently ascribed to the stress imposed by the attempts to implement such discourse. As we have tried to show, there are other external factors which will also act upon the group. Although collectivism is the mode of practice of various groups, its dynamics are rarely ~ n d e r s t o o d . ~ ~ This does not negate the possibility of dialogue rather it amplifies an awareness of the complexities of the new meanings which practice engenders and from

2 2 In larger cooperative groups, particularly in industry, this is plainly not so, although the Mondragon Cooperative group are now experimenting with alternatives to production lines.

2 3 I t IF important to note here that communication between groups involved both in the Mondragon Cooperatives and the RNWC on philo$ophical and political matters is primarily verbal.

2 4 Randall and Southgate (1978) posit a connection between personal invasion (Reich) and cultural inva\ion (Friere). Note also as an extension to this argument the notion they propose of the initial relationship as one of the dialogue between infant and mother. This work needs to be greatly developed within the terms of Lacanian analysis.

which fiirtlicr pr,ictice a i d different structures, pr,ictic,iI ,ind soci;tI, caii be built. T h e g r a t e s t drea ofinipingemcmt by such groups upon the doniin,lnt culture will be in the diversity of their prdctice, a t both Ii<)rizont,il .tiid vertical levels. It ~ v . 1 ~ for this ixison th,it we chosc t o centre our di\cotirw ;iround worker cooperatives JS ,I \vholc, r‘itlier than ,iny onc wction ~ - i t I i i n thJt grouping. T h e Liltiniate strength of such practice i \ .it one , i d the L I I I I ~

t ime i n i t \ iniplict decentr‘ilizatioii together with the widc\pi-e,id inrcr,ic- tion thiit i t li<is ‘it .iny one t ime with thc domimi i t culture, ,it ‘111 thc level\ Lvhic-h wc h;ive mentioned.

Collective practices o f whate\-er type cannot be confined and th is pl‘iccj those involved in a situation whereby previous catcgvrie$ arc continii,iIly breaking down.’’ The situation is itself ,111 example of the proposal (Fricr-c, I 970) that new practices create new meanings a i d that from them ncn. discourses must come. If all revolution (Friere) is cultural rcvolution, then redefinitions of the practice of culture mt is t be looked for \vhich includc that process. I f , also according t o the \\.ark of the Tel Quel group, thc person and thc iincon\cioLis are formed ‘it every point by their history iii

society and that this formation, particularly thc iiiicoii\cioii\, can oper;ite according to its onm logic, then ‘IS Sollcrs rightly points out, there I \ cle,irly a necessity for an ‘inscription of the psychoanalytic problematic i n t o thc heart of historical materialism’. As I Lindcrstand i t , c-iirrcnt ma lys i s of the relationship of the subcultural to the dominant culture renders this difficult, a s long as relationship is defined in terms of c,ttegories rather than in terms of confluence. The description o f such confluence is complex. In order for ciiltural practice t o go beyond and incorporate the exclusively textural and avoid the purely economic, it needs to subvert the categories it has previously held. In the practice of cooperative groups, there is the basis of understanding o f such relationship-‘an account o f the subjective moment of the social process’ (Ellis, 1976). A t the same time, dlthough topographical accounts may be niade to fix process, in practice process will always be taking place. ‘It is possible that a real socialization will emerge, in the twentieth century, from experience’ (Foucault, 1977).

2 5 This I \ particularly the case for those who were prevtou\ly \ituated \v l th~n the dorntnant culture, usually 111 sonx profe\sional sphere, \vho 110\v by virtue of their practlce find themselves aligned with a cubcultural rnoveinent. There I \ a significant lack ofconflict of this type among those who never attained to become part of the dominant culture in the first place.

This new type of cultural procesc i s slowly taking p l ~ c e but the danger o f its displacement is ever present i n many forms; the recuperation o f ‘revolutionary’ practice by the state, the insistence o f the political and academic left that it alone can offer representation o f the opinionc ofworkers, its constant attempts in the form of academic practice to prohibit diJlogue, categorization.within the culture according to the categories of the dominant culture of different modes o f p r a c t i ~ e . ‘ ~ Theoretical problems arc vast but they cannot be resolved in isolation. N o r can socially transformative practice exist without theory.” But thought can only be defined within practice and the connection of thought and practice lies within sociJlly transformative practice, that i s in dialogue which is only possible between those w h o stand in a subject to Subject relationship t o each other. The new cultural practices o f those w h o work in worker-cooperative allow for that potential. I do not think that it is a process which can be halted. Hut i t is a process which can only be participated in by those who actively situate themselves within that discourse, that is by taking o n that political role and identity. Cultural action serves the domination o r liberation of man /wo~i i an (Friere, 1974). An initial choice is required o f the would-be educator. The ideology of left groups, both academic and politicial (as 1 believe the women’s movement to have shown conclusively), defines the horizon of meanings within which further action is to take place as much (at times more) as any other aspect of the dominant culture. T h e experience of counter-cultural groups as they find themselves in worker cooperatives breaks open such determinism and demands a fundamental reassessment and understanding of cultural process.2H

For the future

Ninety-six per cent o f the population o f Britain lives in urban areas wherc for the majority o f women , marriage in increasingly depressed circumstances is the only way o f life that they will know. But if Lvomen are to move out of this environment, w e have to ask what the realities for most women of ‘starting life anew’ (the second objective of Women’s Aid) really are? Should it only mean loneliness, poverty, continual struggle with offical bodies, o n an inadequate income from Social Security? For even if

26 Thus ‘cultural practice’ is a w i b e d to theatre group\ , left film collective$. (marginally) to publishers and v a r i o u forms of writing but t i o l to dirtrlbution, cvcn uf books, women’s health groupr. community work and definitely not in the area ofother typec of production.

*’ The establishment of magazines such ac Wedge arc a welcome step in this direction although still, as they recognize, maintaining the categories of ‘culture’ and ‘arts’ as opposed to ‘production’ and ‘work’.

28 I take the Lucas Aerospace Corporate Plan to be a paramount example of a text produced within the frameworks I outline.

Anna Wlzyarr 5 5 5

loneliness i s relieved by support from other women , the possibility of productive work---carrying with it in our society all the connotations of status, freedom, independence--is problematic for the single women, for the wonian alone with children virtii‘illy a n impossibility. Since the m a r - riage contract is still practically the only one which society recognize\, for the single wonian with o r without children, the only :iiitononioii\ st‘itiis/- place which she holds in society is that which, alone or wit11 help from other subcultural groups, she creates for herself. Any contact \vhich she 11as o f state helping systems will discourage rather than encour‘igc such independence. Hilary Rose cirgues29 that it is the environment of work ~ n d work cultures that creates the substantial independence, ,iutonoiny, .itvare- ness o f self-interest and solidarity o f workers in the productive sector. Ifthis is so then there is a vital need for women to create their o w n economic independence within structures which ni‘iintain their dmiocrJ t ic org,iniz;i- tion a t a grass roots level: ‘Sexual liberation doesn’t help ;i woman, if she hasn’t got economic liberation . . . then she’s still

But if w e argue for a change in work opportunities a i d self-nianage- ment , then we must consider practically the implications of such change. As the Women’s Liberation Movement and radical section of the cooperative movement alike have stressed, it is the increasing split between conimunity/production, work /home which has gradually icoldted woineri in particular bu t also all those w h o d o not form a part o f the c l o n i i n - ant productive sector. If women are to move ou t into a different position then the roles formerly ascribed to them by a capitalist economy must be filled. Wha t is required is both vertical integration through federated groups” with control ofa l l the means o f production, a s well a $ a form of horizontal integration within the city, wliicli would entail a reordering o f the pattern ofdistribution o f domestic resources, ,I reordering of the attitudes o f men and women to shared domestic tnsks; for example, bulk buying o f food, communi ty eating facilities, increases in day nurcery care, voluntary care of the o ld , the sick, the handicapped. Far from being a Utopian dream, w e would cite the example o f the vast changes on these lines during the Second World War precisely in order to free the labour o f w o m e n to support the wdr effort (Mitchell, 1974). This is an inadequate summary o f all those areas of work at present allocated to woiiien Lvithin the institution o f marriage-areas which may seem pedantic in an .irticle on theory but which are the practical manifestations for most women of the ideology in which they are trapped. Wha t w e should be demanding is the right of women t o relinquish their primary role in British cociety-the role o f the hidden and exploited nurturer-and to take their place equally with men to determine the structure o f the conditions in which they live, with

victini’.”()

2 y See articlc on Women’c Aid in thi\ I\SUL*.

3 o Simonc Veil, French Minister for Health, T l i r O h s t w c r . 10 Scptembcr 1978. j ’ See articles already cited 0 1 1 The Fcderation of Nortliern Wholefoodr Collcctivc\ and

also Dolgoff, 1977.

556 Cooperat ives , w o m e n and political practice

full access to the knowledge, opportunities and resource3 needed by them to do so.

Cooperat ive I I e v e l o y m e n r Ofj icer , Leeds Coir w i / . f i ) r C’CI hnt t zr )/ Scr i j iw

A ckno w l cdy erir (’t its

I would like to ,icknowledge the help of Gail Chcstcr, Publications I)i\tri- bution Cooperative, London, and Mark Philp, Research Fellow, I>ep;irt- men t of Applied Social Studies, University of Urndford, to w h o m I din

greatly indcbted h r ninny wggestions and anicndments.

References

Campbell, A., Keen, C., Norman, G. a n d Oakshott, R. I 977: I~’orker-ciic~rrt.us, the Moridra,pr ac/rieiwrient. London: Anglo-(;crniari Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society.

Chaplin, P. and Cawe, R. 1977: A srrri’ey of corrtcrnp~irtiry Britidi worker roopcra- tivex. Thesis, Manchester Business School.

Chedwell, G. 1977: Sirma: the corporate strutqqy (f17 polit ical hcarz. Unpublished thesis, M ;inch ester Business School.

Comer, L. 1974: Functions of the family. I n Wnndor, M. t ~ t a / . , editors, 1974. Dolgoff, S., editor, 1977: 7’lre urriirrlrixt collec.fii~ox. N e ~ v York: Frec Life Editions. Ellis, J. 1976: Ideology and wbjectivity. Crrltirrul Srirdics 9. Uirmingli.Jm Centre

Foucault, M. 1077: 7‘hc nrrlramlq~y c ~ f k r r o i d c r ~ y c ~ . London: Tnvictock. for Contemporary Cultural Studies.

I 977: Larrsqrrasqe, m i n t e r rnerrrory, yrtzrticc,. Translated by Uouchard and Simon. Ox ford : B1 ac k we1 I .

Fri er e, P. I 970: I - ’ rdyoyy qf f l i e o p p r w e d . HJ r m o ndcw o r t h : Pen# ui n .

Jacoby, M. 1 ~ 7 3 : Social arnrirrsia. London: Ue~con. Johnson, A. I 976: Tlzc w o r w n ’ s cooperative i1/~.2.1orrdraCqorr. Somc~ rcinsidrrafions (111 the

.ctuttfx qf wonierr within ( I se!f-rnanqcd systcrn. Paper presented to thc Second International Conference of Self-mandgcment. New York: I’ublic~itionr PPLMS.

I 974: Czr Ilura I ncriorrJ;ir~rcedorn. f i a r mondt wor t h : I’enquin.

Mitchell, J. 1974: Psyclroanalysis and$wiit?isni. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Moore Lappe, F. and Collins, J. 1977: Fcioif./irst. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Randall, R. and Southgate, J. I 977: Work dernocracy untf haroctrr. North London

Polytechnic paper. 1978: Emotional plague. Underctrrrents 2 j, I 7-19.

Vanek , J. and Bay ard , S. I 9 76: Underdec~ eloprri en t , st+tritz nagetti err t and edu cat ion. Paper presented to the Second International Conference on Self-nianage- ment. New York: Publications PPLMS.

Wandor, M., Comer, L., Allen, S. and Wallis, J. 1974: Cotrditior~~ o f i / / i { s i ( v i .

Whyatt, A. 1977a: The Mondragon cooperatives. Clirisfiari Socialist 00, 2 .

London: Feminist Books.

1977b: Towards a collective economy. Peace News 2045, 10-1 I .

1 9 7 7 ~ : Wish we were there! C't&ratrretils 24, 32-5.

Documents

Cooperatives, women and political practice