By Christopher Alter
I. Introduction
In the Introduction to Utopia 3/13, Professor Harcourt explains that hosting “a seminar on union organizing . . . is not to suggest, by any means, that unions or union organizing are ‘utopian.’”[1] Harcourt instead argues that unions are “no more than a makeshift response to the overwhelming imbalance of power . . . . merely a first step, but a necessary one, to combat work inequalities. They do not constitute a full-fledged utopia.”[2] Rather than labor unions themselves, then, the focus on 3/13 is on organizing itself. Although it is worth noting that labor unions are imperfect and fall short of any idealized vision of work, and although the utopic elements of organizing are significant, I argue that it would be too hasty to dismiss the utopic elements of labor unions that exist outside of the context of union organizing. Labor unions are, to an extent, both heterotopias and concrete utopias.
II. Unions as Heterotopias
Foucault outlined heterotopias in Of Other Spaces[3] by describing six key principles: (1) heterotopias are produced by all cultures as either the primitive heterotopia of crisis or the more modern heterotopia of deviation; (2) the functions of heterotopias can change over time; (3) heterotopias are “capable of juxtaposing in a single real place several spaces, several sites that are in themselves incompatible”; (4) they “are linked to slices of time” and can either showcase a collection or record of time as a heterotopia of accumulation or instead be fleeting and impermanent as a heterotopia of festivity; (5) heterotopias “presuppose a system of opening and closing that both isolates them and makes them penetrable”; (6) they “have a function in relation to all the space that remains.”[4] Although mapping labor unions cleanly against these six principles would require dedicating more pages than I would like, it is worth noting some of the more obvious connections.
a. Principle 1: Heterotopia of Deviation
A labor union can be considered a heterotopia of deviation. Modern workplaces have been described as antidemocratic dictatorships.[5] This is because modern businesses typically have a hierarchical structure in which the highest executives dictate the actions of the lower executives, who dictate the actions of the middle managers, who dictate the actions of the employees, etc. Different businesses have a different number of layers and different titles for their executives and employees, but work is generally dictated down and employees usually lack any democratic input or control over company decisionmaking and protocols. Workers often have the option to advocate for better terms and conditions of employment, but, alone, a worker is unlikely to have the leverage and power to bargain evenly against their employer.
Labor unions help shift the balance of employer-employee relationships and bring democratic principles into the workplace. Labor unions allow workers to bargain collectively in order to have more bargaining power against their employers. Additionally, at least within the United States, the internal makeup of a union is required to operate under democratic principles. Local union leadership is decided based on a vote and, in negotiations, union representatives are required to act on behalf of the interests of the entire bargaining unit.
This new work dynamic is a heterotopia of deviation. Workers join unions not just to gain some change to the material conditions of their employment, but also to shift the nature of their work environment. In Spadework, Alyssa Battistoni reflected on her time organizing a graduate students union at Yale and questioned whether she was “really organizing forty hours a week because [she] wanted dental? At the rate [she was] going, [she] was unlikely to see any of the benefits anyway.”[6] Likewise, many employees join unions not only because they hope for better wages and benefits (which are great reasons), but also because they want to force their employer to listen to their concerns and respect them. The structure of the union allows for an escape from the norms of the modern workplace into a deviant, democratic place.
b. Principle 5: The exclusivity of unions
To join a union, potential members must go through an often rigorous process. Nonunion workers in the United States who wish to join or create a new union must usually lead a lengthy organizing campaign against employer opposition and under the protocols regulated by the National Labor Relations Board. That process involves the Board approving a particular bargaining unit that captures particular positions at that employer. Prospective employees of an already unionized employer will need to be hired by that employer in order to join. Both will need to pay union dues. Additionally, although unions have made much progress in representation, it is worth mentioning the bigoted exclusionary policies of unions historically. For example, for much of their history, labor unions in the United States often restricted membership to white men, which helped exclude people of color from the benefits that defined the American middle class for decades.[7]
c. Some Other Principles
In accordance with principle two, the perception of labor unions and their functions for workers have changed over time. Societies have shifted between viewing unions as helpful boost to economic development approved of by popular presidents and seedy groups of communists not to be trusted. In accordance with principle three, the more democratic nature of labor unions allows for a wide variety of perspectives and priorities to be juxtaposed in seemingly contradictory ways. This is doubly true when multiple union locals are represented in meetings of a national or international labor union. In accordance with principle six, labor unions seem most like the heterotopias of compensation by demonstrating the undemocratic, messy nature of modern workplaces and offering a more justifiable alternative space.
III. Labor Unions as Concrete Utopias
Utopia 13/13 has largely rejected abstract imagined utopias in favor of concrete utopias—real world examples of implementations of utopic ideals that can be further replicated and expanded—like Cooperation Jackson, a project to build a solidarity economy anchored by a network of cooperatives and other types of worker-owned and democratically self-managed enterprises in Jackson, Mississippi.[8] Cooperation Jackson pursues economic democracy and a solidarity economy through organizing and by utilizing existing legal structures like agricultural cooperatives, nonprofits, LLCs, and land trusts.
Cooperation Jackson is arguably much broader and more revolutionary than the typical labor union. For example, Cooperation Jackson is less interested in workers bargaining collectively with employers than workers effectively being their own employers through worker-owned enterprises. Additionally, Cooperation Jackson is engaged in facets of life beyond the workplace like the ongoing water crisis in Jackson, Mississippi.
At the same time, Cooperation Jackson and labor unions have some noteworthy similarities. Both are concerned with economic democracy, political organizing, and achieving material gains in conditions for the working class. According to Battistoni, she believed her union was “intensely democratic—we were, after all, seeking some amount of self-rule in our workplace and asking more people to take part in it.”[9] Additionally, in spite of the tendency to think of utopias as being separatist and uninterested in engaging with the structures of the oppressive and undemocratic states in which they reside, Cooperation Jackson is in in the process of creating a 501(c)(4) organization. This kind of organization would allow Cooperation Jackson to more directly influence the policies that impact the people of Jackson through lobbying, much like the 501(c)(5) status allows for labor unions.[10]
Battistoni also stresses how the shared purpose of the union members helps create a genuine sense of equality between comrades. “[Y]ou are someone’s comrade,” she explains, “not because you like them but because you are on the same side of a struggle. Comrades are not neighbors, citizens, or friends; nor are they any kind of family, though you might call them brother or sister. The comrade has no race, gender, or nation.” She calls this “sameness of the comrade” “a kind of genuine equality.” “It’s not that class and race and gender disappear, transcended by the cause—but the need to work together to achieve a shared end provides a baseline of commonality that makes it possible to relate across the difference and essential to figure out how.”[11]
IV. Conclusion
Labor unions have qualities that make them arguably heterotopias and concrete utopias. Unions are heterotopias of deviation that allow exclusive sets of employees to separate themselves, at least marginally, from the dictatorial norms of the modern workplace. Beyond the organizing process, the structure of unions allows comrades of the working class to practice a degree of workplace democracy and collectively advocate for serious material improvements. According to Battistoni, “the union was imperfect in ways that I knew as well as anyone, but it was the closest I had come to that kind of world.”[12]
Notes
[1] Bernard E. Harcourt, Introduction to Utopia 3/13: Organizing As Utopian Form, Utopia 13/13 (Oct. 23, 2022), https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/utopia1313/bernard-e-harcourt-introduction-to-utopia-3-13-organizing-as-utopian-form/.
[2] Id.
[3] Michel Foucault, Des Espaces Autres (Of Other Spaces) 24 (1984).
[4] Id. at 24-27.
[5] Niko Bowie, Antidemocracy, 135 Harv. L. Rev. 160, 162 (2021).
[6] Alyssa Battistoni, Spadework, n+1 (2019), https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-34/politics/spadework/.
[7] See generally Herbert Hill, The Problem of Race in American Labor History, 24 Rev’s in Am. Hist. 189 (1996).
[8] Who We Are, Cooperation Jackson, https://cooperationjackson.org/intro.
[9] Battistoni, supra note 6.
[10] As an aside, it is worth considering at greater length the need for concrete utopias to walk the line between idealistic, unproductive utopianism and incrementalism that risks being coopted or subsumed by capital.
[11] Battistoni, supra note 6.
[12] Id.