Written with Sean Scalmer, this was our first discussion of the concept of the labour intellectual. It drew on the theoretical contributions of Antonio Gramsci, Jurgen Habermas and his critics, and Ron Eyerman. Published to introduce a thematic section on labour intellectuals in Labour History – A Journal of Labour and Social History, it appeared in issue 77, November 1999.

Australian Labour Intellectuals: an Introduction1

The study of the labour intellectual in Australia may initially appear as a rather odd enterprise - like the study of chalk and cheese, or square pegs and round holes. After all, the Australian labour movement is renowned for its anti- intellectualism, its pursuit (as Albert Métin described it in 1901) of a ‘socialisme sans doctrines’. The history of Australian labour is studded with recurrent binges of anti-intellectualism, while the journals of the intelligentsia have frequently expressed horror at the supposed economism and barbarity of the working class. Further, the idea of intellectuals as people who think great thoughts for which they are comfortably rewarded by publishers, universities or other establishment institutions would surely limit our study to a very few individuals.

It would be foolish to deny that workers are suspicious of intellectuals. Nevertheless, the historical evidence shows that there has been collaboration as much as mistrust, cooperation as much as antipathy between workers and intellectuals in the labour movement. The mobilisation of the working class was based upon the circulation of vibrant and important ideas. It involved giving speeches and listening to speeches, of reading and writing, ‘pasting up’ and letterboxing. Both the trade unions and political parties hosted great debates over reform and revolution, the nature of capitalist society, over imperialism, gender oppression, censorship and ruling class education, over art and the role of the artist. Institutions of working class education were established, a labour press existed, radio stations were purchased, cultural journals were created, as were studios of realist art and publishing houses for realist writing. Some of these organisations sought to weaken the division between intellectuals and workers. Since the early 1960s, the journal Labour History, has attempted to form a productive connection between mental and manual labour. Together, these activities constituted a cluster of institutions where the labour movement emerged as a cultural identity and political force, and where those identifying themselves with ‘labour’ discussed and disseminated their ideas.

Many of those who produced work in those settings were not highly educated in a formal sense. Many also performed their labour without payment. Nevertheless, they produced ideas and knowledge, created art and manipulated cultural symbols. Their contributions need to be respected and understood, and they deserve the title of labour intellectuals.

The category of the labour intellectual can span creative and literary figures such as Claude Marquet, Vance Palmer, and Dorothy Hewett. It can include trade union and party leaders like Frank Anstey, Albert Willis and Jim Cairns from the Labor Party, and Communist leaders like J.B. Miles, Edgar Ross and Bernie Taft. It can include those from petit-bourgeois backgrounds like Guido Baracchi and Esmonde Higgins, and from working-class backgrounds like Henry Boote and Jack Blake. All of these individuals produced ideas in those institutions which identified themselves as ‘labour’ and oriented themselves towards a working-class audience. This is what united these individuals as labour intellectuals: they were knowledge producers in labour institutions.

The Labour Intellectual and the Existing Literature on Intellectuals

The concept of the labour intellectual differs from the traditional liberal conception of the intellectual, famously associated with Karl Mannheim. Mannheim delineated the historical myth that with the demise of intellectuals as a priestly caste, they became free-floating, infinitely malleable and flexible.2 They are hence apparently capable of choosing their own political and social affiliations, and therefore transcending the boundaries of a specific class outlook.3 The same argument presents intellectuals as capable of seeing more than others - of rising above the fray to appreciate the knowledge of others,4 of seeing the whole of the social and political structure,5 of being sceptical,6 and independent.7

While containing a germ of truth, this method of theorising intellectuals has three unfortunate analytical repercussions. Firstly, it denies the status of ‘intellectual’ to those thinkers who are obviously tied to the working class, and who are in no sense ‘free-floating’ - thereby also implying that the ideas of such thinkers are self-interested and crude rather than disinterested, independent and complex. Secondly, by denying that truth-producers are involved in political and material relations, it begs those central questions which deal with the degree and nature of the autonomy which intellectuals have from other social forces.8 Thirdly, it sidesteps the increasingly apparent fact that intellectuals can exist as a politically powerful collective with their own self-defined interests and networks of mobilisation. For these reasons the concept of the labour intellectual is theoretically distant from the dominant liberal stream of writing about intellectuals.

The Concept of the Labour Intellectual: i) Gramsci

The concept of the labour intellectual directs our attention to the practical situations in which sets of cultural practices (ideas, etc) have been produced - to the cluster of institutions slanted towards labour and the working class, and the place of these institutions in broader society. If we are to understand the labour intellectual, we need to understand the operation of these institutions, their relationship to the working class, and to capitalism as a whole.

Among socialists, the leading approach, that developed by Antonio Gramsci, seeks to understand intellectuals in the context of class and politics, specifically the changing division of labour in capitalist society. In The Prison Notebooks, Gramsci argued that the claims of the intellectual for objectivity, for disinterestedness, for universality and for classlessness are false. In his conception, intellectuals do not hover above the clang of political battle - on the contrary, they are some of its primary participants. He argues that two sorts of intellectuals participate in this battle. Firstly, there are those ‘traditional intellectuals’, those writers and ecclesiastics who claim universality and so vocally protest their own political innocence. For Gramsci, such intellectuals are not at all autonomous, they are actually tied to dominant classes,9 and they practically fulfil the functions of social hegemony and political government. In addition to such traditional intellectuals, a second group of intellectuals participate in the political struggle. These are intellectuals ‘organically’ produced by those classes, such as the working class, which perform ‘an essential function in the world of economic production’, and are therefore deemed to be historically progressive.10 Such organic intellectuals serve to give their class a ‘homogeneity and an awareness of its function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields’.11 They organise, they educate, they propagate and they lead their own class on the political battlefield.

In this conception, intellectuals are neither free-floating, disinterested nor politically innocent. They are participants in the class war, and they (mostly) fight it to win. Organic intellectuals, in their struggle for their class, struggle to conquer ideologically the traditional intellectuals.12 They do this particularly through political parties. More specifically, the revolutionary party of the working class - its ‘Collective Intellectual’ or ‘Modern Prince’, attempts to weld together its own organic intellectuals with the traditional thinkers of the liberal intelligentsia and the Church.13 In doing so, it promises the capture of the traditional intellectuals, and the class hegemony of the workers.

Clearly, this analytical treatment is a highly prescriptive one, intimately tied to Gramsci’s own political project in the Italian Communist Party. It offers suggestions for a certain sort of Communist political practice - for a certain relationship between theory and practice, workers and intellectuals, reform and revolution. It is less illuminating as a way of understanding the complex and changing relationships between intellectuals, classes and labour movement institutions in other situations. Its analytical benefits are uncertain in Australian history, where two collectivist political parties competed for a working class audience, and where intellectuals could act as a political force, keen to obtain benefits for themselves yet separate from the ruling class proper. Gramsci’s work offers us a blueprint for bringing intellectuals and classes together, rather than the tools for an exploration of how they have actually interrelated in Australian history.

The Concept of the Labour Intellectual: ii) The Relevance of the Public Sphere

The concept of the labour intellectual needs to move beyond the idea of the organic intellectual so that it can account for intellectuals from various class backgrounds, in various political parties, producing both literary and political ideas, both revolutionary and labourist in nature. It is in this context that the concept of the ‘public sphere’ emerges as analytically useful.

The public sphere is the historical space in which private individuals join together as a ‘public’ to rationally debate social arrangements and state activities. It is an arena of writing and reading, talking and listening ‘in public’ sustained by cultural and political institutions that survive between the market and the State. According to Jürgen Habermas, the leading historian of the public sphere, this democratic public space was closely connected with the rise of the European bourgeoisie. For Habermas, the public sphere grew out of the bourgeois patriarchal family, developed in the nascent press and in the coffee houses of the eighteenth century, and was deeply changed by the twentieth century.14 The notion of ‘the public sphere’ has been useful for students of ‘the intellectual’ because it specifies a social location in which intellectuals have functioned; because it suggests how that location relates to other sites historically; and because it emphasises a number of values which intellectuals find attractive, such as rational communicative.

However, Habermas’s conception of the public sphere has also been subject to persistent and powerful criticism. Firstly, it has been criticised for ignoring the exclusionary character of the public sphere – the women, the workers, and the ‘undesirables’ ineligible for participation in the public, rational conversation that Habermas examines. Habermas has been accused of idealising the bourgeois character of the public sphere he chronicles.15 Secondly, and in a related sense, Habermas’s version of the concept has been criticised for assuming that the bourgeois public sphere was somehow homogeneous, free from non-bourgeois impurities. Conflict with other groups helped to form the bourgeois public sphere, as well as to constitute the social identities that made up the wider ‘public’, and this has been overlooked in Habermas’s formulation.16

For writers like Nancy Fraser and Geoffrey Eley, this suggests that there are many public spheres rather than one bourgeois public sphere. That is, it is possible to think of a specific ‘feminist’ public sphere, a working class public sphere, a black public sphere, and so on. These specific publics have been labelled ‘counter-publics’, ‘multiple’ publics and ‘alternative’ publics by a variety of scholars. Indeed, the idea of multiple public spheres has been taken up by a whole ‘number of diverse movements’, and quickly become a kind of ‘rallying point for a whole spectrum of groups’.17 Studies of ‘popular’ non-bourgeois publics, of working-class public spheres, and feminist public spheres have all emerged over the last few years.18

These ‘alternative’ public spheres function as spaces of withdrawal and organisation, where groups discuss what they have in common, and how to comprehend and change their collective situation. Equally, these multiple publics can also function as bases for agitational activities that address, challenge and convert members of wider publics and alternative groups.19

Recent work by Mustapha Emirbayer and Mimi Sheller has widened the possibilities of this approach considerably. They suggest that the idea of the public sphere should be abandoned for the more open notion of publics, understood as Open-ended flows of communication that enable socially distant interlocutors to bridge social-network positions, formulate collective orientations, and generate psychical ‘working alliances’, in pursuit of influence over issues of common concern. Publics are not simply ‘spaces’ or ‘worlds’ where politics is discussed, as the popular ‘public sphere’ idea suggests, but rather, interstitial networks of individuals and groups acting as citizens.20

For Emirbayer and Sheller, publics are relational, interstitial, and multiple. They can be distinguished from one another on the basis of three principles: the power differences among the public actors; the exten to which publics reach across time and space (for example, rely upon face to face interaction, as compared to print-based communication), and the extent to which they aim to influence economic, political or civil structures.21 They constantly rise and fall in practice, influenced by the interplay of human agency and a range of relational and structural environments.22

Together, these works around the notion of the public sphere provide a useful means of thinking about the environment in which labour intellectuals have produced ideas. They suggest that the labour intellectual is associated with a variety of ‘labour publics’ that are transformed over time, and that these publics are defined in opposition to bourgeois publics. While this body of writing is not unanimous concerning the cohesion and boundedness of the labour public, and therefore whether there is a ‘labour movement public sphere’ as such, there is widespread agreement that the study of publics in history helps to illuminate the connections between culture, politics and economics.

The Concept of the Labour Intellectual: (iii) An Historical Category

The study of the labour intellectual, with its distinct historical boundaries, will obviously have little in common with studies that ‘find “the intellectual” in all types of society and at all times and places’.23 Rejecting the blindness to history found in the prevailing cognitive and structural/functionalist approaches, Ron Eyerman argues that the intellectual is ‘an emergent role constructed by actors out of cultural traditions in historical contexts’.24 In other words, the intellectual is not just an historical phenomenon, but must be understood through historical categories; role, tradition and context are themselves defined historically. We must focus on the intellectual emerging out of the ‘self-constructing actions’ of individuals, who draw on the resources provided by existing traditions of what it means to be an intellectual, to construct new roles for themselves in changing historical settings.

Eyerman’s uses several strategies to sketch a history of the modern intellectual, using historical categories. The concept of generation, itself invented by the second generation of European intellectuals, enables him to make the point that the consciousness of a common experience of great historical events is most sharply felt and expressed by intellectuals. We may speak therefore of generations of intellectuals. Thus, in Eyerman’s sketch of the reconstruction of the intellectual in the early twentieth century, the First World War disrupted intellectual life of the first generation. Idealism and hope gave way to confusion. Seeking new roles through action, intellectuals left the study or the salon and entered the world of political conflict. On the Left, Marxists and social democrats enunciated the tradition of the partisan intellectual who threw in their lot with the organised working class. For liberals, acting as advisers to governments and movements, the appropriate response was to rise above partisan class interests, to pursue objective knowledge, and to become an independent social stratum.

For both traditions the worm in the bud was the threat of incorporation – by parties and/or by states. As fascism and communism consolidated themselves, as social democrats drew closer to the capitalist state, and as liberals ignored the dangers of professionalisation to their idea of the intellectual, another crisis developed in intellectual life. The Second World War, and deep changes in class relations and state capacities, would give birth to a new generation of intellectuals with a different relationship to the public. ‘It was now the state that would provide enlightened leadership, guiding the production of knowledge as well as of goods and the education of the masses.’25 In contrast to the mediation of cultures and interests in the public sphere that was central to the previous generation, the scientists, academics, and professional experts who typified the new generation would construct their identity around social function and position. Roughly speaking this generational history covers the period of the rise and transformations of the labour intellectual.

Eyerman’s second strategy was to use the history of intellectual life in Britain and the United States to construct a model of three ideal-typical traditions of the intellectual: the aristocratic, the movement, and the dissenting. Of these, the last two are most relevant for the study of the labour intellectual in Australia.

Movement intellectuals, emerging most clearly in Chartist and labour organisations, express the collective identity of a movement. As such they speak directly, intimately, to their public – the members of the movement – and they ‘grow into their role’, enjoying the opportunity to combine conceptualisation with realisation, theory with practice. As participants in a common educative project, their idea of culture is rooted in the values of their public; it is for example a class, masculinist or regional culture. Movements that persist and diversify offer intellectuals the chance to specialise, but as their professional role is entirely bound up with the movement, and as they must suppress their individuality, these intellectuals find it hard to transfer their skills to the non- movement contexts of intellectual work.26

The tradition of dissenting intellectuals also takes shape in the mid-nineteenth century. This is the modernising tradition, challenging the elitism of the aristocratic and the specificities of the movement traditions. Drawing on a secularised version of Christianity and radical liberalism, dissenting intellectuals often move into the space created by movement intellectuals but they have a different relation to their audience. Using a notion of a general public interest, dissenting intellectuals understand culture as a universal human quality but one that can be perfected. As this uplifting project opens up a distance with the public, dissenting intellectuals seek compensatory experience of the masses, through a popular press, adult education classes, street-corner meetings, community action programs, and so on. Some rise to prominence in movement organisations; some take advantage of the market for ‘public’ intellectuals.

However, dissenting intellectuals have a ‘hidden class project’; they see their self-interest catered for in their educative work. ‘Intellectual’ becomes a career for the professionally educated, an opportunity for a new middle class. The result is the development of a professional or expert voice that intersects with the public or uplifting voice. This ambivalence matches the mediating roles assumed by dissenting intellectuals, often in a very self-conscious way. Intellectual mediations between high and popular cultures, elites and masses, ruling and working classes, or culture and politics are very distinctive of the dissenting tradition.27

The notion of crises in the history of intellectuals, as they reinvent their roles out of historically given traditions of intellectual work in a changing context, ensures that the study of labour intellectuals remains grounded in an historical approach to theory, even when dealing with the present. From Eyerman’s work, too, we also get a sense of the importance of the interaction of the movement and dissenting traditions within the context of the labour movement.

The Concept of the Labour Intellectual: iv) Synthesis and Historical Exploration

The four papers that follow refer to publics and the ‘public sphere’ in a variety of ways. At times they refer to ‘alternative’ public spheres, at other times to the ‘working class public sphere’, and on other occasions to ‘labour publics’. In part this reflects the different convictions of the authors, as well as the different historical periods and problems being examined. However, it is also a reflection of the incipient stage of much of this historical conceptualisation and of doubts over whether ‘labour publics’ are bound by sufficiently strong ties to attain the historical existence of a ‘sphere’. As these papers are concerned primarily with ‘intellectuals’ rather than ‘publics’, we thought this diversity healthy rather than worrisome.

In theory at least, a series of studies of labour intellectuals, each of which oriented itself around the concept of the ‘labour movement’ public, could together provide a collective portrait of the material and political environment in which labour’s ideas and culture were produced. It could provide a portrait of change over the century, as labour intellectuals of successive generations faced a different set of institutional opportunities, and struggled to bend them to their will. The ideas produced inside the labour movement, for so long ignored, could be both addressed and located in historical and political context. More than this, its focus on group or individual biographies could make it sensitive to a wide variety of impulses, cross-cutting tendencies, and personal tragedies or achievements that shaped those ideas.

Drawing on all these conceptions, we would suggest that the labour intellectual can be understood as a knowledge-producer and symbol- manipulator working within a labour public. Labour intellectuals are distinguishable from other members of the labour movement because they produce knowledge and manipulate symbols. They are distinguishable from other intellectuals because they work within a labour public, and because this shapes the self-understanding, practice, direction and form of their intellectual work.

Drawing inspiration from Gramsci, we insist that all have the capacity to be (labour) intellectuals, but only some fulfil the function of (labour) intellectuals. Learning from Habermas, we trace intellectuals back to the sites at which they produce ideas and discourse. Agreeing with the critics of Habermas, we emphasise that these sites are multiple rather than singular. Integrating the insights of Eyerman, we see labour intellectuals as a plural historical category, and we attempt to chronicle the process by which new forms of the labour intellectual are self-constructed through the combination of role, tradition and context.

Each of the following papers grapples with a particular historical form of the labour intellectual. Ben Maddison focuses on W.A. Coghlan, the noted labour economist and public administrator at the turn-of-the-century.28 Coghlan is, of course, best known as the author of Labour and Industry, and most often understood as a public intellectual attached to the State. However, drawing upon Coghlan’s popular writings on political economy in The Bulletin, Maddison argues that he is in fact a labour intellectual, addressing a predominantly working-class audience, and developing a range of concepts that explain the workings of the capitalist economy in popular terms. Maddison’s paper points to the close engagement of the labour intellectual with the State in Australian history. Indeed, Coghlan fused the role of popular writer with that of the governmental expert, and in so doing came to resemble the dissenting and progressive intellectuals associated with Fabianism in the United Kingdom. In this sense, Coghlan helped to create a version of the labour intellectual in Australia as ‘labour expert’. This was a precocious achievement, but one which threatened the status and movement-orientation of many labour intellectuals in the early decade of the new century.

The second of the collected papers, by Roger Markwick, addresses the achievements of Lloyd Churchward.29 Churchward was both a labour activist and academic. His life spans a long engagement with two chief sites of intellectual activity – the (Communist) Party and the University (of Melbourne). Influenced by a dissenting Methodist background, Churchward brought a moral commitment to his Communism. Churchward’s experiences convey many of the struggles, opportunities and perspectives of that generation of university-trained intellectuals who entered the Communist Party of Australia during the 1930s and 1940s. At the same time, his experiences in the Department of Political Science at the University of Melbourne display the difficulties that labour intellectuals faced in bourgeois institutions. Mediating between these rival publics, Churchward carved out a distinguished career as scholar and citizen. His victories and defeats are emblematic of a whole generation of labour intellectuals who combined academic training with working-class commitment; Communist Party membership with University-based employment. His life, too, arcs across the great flowering of the working class public sphere in the late 30s and early forties, the authoritarianism of the 1950s, the urge to co-operate with new social actors in the 1960s and 70s, and the decline of the 80s and 90s.

The third paper focuses on leading unionist, Communist and environmentalist, Jack Mundey, whose spectacular success in achieving ‘a rare shift in public thinking’ demonstrates how labour’s ideas and capacity for action can influence wider publics.30 Meredith and Verity Burgmann address Mundey as an organic intellectual of the working class. They show how the New South Wales Builders Labourers’ Federation became the site for the production of alternative ideas about unionism, democracy, and control of the environment in which working people live. For this, the union was attacked by employers, the state, and other unionists. In response, but also out of an internal dialectic of thinking and action, this institution of the labour public became a genuinely alternative public sphere. Cutting across class lines the union won the support of traditional intellectuals (in Gramsci’s sense), and radical activists from communities of local residents, students, women, homosexuals, ands Aborigines. Mundey’s career reveals much about the relationships between publics as well as the production of ideas in labour institutions.

Finally, the thematic concludes with Sean Scalmer and Terry Irving’s paper on the rise of the labour technocrat within the Amalgamated Metal Workers’ Union (AMWU).31 Rather than focusing on particular individuals, this article traces how the union developed a research support staff during the 1970s, and how this shaped and reshaped the formation of a ‘labour public’ within the union. The paper is concerned with the tensions between “intellectual’ and ‘worker’ in the contemporary labour movement. It argues that the research department of the union helped to foster a democratic, radical ‘labour public’ during the middle 1970s, but that this was a short-lived achievement. Caught between the pressure to respond to the encroaching economic crisis, the demands of the Australian Labor Party, and the pull of the State, the intellectuals working within the AMWU became increasingly technocratic, removed and powerful. The labour intellectual became an expert technocrat, and the quest for an energetic labour public lapsed into decline.

Together these four papers point to the range and vitality of labour intellectuals within the Australian labour movement. These intellectuals were from working class and petit bourgeois backgrounds; political leaders and academics; individual thinkers and collective researchers; humanistic and technical; party-based; union-based; bureaucracy-based; communist; socialist; technocratic; modernising. Certainly, the four versions of the labour intellectual sketched are not complete, and they do not attempt to convey the full repertoire of all Australian ‘labour intellectuals’. However, they do point to the intimate connection between forms of intellectual practice and the locations in which intellectuals function; between intellectuals and publics. They point, furthermore, to the importance of labour intellectuals as social actors, and to the often neglected role of intellectuals in diffusing cultural and political models, organising collective action, and re-orienting institutional strategies.

In this sense, the papers offered here are deliberately presented as a stimulus to further research. The aim to draw forth further contributions, alternative conceptions of the labour intellectual that have emerged in other contexts. This will not only widen the scope of existing labour history, but also enrich and deepen our understanding of how cultural and political change has actually occurred within the labour movement.


1 This paper introduced a thematic section of the journal, Labour History – A Journal of Labour and Social History, number 77, November 1999, pp 1-82. There were four articles in the section, listed in notes 28 to 31 below.

2 K. Mannheim, Essays on the Sociology of Culture, Routledge and Keegan Paul, London, 1956, p. 121.

3 K. Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Culture, Routlefge and Keegan Paul, London,1936, p.141

4 H.Z. Lopata, ‘Members of the Intelligentsia as Developers and Disseminators of Cosmopolitan Culture’ in Gella, A. (ed) The Intelligentsia and the Intellectuals: Theory, Method and Case Study, Sage, London, 1976, p. 68

5 Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, p.143

6 Mannheim, Essays on the Sociology of Culture, p.149

7 Ibid., p. 170

8 R. Williams, Culture, Fontana, London, 1981, p. 222.

9 A. Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1971, p.10

10 Ibid., p. 5

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid., p. 11

13 Ibid., p. 15

14 J. Habermas, The Structural Transformations of the Public Sphere: An Enquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 1989

15 G. Eley, ‘Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century’, in C. Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., p. 306

16 Nancy Fraser, ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy’, in Calhoun (ed.) Habermas and the Public Sphere, p. 116.

17 M. Hansen, ‘Unstable Mixtures, Dilated Spheres: Negt and Kluge’s The Public Sphere and Experience, Twenty Years Later’, Public Culture, vol. 5. no. 2, Winter 1993, p. 186.

18 See for example: M. Ryan, Civic Wars: Democracy and Public Life in the American City During the Nineteenth Century, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1997; S.P. Newman, Parades and Politics of the Streets: Festive Culture in the Early Republic, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1997; K. Tucker Jr., French Revolutionary Syndicalism and the Public Sphere, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, 1996; M.Ryan, ‘Gender and Public Access: Women’s Politics in Nineteenth-Century America’, in Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere, pp. 258-288.

19 Fraser, ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere’, p. 124.

20 M. Emirbayer and M. Sheller, ‘Publics in History’, Theory and Society, vol. 28, no.1, February 1999, p. 156.

21 M.Emirbayer and M. Sheller, ‘Publics in History’, p. 158-161.

22 Ibid., p. 163.

23 Ron Eyerman, Between Culture and Politics – Intellectuals in Modern Society, Polity Press, Casmbridge, UK, 1994, p. 33.

24 Eyerman, p. ix.

25 Eyerman, p.92. This discussion is based on chapter three of his book.

26 Eyerman, pp.100-1; 106-8.

27 Eyerman, pp. 101-5, 108-9.

28 Maddison, Ben. ' ”The day of the just reasoner”: T. A. Coghlan and the labour public sphere in late nineteenth century Australia’ [online] Labour History, No. 77, Nov 1999: 11-26.

29 Markwick, Roger D. ‘Activist academic: Lloyd Churchward as a labour intellectual’ [online] Labour History, No. 77, Nov 1999: 27-43.

30 Burgmann, Verity and Burgmann, Meredith. ' “A rare shift in public thinking” Jack Mundey and the New South Wales Builders Labourers' Federation’ [online] Labour History, No. 77, Nov 1999: 44-63.

31 Scalmer, Sean and Irving, Terry. ‘The rise of the modern labour technocrat: intellectual labour and the transformation of the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union, 1973-85’ [online] Labour History, No. 77, Nov 1999: 64-82.