1. This is not the place to attempt a comprehensive survey, but the recent literature is discussed critically in a number of publications and bibliographical essays, one of the most current being by Tenfelde, Klaus, “Neue Forschungen zur Geschichte der Arbeiterschaft,” Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 20 (1980): 593–615Google Scholar (note that the Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, and the Internationale wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz (IWK) have been particularly important for publishing and reviewing work on the social history of labor). Most of the relevant literature on mobility is cited in Kaelble, Hartmut, “Geschichte der sozialen Mobilität,” in Kaelble, Hartmut et al. , Probleme der Modernisierung in Deutschland (Opladen, 1978), pp. 235–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and in Kaelble, , ed., Geschichte der sozialen Mobilität seit der industriellen Revolution (Königstein/Ts., 1978)Google Scholar, which reprints a number of important essays on workers and mobility. A valuable collection of original articles (along with conference discussions) on the regional and social origins of workers, the standard of living, workplace conditions, and social and political behavior has been edited by Conze, Werner and Engelhardt, Ulrich, Arbeiter im Industrialisierungsprozess (Stuttgart, 1979).Google Scholar Some of these same themes, along with essays on housing, nutrition, education, religion, and sport organizations, are treated in Reulecke, Jürgen and Weber, Wolfhard, eds., Fabrik, Familie, Feierarbend: Beiträge zur Sozialgeschichte des Alltags im Industriezeitalter (Wuppertal, 1978).Google Scholar In terms of occupations, miners in the Ruhr have attracted special attention as reflected in the publication of three important works: Tenfelde, Klaus, Sozialgeschichte der Bergarbeiterschaft an der Ruhr im 19. Jahrhundert (Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 1977)Google Scholar, Klessmann, Christoph, Polnische Bergarbeiter im Ruhrgebiet 1870–1945 (Göttingen, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and, though not limited to miners, Crew, David, Town in the Ruhr: A Social History of Bochum (New York, 1979).Google Scholar Klaus Tenfelde has compiled an extensive bibliography around the concept of Arbeiterkultur, included in Ritter, Gerhard A., ed., Arbeiterkultur (Königstein/Ts., 1979).Google Scholar An issue of Geschichte und Gesellschaft (5, no. 1, 1979) was also devoted to the theme of Arbeiterkultur im 19. Jahrhundert.

2. Cf. Kracht, Hans Joachim, Organisation und Bildungsarbeit der Katholischen Gesellenvereine (1846–1864) (Wentorf/Hamburg, 1975)Google Scholar, and Broch, Ernst-Detlev, Katholische Arbeitervereine in der Stadt Koln 1890–1901 (Wentorf/Hamburg, 1977).Google Scholar

3. Cf. Jacobeit, Wolfgang et al. , Zur Geschichte der Kultur-und Lebensweise der werktätigen Klassen und Schichten des deutschen Volkes vom 11. Jahrhundert bis 1945: Ein Abriss (Berlin, GDR, 1972)Google Scholar; Jacobeit, Wolfgang and Mohrmann, Ute, eds., Kultur und Lebensweise des Proletariats: Kulturhistorisch-volkskundliche Studien und Materialien (Berlin, GDR, 1973).Google Scholar It should be emphasized that in the Federal Republic as well some Volkskundler have turned their research toward workers. The problems involved and relevant Literature are discussed critically by Kramer, Dieter, “Literatur zur Kultursoziologie der Arbeiter: Forschungsbericht,” Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 71 (1975): 88–103, and 73 (1977): 246–61.Google Scholar There is a brief but informative discussion by Martin Scharfe of new currents within the discipline of Volkskunde that reflect the influence of the social sciences and social history, “Towards a Cultural History: Notes on Contemporary Volkskunde (Folklore) in German-speaking Countries,” Social History 4, no. 2 (05 1979): 333–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. On the whole, the literature on the social history of German workers has been less vulnerable to these criticisms than its counterpart in other Western countries. For example, the assumption that politics can have no place in social history has never been as widely held among social historians in the Federal Republic as in the United States, France, or even Great Britain. This issue and many others concerning the assumptions and methods of modern social historians have been raised in several highly polemical essays. Cf. Judt, Tony, “A Clown in Regal Purple: Social History and the Historians,” History Workshop, no. 7 (Spring 1979), pp. 66–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Minerva's Owl and Other Birds of Prey: Reflections on the Condition of Labor History in Europe,” International Labor and Working Class History, no. 16 (Fall 1979), pp. 18–28Google Scholar; and Eley, Geoff and Nield, Keith, “Why Does Social History Ignore Politics?” Social History 5, no. 2 (05 1980): 249–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. “Zur Konstituierung des Proletariats als Klasse,” in Bartel, Horst and Engelberg, Ernst, eds., Die grosspreussisch-militarische Reichsgrundung 1871, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1971)Google Scholar; “Die Struktur des sich als Klasse konstituierenden deutschen Proletariats als Gegenstand der historischen Forschung,” in Engelberg, Ernst, ed., Probleme der Geschichtstnethodologie (Berlin, 1972)Google Scholar; “Ausbeutung und gesellschaftliche Stellung des Manufaktur-und Fabrikproletariats am Ende der industriellen Revolution im Spiegel Leipziger Fabrikordnung,” in Jacobeit, Wolfgang and Mohrmann, Ute, eds., Kultur und Lebensweise des Proletariats (Berlin, 1973)Google Scholar; “Die Entwicklung proletarischer Gemeinschaftsbeziehungen im Prozess der sozialen Konstituierung der deutschen Arbeiterklasse,” Jahrbuch für Geschichte, vol. 3 (1975)Google Scholar; “Zur Herausbildung der deutschen Arbeiterklasse: Ein stadial-regionaler Vergleich,” in Historikergesellschaft der DDR, Wissenschaftliche Beiträge für den Geschichtslehrer, no. 13 (Berlin, 1977).Google Scholar

6. It should be noted that the error is not universal and that Frederick Marquardt, for example, in his article on the origin of the working class in Berlin, is very alert to all of these problems. He concludes that a working class existed by 1848, but he places less stress on the capitalistic aspect and emphasizes that the formation was a complex and uneven process. “A Working Class in Berlin in the 1840's?” in Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, ed., Sozialgeschichte Heute: Festschrift für Hans Rosenberg zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen, 1974), pp. 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Crew, David, Town in the Ruhr, esp. pp. 186–94Google Scholar

8. There seems to me to be broad agreement between Zwahr's findings on the social composition of activists in 1848–49 and those of Hermann-Josef Rupieper, “Die Sozialstruktur der Trägerschichten der Revolution von 1848/49 am Beispiel Sachsen,” in Kaelble et al., Probleme der Modemisierung in Deutschland, pp. 80–109.

9. In this respect, Frederick Marquardt's important article on social mobility in Berlin lays the foundation for such an investigation. “Sozialer Aufstieg, sozialer Abstieg und die Entstehung der Berliner Arbeiterklasse, 1806–1848,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 1 (1975): 43–77Google Scholar; a slightly revised version is reprinted in Kaelble, ed., Geschichte der sozialen Mobilität seit der industriellen Revolution, pp. 127–58.