Occupational Activism and the New Labor Activism: Illustrations from the Education Sector and an Agenda for Future Research

The United States is currently experiencing the largest surge in labor activism in decades. Not only are elections to form unions on the rise, but workers are also increasingly winning these elections (Kochan et al., forthcoming). Public approval of labor unions is at its highest level since the 1960s, and nearly half of all nonunion workers nationwide say they would vote to form a union if such an election were held at their workplace (Kochan et al., forthcoming). Finally, strikes and work stoppages appear to be on the rise, as strikes (or threats of strikes) by Starbucks workers, rail workers, and graduate students within the University of California system have recently garnered headlines nationwide.

In the opening article of this special issue, Kochan et al. (forthcoming) ask, “Will the current upsurge in activism be merely a flash in the pan that dissipates in the face of strong employer opposition or a weakening labor market, or be a turning point in labor-management relations that produces sustained growth in the number and ways in which workers organize and gain a stronger voice at work?” We argue the latter—the current upsurge in activism will lead to workers gaining a stronger voice at work, particularly if one takes an inclusive view of the variety of ways that people can exercise their voice at work. Specifically, we argue that the new wave of labor activism will inspire enduring occupational activism among workers (Cornfield et al., 2019), as workers become emboldened to enact their jobs in ways that contribute to further social change.

In the essay that follows, we begin by defining occupational activism and discussing recent scholarly studies regarding occupational activism. We then illustrate this concept through a case study of occupational activism among teachers in Oklahoma, where teachers recently engaged in a statewide walkout but where legislators subsequently passed legislation restricting teachers’ autonomy in schools. Finally, we propose an agenda for future research on occupational activism. To fully understand the ramifications of this new wave of labor organizing, scholars must pay close attention to how workers engage in occupational activism.

Conceptualizing Occupational Activism

In their article introducing the concept of occupational activism, Cornfield et al. (2019) define occupational activism as “socially transformative individual and collective action that is conducted and realized through an occupational role or occupational community” (p. 217). The concept of occupational activism draws researchers’ attention to how workers can carry out their job responsibilities in ways that contribute to social change. As Cornfield et al. (2019) note through their typology of occupational activists, some workers, such as organizers, have jobs that explicitly require them to organize and mobilize other people to participate in social change efforts. But as Cornfield et al. (2019) go on to discuss, other jobs may not explicitly require workers to be involved in social change efforts, yet workers can still creatively enact these jobs in ways that contribute to social change, whether within their workplace or in the broader society. For example, policymakers may work to pass legislation that furthers social justice; expressive workers, including artists, journalists, and academics, may work to raise consciousness about social problems and inspire others to create social change; and managers or owners in a variety of businesses and industries may engage in “exemplary activism” by “infus[ing] their work organizations with movement messages” and “leading exemplary work lives in relation to their coworkers, clients, and customers” (p. 227).

Cornfield et al. (2019) conceptualize occupational activism as a biographical consequence of participation in social movements (cf. McAdam, 1989), and they illustrate their concept of occupational activism by analyzing the post-movement careers of participants in the 1960s Nashville civil rights movement. They profile the organizer Bernard Lafayette, who ran workshops to train others in nonviolent praxis; the late Congressman John Lewis, who worked to pass legislation that promoted racial justice; the late Dr. Gloria Johnson Powell, the first Black woman to be tenured in Harvard's Medical School, who went on to write a book that raised consciousness about the impacts of school desegregation; and James Murph, a former manager at General Electric who practiced exemplary activism by exercising nonviolent restraint when he faced harassment in the workplace. The first author of this essay and his colleagues have similarly discussed how former Nashville civil rights movement participants engaged in occupational activism in their subsequent jobs as K-12 educators and small business owners (Coley et al., 2022).

Other researchers have shown that the concept of occupational activism is as relevant to the contemporary era as it was to the immediate post-civil rights movement period. For example, Augustine and King (2022) show that former participants in environmental movements have been among the most likely to become sustainability managers at U.S. colleges and universities, jobs that have allowed them to advocate for sustainability measures within these workplaces. With that said, they also show that environmental movement activists’ odds of obtaining such jobs have declined over time as these sustainability manager positions have become more institutionalized, a finding that illustrates the limits of relying on occupational activism as a pathway to social change.

Additionally, although not explicitly framing their study in the occupational activism literature, Kucinskas and Zylan (forthcoming) discuss how civil servants engaged in various forms of creative resistance during the Presidency of Donald Trump, whose administration had pledged to abolish the “administrative state.” Kucinskas and Zylan's respondents—some of whom they recruited from protest marches in the Washington, D.C., area—reported that they engaged in overt resistance at work (e.g., writing policy beliefs that clearly contradicted Donald Trump's policy preferences, speaking out against directives they opposed), symbolic resistance at work (e.g., wearing LGBTQ pride flag pins to work), and covert resistance at work (e.g., “slow walking” certain projects or purposely neglecting certain job assignments).

Illustrations of Occupational Activism After the 2018 Oklahoma Teacher Walkouts

Oklahoma represents an especially relevant contemporary site of occupational activism. Specifically, in 2018, Oklahoma teachers participated in a statewide teacher walkout in protest of poor school funding and teacher pay. At the time, Oklahoma teachers had not seen an increase in pay since 2008, when funding had been cut to mitigate the impact of the recession (Schachle, 2022). As a result of the walkout, Oklahoma teachers secured an increase in pay; however, not all of the teachers’ demands were met, and Oklahoma continues to fall short of the regional and national average for teacher pay and school funding (Schachle, 2022).

In 2021, just a few years after these walkouts occurred, Oklahoma's Republican Governor Kevin Stitt signed HB 1775 into law. This law prevents K-12 educators from teaching certain messages, such as that one race is superior to others (messages that Oklahoma politicians have erroneously equated with “critical race theory”). Additionally, Oklahoma legislators have proposed HB 1074, which would prohibit K-5 educators from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity. How have Oklahoma teachers responded to such legislation?

Through ongoing in-depth interviews with teachers in Oklahoma's K-12 public schools, the second author of this essay is finding that Oklahoma teachers—including some teachers who participated in the 2018 Oklahoma teacher walkout and subsequently cultivated activist identities (Schachle, 2022)—are engaging in various forms of occupational activism. For example, one school district recently introduced a social justice and equity committee that has brought together students, teachers, and administrators. Teachers are participating in this committee because they feel it is necessary to address how academic policies and practices are contributing to inequity and exclusion within their schools. Additionally, even though HB 1775 has made it more difficult for teachers to talk about racial issues and other diversity issues in the classroom, some teachers are developing more diverse curricula. For example, one teacher has developed an ethnic studies course that further highlights diverse histories and perspectives. Similarly, a math teacher has created his own math problems that reference people of color and LGBTQ people.

Some teachers and school districts have been condemned for engaging in such occupational activism after the passage of HB 1775. For example, according to news reports, a teacher in Norman left her position after giving students a QR code that linked them to a selection of “banned books” on topics such as race, gender, and sexuality (Melendez, 2022). Two school districts even lost accreditation, in one case because school leaders had their teachers participate in implicit bias training, and in another case because a student felt uncomfortable when a teacher asked their class if anyone had felt discriminated against (Melendez, 2022). While these instances have made some teachers wary of engaging in occupational activism, others continue to use their positions to advocate for marginalized students.

Agenda for Future Research on Occupational Activism

Scholars have already done much work to develop typologies of occupational activism and illustrate how participants in a variety of social movements have gone on to engage in occupational activism. Still, there is much we do not know about the prevalence of occupational activism, the conditions in which occupational activism emerges and flourishes, and the outcomes of occupational activism. As scholars examine occupational activism in the context of this new wave of labor activism, we encourage them to consider several potential lines for future research:

How frequently do participants in labor movements (or other social movements) go on to engage in occupational activism? Past research has qualitatively shown that movement participation can lead to multiple modes of occupational activism (Coley et al., 2022; Cornfield et al., 2019), but we need more quantitative research that examines how often movement participants go on to engage in different types of occupational activism (Augustine & King, 2022).

What types of participants in labor movements (or other social movements) are most likely to pursue occupational activism? For example, are movement leaders more likely to pursue occupational activism than rank-and-file movement participants (Coley et al., 2022; Isaac et al., 2020)? Are people who undergo “social movement schooling”—i.e., formal training in social movement ideology, strategies, and tactics—more likely to engage in occupational activism than those who do not undergo such schooling (Coley at al., 2022; Isaac et al., 2020)?

What types of jobs or industries are most conducive to occupational activism, and why? For example, are less bureaucratic workplaces, and/or workplaces that provide workers with greater autonomy, more likely to foster occupational activism (Cornfield, 2015; Cornfield et al., 2019)? Are unionized workplaces more likely to foster occupational activism and/or lead workers to adopt activist identities (Schachle, 2022)?

In what political contexts is occupational activism most likely to flourish? For example, are people more likely to engage in occupational activism during upsurges in labor activism (or other social movement activism), or is occupational activism a way for people to engage in resistance during periods of political repression (Kucinskas & Zylan, forthcoming) or movement abeyance?

Why are some workers successful in their occupational activism while others are not? And how do we measure “successful” occupational activism, both in its “peer-centered” and “values-centered” forms (Cornfield et al., 2019)?

Past scholars have conceptualized occupational activism as a biographical consequence of movement participation (Augustine & King, 2022; Coley et al., 2022; Cornfield et al., 2019). To what degree might the opposite be true—can movement participation be conceptualized as a biographical consequence of occupational activism (cf. Coley et al., 2022, p. 16)? For example, are those who have been engaging in occupational activism more likely to participate in strikes during this new wave of labor activism?

Occupational activism is not a replacement for traditional forms of worker organizing, nor is it a panacea for all that ails society. Still, we argue that occupational activism is an important way in which workers can exercise their voices in the workplace and potentially contribute to larger scale social changes. We encourage scholars to examine how this new wave of labor activism might be inspiring workers’ occupational activism.