"....; it seems to me that until the beginning of the nineteenth century and even during the French rvolution, popular uprisings were led at one and the same time by peasants, small craftsmen, by the first labourers and then by that category of restless elements poorly integrated into society that might be highway robbers, smugglers and so on- at any rate all who had been rejected by the reigning system of legality , the law of the state. And in the nineteenth century, in the course of political struggles which permitted the proletariat to have itself recognised as a power with compelling demands...

.....the proletariat was obliged in some way to establish a speration between it and that other ‘agitated’ population. When labour unionisation was founded , in order to have itself recognised, it needed to dissociate itself from all the seditpous groups and from all those who refused the legal system: we are not the murderes, we are not attacking eoither people or goods; if we stop production , it is not in an outburst of absolute destruction, but inconjunction with very precise demands. Family morality which had absolutely no currency in popular circles at the end of the eighteenth century had become by the beginning of the nineteenth century one of the means by which the proletariat was able in some way to establish its respectability. Popular ‘virtue, the ‘good worker’, good father, good husband, respectful of the legal system, that is the image which since the eighteenth century the bourgeoisie proposed and imposed on the proletariat in order to turn it away from any form of vilent agitation, insurrection and any attempt to usurp power and its rules.”

Foucault, 1972