Esther Bae
Dr. Steph Brown
English 306
3 November 2016
Drafts
Historical
Context:
America
in the 1920s was like nothing ever before. It was the epoch of new culture and
frivolous lifestyle, the advancement of technology, reform of politics, the
breaking off from tradition, the modern-day beginnings of metropolitan – the
“Roaring Twenties” they liked to call it. Embodied by Great Gatsby themes, America’s
long, spirited party celebrating the end of World War I, was quickly becoming a
new era, reaching the greatest height of social and political reform in its
decade.
The
Progressive Era – an attempt (largely by government) to reform the country –
was concluded with Prohibition. Prohibition was passed as the 18th
Amendment under U.S. law in 1920: sale, transportation, and production of
alcoholic beverages were banned, although, that did not entirely prevent its
consuming. In fact, many dubbed Prohibition as the failed “Noble Experiment” –
a mockery to President Hoover’s speech. In fact, the idea of it (even when
engrained as law) was a naïve one (Peck 12). Expectedly, this enactment came
with a response from Americans – more so from those residing in urban areas.
Prohibition meant stripping citizens of their rights (Ely 255). Personal choice
no longer seemed to be in effect. It meant that the opportunity to be carefree
and happy, especially relevant when placed in context of the vibrant Jazz Age,
was no longer. Anti-prohibition groups protested in a less visible way; they
protested by deliberating going against law – choosing illegal over legal (an act
of defiance against government). It did not take long for speakeasies to become
an accessible medium between Americans wanting to consume alcohol, crime
(liquor smuggling), and politics in the form of bribery (Funderburg). In
historical literature, Al Capone may just be the most famed gangster. The presence
of such people and associated movements during the Progressive Era, marked one
of largest (illegal) protest movements against government of its time. However,
opposition to these anti-Prohibition movements continued to survive well into
this decade, forming a dichotomy of American values.
The
Temperance movements were led by Christian evangelical groups (especially,
women) and later on, moral suasion organizations, anti-saloon leagues, the
middle-class, and working men who fought to reduce the dependence and limit the
quantity of liquor consumption (Andersen 15). Andersen points out that “This
movement nagged that the nation’s alcohol consumption levels had crossed the
threshold of acceptability” (9). However, the Temperance movements did not stir
America for a rude awakening, rather, it was a long, arduous effort dating back
to colonial America that gradually became recognized for its political activism
and moral crusades against the dangers of saloon and liquor traffic (McGirr
17). The scale of what these reformers
were about to undertake was incomprehensible, almost too burdensome: it was the
shiniest time in America and liquor was the common core of all social activity,
leisure, and mass politics. “Urbanities, ethnic minorities, immigrants, and
blue – color workers generally favored little or no regulation of the liquor
traffic” (Funderburg 3). And especially, crime bosses favored no government
regulation of their most prosperous, underhanded business. However, an
organized constituency of those for the control of alcohol became apparent: the
rise of the Prohibition Party in the late 19th century reached its
height during the 1920s, becoming the longest-living 3rd party in
U.S. history.
The
backlash to Prohibition was great and the idea of it, was ridiculed as naïve. Scholar
Ian R. Tyrrell argues that many modern historians “have depicted the temperance
movement as an intolerant and futile attempt…to stem the flow of social change
and to impose the cultural values of native-born Americans on urban and
immigrant America” (Blocker 45). In fact, the era in which Prohibition was placed
in was denounced as a “pseudo-reform, a pinched, parochial substitute for
reform” and Prohibition itself as “ludicrous caricature of the reforming impulse” by historian Richard Hofstadter (Witt). However, scholars
have shown sympathy towards the determinations prevalent during the Progressive
Era. Exaggerated failures and shortcomings of a new era came naturally with a break
from tradition and rise to modernity. Nonetheless, it was evident that
Prohibition (a major progressive movement from 1920 to 1933) had a counterintuitive facet – that is, “The enactment of
Prohibition unleashed a massive crime wave from coast to coast” (Funderburg 3).
The essence of Prohibition – to improve society – became a curveball:
anti-Prohibition movements played hardball in this tense game between the national
government and its people.
Now,
the period of crisis following its inception (the divided stance on liquor –
essentially, Temperance activists versus those not), was marked by respective
methodologies in articulating protest. Temperance movements saw that sobriety
was the only way to save mankind. “With the focused zeal of true believers, dry
activists preached and proselytized. They organized, petitioned, marched,
lobbied, and voted for their noble cause” (Funderburg 4). However, the “wets”
(those against Prohibition) were strikingly different in their approach to
crisis: the biggest flaw was the lack in strong leadership. The endless circle
of drinkers relying on liquor businesses and concurrently, businesses placing
their trust on their faithful customers threatened their purpose and contributed
to their lackluster organization. However, one thing was sure. There was a
brewing (literally) taking place underground as saloons, family homes and
apartments, “mom-and-pop operations,” all practiced illegal liquor business,
creating “an epidemic of greed, ineptitude, and hypocrisy” (Funderburg 340).
Because of this desirable trend of illegal practice that produced glamorous
luxuries and heroic tales of noncompliance against government, many hopped onto
the bandwagon and soon, the infiltration of corrupt politics and crime became a
reminder that America was falling back onto itself and regressing back into the
Gilded Age. Eventually, the U.S. government was disillusioned with the outcome
and the anticlimactic demise of Prohibition concluded with its consummation:
the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in
1933 and the national ban on liquor was lifted (although, some states continued
to implement temperance laws).
Regardless
of whether or not Prohibition had been effective in its original intent, “The
decade-long national experiment, McGirr argues, laid the foundation for the
modern American state, fundamentally transforming a federal government… [which]
… helped produce the New Deal coalition and the modern Democratic Party”
(Witt). For us (the spectators) who get a zoomed-out perspective, the game
between government, Temperance movements, and anti-Prohibition saloons and
businesses, may have looked like a three-way tie – there was no clear winner.
However, the game left America with the vision of a larger government, a sense
of moralism (and demoralization), and the notable rise to modernity.
Works Cited:
Andersen,
Lisa M. F. The Politics of Prohibition:
American Governance and the Prohibition Party,
1869-1933. Cambridge University Press, Sept. 2013.
Blocker,
Jack S. Alcohol, reform and society: the
liquor issue in social context. Greenwood Press,
1979.
Ely,
James W. “The Progressive Era Assault on Individualism and Property Rights.” Social Philosophy
and Policy, vol. 29, issue 2. Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp.
255-282.
Funderburg, Anne J. Bootleggers and Beer Barons of the Prohibition Era. McFarland,
2014.
McGirr, Lisa. The war on alcohol: Prohibition and the rise of the American state.
W.W. Norton & Company, 2015.
Peck,
Garrett. Prohibition Hangover: Alcohol in
America from Demon Rum to Cult Cabernet. Rutgers
University Press. 2009.
Witt, John F. “Booze and Big Government.”
The Wall Street Journal, 18 Dec. 2015.
Rhetorical
Context:
Progressive
rhetoric is a term coined from the language used during Progressive Era – a
time in which America underwent a large socio-political reform in an arguably
futile attempt to get rid of corrupt politics and modernize culture. Scholar
Malcolm Magee states that the Progressive Era was “fueled by a moral rhetoric
that was founded on faith in the common man and optimism about the
possibilities for human progress…[which] introduced a new vocabulary along with
its new view of society and politics” (90). National leaders were persuasive in
language by amassing all American hood into a single unity of progress. Since
Prohibition was the era in which the break from tradition became the ultimate
direction in moving the country and its people, rhetoric was reflected off of
that notion – the era introduced “…robust democratic speech and public
deliberation” (Magee 90). The essential component in this era’s rhetoric is the
balance between containing individualism yet entrusting people with their
government – use of ethos proves effective. The Progressive Era was interesting
in that the many movements associated with this time period – specifically,
anti/pro-Prohibition protest groups – employed specific rhetoric from their
respective camps and both government and its people introduced a new sort of
rhetoric.
The
Temperance movements (specifically, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union) merged
under the large umbrella of the Prohibition Party, were led by women that were
defiant and purposeful – not docile or static – in their choice of rhetoric.
These women were the largest fraction of women in the 19th century
(Mattingly 1). Characterized by orators and rhetors that were able to “meld a
progressive message with a rhetorical presentation and image comfortable to a
large number of women and men,” Temperance women paralleled the ideas of both
men and women in order to accommodate to the entire prism of America (Mattingly
1). In order to do this effectively, these women tuned to their audiences and
speeches and letters were addressed accordingly to the listeners – an effective
use of ethos. Moreover, Mattingly states that the stirring of the audience was
most notably seen when rhetors were first introduced to the “traditional
feminine expectations with persuasive appeals for change” (19). These appeals
were marked by allusions to history, the Bible, and womanhood (a central
identity) in order to secure purpose and mutual understanding between the
orators themselves and the audience.
Rhetorically,
Temperance leaders “…reached mainstream, middle-class women by couching
innovative, nontraditional ideas in traditional language, thereby familiarizing
the unfamiliar” (Kessler 636). This was the movement’s rhetorical goal: new
language and new ideas were placed in context of tradition and value in order
to gain a sense of past in the present. As their rhetorical goals were
strengthened by influential supporters of their campaign, their legislative goal
had been manifested by the passage of the 18th Amendment. However,
the desire to reform America into a dry land and entirely stop the consumption
of liquor was a massive undertaking not entirely in their hands.
A
common identity to both arguments of Prohibition was “American.” The definition,
and more so the importance, of being an American
meant freedom and responsibility – and these two concepts often parallel
one another. However, the division of freedom versus responsibility created two
fractions: anti-Prohibition groups and Temperance movements, respectively. And
the overall identity of “American” became fractured into two distinct images
during the Progressive Era. These two images produced contrasting rhetoric and
the medium in which rhetoric was shared. Temperance groups protested formally through
letters and speeches that contained didactic language, using logic-based and
pathos-driven persuasion. However, the anti-Prohibition groups used a different
type of rhetoric: dark humor mainly through political cartoons satirizing
government’s ineffective attempt in creating a dry America (“Becoming Modern”). And while these different
styles did not seem to be apparently appropriate, these different applications of
rhetoric were effective to its audience. The Temperance movement was a moral
campaign that wanted to push for legislation prohibiting liquor; whereas, the
anti-Prohibition movement was a large, collective social club that fought for
the return of alcohol. The dichotomy here is manifest: one was for the
progression of humanity and value whereas the latter was for the regression
into American social culture.
The
dissonance between government and its unsatisfied citizens (drinkers) produced
rhetoric that was different: the idea of going against government in a modern
era through dark humor and protesting in illegal ways, was new. Anti-Prohibition
groups made sure to blame the government on its shortcomings: use of satire (specifically,
black humor) was used to address the controversy on government. Since,
government was involved in the black market of liquor and crime even throughout
the Progressive Era, the whole idea of Prohibition was a fallacy to drinkers.
Hence, their rhetoric (and form of protest) was in ways, a way in which the
national government was outsmarted by their citizens.
The
Prohibition Party – a minor party that opposed the consumption and sale of
alcohol – took on rhetoric and this time, the Temperance movement literally applied
rhetoric in its standard context – politics. The Prohibition Party was special in that it
encountered the turn of the 20th century and witnessed the
development of modernity; the Party underwent Progressive change and
especially, Progressive rhetoric. Their methodologies changed in order to
accommodate the changing historical, social, and rhetoric sphere. “The
Prohibition Party’s story… [depicted] partisans’ debate with reformers,
pressure groups, and anti-prohibitionists about the relative value of nineteenth-century
governance through courts and parties and twentieth-century forms of governance
that prioritized professional and centralized leadership … and to Prohibitionists’
critics, gestures such as celebrating women leaders, [and] engaging in direct action
protests” (Andersen 5). The rhetoric of
the Prohibition Party was not unlike any other political party; the leaders and
orators valued the identity of “American,” retaining tradition but also emphasizing
the need for progress (a better country), disapproving the current state of government
affairs, and criticizing the opposition (anti-Prohibitionists).
Progressive
rhetoric was a reminder of America’s transition into modernity: new vocabulary
was an indication of a break from tradition and the creation of a new state. Like
the term suggests, Progressive is defined as the involvement of government and reform,
and rhetoric as persuasive speech or writing. The collaboration of these
elements created a new sort of language that embodied the idea of progress and
socio-political activism with the help of government intervention.
Works Cited
Andersen,
Lisa M. F. The Politics of Prohibition:
American Governance and the Prohibition Party,
1869-1933. Cambridge University Press, Sept. 2013.
Magee, Malcolm.
"Speaking of Progress: The Rhetoric of Reform in the Progressive
Era." The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, vol. 3, no. 1, 2004, pp. 90-94.
Mattingly,
Carol F. Well-tempered women:
Nineteenth-Century Temperance Rhetoric.
Questions:
1. My historical context is dense with
significant movements and eras that span over a long time period. Is the
organization of my historical context seem to provide clear details/examples of
the movements without being overly wordy or out-of-place?
2. I
feel as though my rhetorical context lacks analysis – do you think there are
certain rhetorical elements in which I should introduce and analyze (i.e. are
there any major rhetorical elements missing?)
3. In some parts of my paper, I do think I
am being redundant – especially, in the rhetorical context portion. Can my
paper be re-organized in such a way to avoid this?
No comments:
Post a Comment