Genre and the Red Scare

My friends! O gnos, O friends, mythos and dianoia have returned, and they have brought company! There are two questions I know you are asking now. First, you must wonder why this happened. Well, when I was told to analyze genre, I decided I wanted to do so philosophically rather than arbitrarily, so I turned to Aristotle. This made my paper three pages longer than it needed to be, and it took me about a week and multiple late nights to adequatly grasp what I was going to say, but it was worth it. Second, you must wonder what I am doing in a college writing class. Well, I do not know why that is, except that it is demanded of all philosophers, but the subject about which the class writes is the Sacco-Vanzetti case. Enjoy!

Also, in the real paper, the Greek terms are in Greek, but that did not translate to 'blogger. Forgive any bizarre monsters I may have missed.

------------------------

In the Poetics of Aristotle, genres are differentiated by some disparity between the means, objects, and manner of one text and another (Aristotle 2316). By means, the Philosopher refers to “language, rhythm, and harmony” (Aristotle 2316). By objects, he refers to “actions, with agents who are necessarily either good or bad” (Aristotle 2317). By manner, he refers to how “each kind of object is represented” (Aristotle 2317). For Aristotle, there are also six elements by which he defines tragedy, which shall here be appropriated to define speech, memoir, and political cartoon. These elements are opsis, or spectacle; ethos, or character; mythos, or plot; lexis, or diction; melos, or melody; and dianoia, or thought (Aristotle 2320). In this way genre shall be drawn from the texts before us. The first is Frank Goodwin’s 1927 speech to the conservative Kiwanis Club in Lawrence, Massachusetts, called “Sacco-Vanzetti and the Red Peril,” in which he interprets the Sacco-Vanzetti case positively for its exposure of dangerous radicals in the United States (Topp 151). The second is Louis Post’s 1923 memoir, The Deportations Delirium of Nineteen-Twenty, which recalls his observations of the red scare from his post as assistant secretary of labor (Topp 81). Third, there is the political cartoon, “Come unto Me, Ye Opprest,” which appeared in the Memphis Commercial Appeal on 5 July 1919 (“Come unto Me”). The common historical thread of the red scare is chosen arbitrarily but in hopes that the commonality will ease understanding beyond content.

Following Aristotle, let us begin with the means of each text, the first being Goodwin’s speech. In the delivery of a speech, there are two elements present, lexis and opsis. Of the former, for our purposes, there are two types, the first being syntactical diction the second being audible diction. Both make up the means of the speech, in conjunction with opsis. Goodwin’s syntactical diction is communicated in prose throughout, but of what sort of prose? Consider the example of the speech’s conclusion, “that we are not ready yet to substitute as our national emblem the red flag of anarchy, for the Red, White, and Blue” (Goodwin 152). This is the destination of the whole speech, its telos; all was building to that point, so the lexis of a speech primarily consists of poetical points bolstered by elaboration. Goodwin, for instance, uses the supposed crime of Sacco and Vanzetti, describing all the ways in which their conviction was judged fair, linking it all to anarchy almost in the form of a list (Goodwin 152) before moving on to any forceful or general statement like his conclusion.

This is amplified by the audible diction, which describes how Goodwin speaks his prose. The mere presence of this type of diction is important to defining speech as a genre, but is highly illuminating when considered in conjunction with opsis. Though the latter is not essential, as a speech can be delivered by an unseen speaker, it is a frequent occurrence, and it is present for Goodwin’s “Sacco-Vanzetti and the Red Peril.” The intended feeling of the prose should be intensified by audible diction. The above quotation does not do well to be recited in a droll monotone. Optical signs in a way harmonize the audible text. Together, not only can the audience hear how the speaker wants them to feel, but they can also behold the responses of the speaker. It is bodily rhythm harmonizing audible rhythm. Though one is musical enough, how much the more so with both? One can imagine a pound of the fist or a wave of the arm accompanying Goodwin’s reading of his conclusion to fine effect. The means of a speech, then, are audible prose, often with optical accompaniment.

The means of Post’s memoir, The Deportations Delirium of Nineteen-Twenty, are much simpler, being merely the syntactical diction of lexis. Unlike a speech, a memoir is not inherently presented aloud, and there is no need or even frequency of optical accompaniment, neither of which are at all present in Post’s piece. Rather, the lexis of Post is mere prose, like that of Goodwin’s speech, the essential difference being inaudibility. Take, for example, Post’s statement, “Nor were search warrants used, though homes were invaded, trunks broken open, personal papers seized and personal privacies shamefully disturbed” (Post 81). The whole of Post’s means are visible here, and they are purely lexical. This list alone must be effective enough to convey the outrage of the misbehavior it describes, without the rhythmic pounding of the fist on each point or grim anger in vocal intonation. His words, “invaded,” “broken open,” “seized,” and “shamefully disturbed” must act alone to properly convey his negative attitude toward the events he describes. These are the essential means of memoir, as demonstrated by Post: mere, written prose.

It is interesting to note that the same elements that define the means of the cartoon “Come unto Me, Ye Opprest” also define Goodwin’s “Sacco-Vanzetti and the Red Peril.” These, of course, are lexis, as with Post, and opsis. In the cartoon, however, the spectacle is primary. In fact, it is the only truly necessary element, but the accompaniment of lexis is frequent and effective. The means of a cartoon are necessarily instantaneous in the sense of spectacle, as the whole image presents itself once and for all. This differentiates itself from the opsis of the speech in two ways. First, that of the speech is ongoing. It has multiple instances and it takes place for the duration of the speech. Second, it is not essential to the speech, but a cartoon without opsis ceases to be a cartoon. An analogy may be drawn with lexis. In memoir and speech, at least the syntactical diction of lexis is essential, but in the cartoon, it is not essential, just as the opsis is not essential to the speech. In this cartoon, the lexis amplifies what would otherwise be unclear, identifying the “European anarchist” and providing the caption, “Come unto Me, Ye Opprest” (“Come unto Me”). Neither is necessary, especially not the caption, but it adds to the effect of the cartoon. Not only does the anarchist seek to defeat liberty, but he also seeks to defeat the very liberty that welcomed him. These, then, are the means of the political cartoon: an instantaneous image, often with lexical augmentation.

We come now to the objects of these three texts, beginning again with Goodwin’s “Sacco-Vanzetti and the Red Scare.” For the speech, the objects represent dianoiai, one good and one bad. This Goodwin puts forth at the very start, beginning with the bad dianoia. He describes the general sort of ideal society envisioned by the average radical saying, “but as yet we are far from that state of mind, even in the colleges where they are teaching that there is no God, or in Godless Russia, where they murder their enemies without trial” (Goodwin 151). Essentially, Radicalism has been a failure, but for the good dianoia, “Thank God for the fundamentalists…they are practical enough that it is better to hold fast to what we have than attempt new experiments before we are mentally or morally ready for them” (Goodwin 151-152). Each is an idea, or thought, the radical ideas of the Reds and the conservative ideas of the fundamentalists, and they are opposed. It is interesting that this opposition should arise in this speech, as both a good and bad object need not be present. The opposition, therefore, is not essential to the speech, but the appearance of the object as dianoia is essential. It is imperative for a speech to be a speech, it not speak of characters or deliver a story, lest it become one. It must speak of ideas, the ideas of its speaker, whether he or she is real or fictional. The objects of speech, then, are the thoughts of a character, or ethos.

A memoir is quite opposed to the speech in this regard, for in Post’s narrative, ethoi abound, from Post himself to the unnamed detainee who was found insane. Rather than being the action of enunciating dianoia as is the case in speech, the ethoi of the memoir act through a mythos, these actions being good or bad, defining the goodness or badness of the ethos thereby. The acts of the Department of Justice define its badness in the course of the mythos, such as the act of releasing prisoners “as arbitrarily as they had been arrested, after periods of imprisonment ranging from a few hours to two or three days” (Post 82). Obviously, this is supposed to reflect poorly on the Department of Justice, by the mere report of what it did. As acts compound, the mythos progresses and the goodness or badness of the ethos is revealed, and such are the objects of memoir.

Interestingly, it is possible for speech to occur within any genre whose objects are displayed through mythos, as dianoia can certainly be among the acts. In fact, whenever a character speaks, especially at length, dianoia is revealed. When Post quotes the judge George Anderson as saying, “‘a mob is a mob, whether made up of Government officials acting under instructions from the Department of Justice, or of criminals and loafers and the vicious classes’” (Post 82), he is working within the framework of the mythos, expressing his dianoia, exposing, at least here, the goodness of his ethos. Even here, the objects of memoir are expressed by ethoi through the advance of mythos.

At last we come to the objects of the cartoon, “Come unto Me, Ye Opprest!” Like memoir, these are expressed through eqoi, but in an instant there can be no mythos. Rather, in this case the ethoi, just like the giver of a speech, act through dianoia. In the cartoon before us, the objects, one good and one bad, could hardly be more apparent, something that would appear necessary to an instantaneous image. The first object is the European anarchist, labeled as such, and his ethos illustrates the badness of the anarchist dianoia. He appears perfectly unsavory, shrouded in the darkness of Liberty’s shadow, masked and holding a bomb and a knife. There is further no question that both are meant for Liberty, upon whom he sneaks. This is his action, captured in an instant, and it shows him to be bad. Of the ethos of Liberty, she stands shrouded in the light of her torch, amplified by the text, “Come unto Me, Ye Opprest!” and this is her dianoia, that of light, figuratively speaking. She is shown good by representing this dianoia, encapsulated again in the instant. Thus the objects of the cartoon are ethoi expressing dianoia in the instant.

Finally, each genre has its own manner. As to the manner of speech, it has already been noted that speech communicates the dianoia of some ethos. This fact is indispensable. Not only must the speech be delivered by a single individual, but it also must be delivered in character. For example, Goodwin’s character is merely himself. There is no way for a speech to be delivered in the third person, unless one ethos starts sharing the thoughts of another as conceived by that other, and this is absurd. The speech must also take place before an audience, either an audience of peers, like Goodwin, or an audience at a drama or something of that kind, if one is portraying another character. Regardless, a speech delivered to no one is impossible, as it is arguably even both possible and inevitable to be one’s own audience.

The manner of Post’s memoir consists of his delivery as an individual, telling the story in the first person. In this way there is similarity to speech, that the narrator speaks in character, namely of himself or herself. It departs when the stories of others are narrated, the stories of things witnessed rather than things in which the narrator was involved, for example. So while the manner of speech is limited to the individual speaking in character, the manner of memoir allows the individual to speak both in character and narrate the acts of other characters. Another difference arises in that, while speech can be delivered in character, the only character available to the memoirist is himself or herself. Such is the manner of memoir.

At last, there is the manner of the cartoon, which consists of communication by the individual artist through the ethoi of his cartoon, representing dianoiai. Unlike both the speech and the memoir, the representation is entirely separate from its deliverer. The characters, eqoi, do not deliver themselves, they are composed by another. In this way cartoons are akin to drama, wherein the stage is set within the panel, and all interaction takes place therein. The characters behave “as though they were actually doing the things described” (Aristotle 2317), which is Aristotle’s description of the dramatic. The difference is instantaneity. Such is the manner of cartoon.

It falls to us finally to define each genre against the others, thereby discovering what each essentially is. In sum, the genre of speech consists of the means of audible prose, often with optical accompaniment; the objects are the ideas of its speaker; and the manner is of communication by an individual character to an audience. The genre of memoir consists of the means of mere, written prose; its objects are the actions of characters through plot; and the manner is that of an individual speaking as himself or herself and of the actions of others. The genre of cartoon consists of the means of an instantaneous image, often with lexical accompaniment; the objects of characters representing thoughts; and the manner of drama, that is the narrator representing characters that act as themselves. Such, at least, is indicated by our texts; that even bearing similar subject matter, none of their genres agree. Furthermore, even in this arbitrary selection, each genre is distinct and irreducible, lest the definitions cease to represent the genres they are supposed to define. At last, such are speech, memoir, and cartoon.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Poetics. I. Bywater, tr. The Complete Works of Aristotle. 2 vols. Ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1984.

“Come unto Me, Ye Opprest.” Red Scare. 19 Feb. 2009

Goodwin, Frank. “Sacco-Vanzetti and the Red Peril.” The Sacco and Vanzetti Case. A Brief History with Documents. Ed. Michael Topp. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005. 151- 152.

Post, Louis. The Deportations Delirium of Nineteen-Twenty: A Personal Narrative of an Official Historic Experience. The Sacco and Vanzetti Case. A Brief History with Documents. Ed. Michael Topp. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005. 81-84.

Topp, Michael. The Sacco and Vanzetti Case. A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005.