ABSTRACT I CAN’T SPEAK: SOCIAL CONTROL AND THE IWW FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT

Beginning in the spring of 1910, downtown Fresno became the center of a heated free speech strike. Police Chief Shaw ordered the arrest of members of the Industrial Workers of the World, known as Wobblies, for giving speeches on downtown street corners without a permit. Wobblies flocked to Fresno to protest the policy by attempting to give speeches and being themselves arrested. This thesis offers a rhetorical criticism of the rhetoric of control that was expressed by the ruling class of Fresno. The policies restricting speech on public streets, and local newspaper reports that were written during the strike comprised the rhetoric of control that sought to silence the Wobblies. This thesis also critiques the rhetoric of resistance produced by the IWW. This rhetoric of resistance was composed of the rhetorical acts, firsthand accounts and contemporaneous stories published in the IWW’s own press. This study examines the use of the war metaphor as found in each of these rhetorics, and it identifies the images that were used in each of these rhetorics to support the metaphor. The thesis makes the argument that in the rhetoric of control the war metaphor and the images used in its support, restricted the popular understanding of the strike resulting in negative outcomes. In the rhetoric of resistance, the war metaphor and images used by the IWW worked to build support for the union and galvanize the union membership.

James K. Bartram August 2018

I CAN’T SPEAK: SOCIAL CONTROL AND THE IWW FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT

by James K. Bartram

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communication in the College of Arts and Humanities California State University, Fresno August 2018 APPROVED For the Department of Communication:

We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree.

James K. Bartram Thesis Author

Diane Blair (Chair) Communication

Douglas Fraleigh Communication

Kevin J Ayotte Communication

For the University Graduate Committee:

Dean, Division of Graduate Studies AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS

X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship.

Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must be obtained from me.

Signature of thesis author: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the committee that helped bring this thesis to fruition. For Diane Blair for your support, encouragement, and tireless work; without your counsel, I would never have been able to keep this work focused. For Doug Fraleigh and Kevin Ayotte who both have given me inspiration and invaluable feedback. I would also like to thank my friend and colleague Linda Carvalho Cooley who encouraged me to “get back in the game.” A special thank you is also owed to Janet Little Botkin for her generous gifts of time and inspiration and more than a few insights and research tips. Also thank you to the Fresno County Library San Joaquin Valley Heritage & Genealogy Center for their help and company during hours spent together. Finally, I want to thank my family, Cecilia, for your hard work and sacrifices to help me through the real tough times. For David and Emily, for your love and support and teaching me that it is never too late for a second chance. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Review of Literature ...... 3

Research Questions ...... 7

Materials Being Evaluated ...... 9

CHAPTER 2: THEORY AND METHODS ...... 13

Social Movements as Subject of Rhetorical Criticism ...... 13

Rhetorical Practice Employed in This Study ...... 32

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS OF THE RHETORIC OF CONTROL ...... 34

Hegemony in Fresno ...... 35

War as a Metaphor ...... 38

Implications of the War Metaphor ...... 52

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF RHETORIC OF RESISTANCE ...... 62

Rhetoric of Resistance as Counter-Hegemony ...... 63

Metaphor: The War of Liberation ...... 65

Visual Images ...... 71

External Messaging ...... 72

Internal Messaging ...... 83

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...... 95

Summary ...... 95

Interpretation of Findings ...... 100

Suggestions for Future Research ...... 105

Final Thoughts ...... 107

REFERENCES ...... 108 vi vi Page

APPENDICES ...... 119

APPENDIX A: AN IDENTITY OF INTEREST ...... 120 APPENDIX B: FREE SPEECH IS YET MUZZLED IN FRESNO, CALIFORNIA ...... 123

APPENDIX C: IS IT ABOUT TO STRIKE? ...... 126

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

On April 17, 1910, several members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) including W. F. “Fred” Little set up a soapbox on the corner of “I” and Mariposa streets in downtown Fresno. Like many times before, one of the members of the IWW began a speech encouraging laborers to join the union. This night, however, the speaker was arrested. W.F. Little, who had obtained a speaking permit from the Chief of Police William Shaw, was told he would be permitted to speak as long as he did not criticize the police. A City of Fresno Police regulation required that all persons or organizations must obtain a permit from the Chief of Police before giving a speech on a public street. After receiving complaints from labor contractors about the IWW, Chief of Police William Shaw revoked the speaking permit for Little and the IWW in order to make organizing more difficult for the union. In the IWW publication, Solidarity Frank Little, W. F. Little’s brother, reported that “If we had the streets so we could get to the workers we could build up a good fighting organization” (W. F. Little, 1910, p. 1). Fresno has always been a hub for unskilled labor in agriculture and building projects. As such, Fresno was ripe for unionization (Foner, 1981). The IWW had found that by far the most effective tool for recruiting was the soapbox speech; so, the restriction on street speaking created a nearly insurmountable obstacle thwarting the efforts of union organizers including Frank and Fred Little who sought, in particular, to bring the IWW to Fresno (Kornbluh, 1964). This arrest of members of the IWW, known as Wobblies, set off the Fresno Free Speech Fight. Over the course of the next year, the strategy of the Wobblies was to challenge the 2 2 prohibition on street speaking through direct action violating the order, and filling the jail with what Matthew May (2013) called “hobo orators” (p. 1). Joyce L. Kornbluh (1964) reported that “The I.W.W. migrant was called a hobo as distinguished from a tramp or a bum” (p. 67). She further related that the term may have originally been a shortening of “hoe-boy” a term used for migrant workers who would carry handheld farm implements as part of their “kit.” It would seem that like the term Wobbly the term hobo has no definitive origins. May (2013) remarked that he believes he is the first to utilize the term hobo orators in his description of the Wobbly soapbox speakers that are the subject of this study. These hobo Wobblies came to Fresno in boxcars to join their brother and sister Wobblies in fighting for the right to organize (Clyde, 1981). The City of Fresno became the center of a struggle between the IWW and local law enforcement in which Wobblies engaged in civil disobedience, violating the ban on public oratory with the goal of making the law unenforceable. The union faced rigid opposition from not only the Sheriff, but the Mayor’s office, farmers, the city trustees, and local newspapers, in other words; quite literally the establishment of the City of Fresno. This little-discussed historical event offers an opportunity to evaluate the rhetoric of control and to study how the rhetoric of control functions to silence the rhetoric of marginalized groups like the itinerant workers who were members of the IWW. In his discussion of control and resistance in social movements, John M. Murphy (1992) observed that social change is the product of a criticism of the practices of social control that result in what he called “The domestication or silencing of alternative voices within society” (p. 65). In the rhetorical situation of the Fresno free speech movement, the speakers were utterly silenced publicly. 3 3

Although there have been several works covering the Fresno free speech fight as a historical event, it has received scant attention from a rhetorical perspective, and yet on its face, it would seem to be a classic exemplar of the rhetoric of both control and its subsequent resistance. This paper seeks to analyze the rhetoric of control used to silence the IWW and the rhetoric of resistance that emerged as a response. At its heart, the Fresno free speech fight was a battle between two competing ideologies each producing rhetoric that sought to shape understandings of free speech and labor rights. The ruling class of Fresno produced a rhetoric of control crafted to maintain hegemony over the working class as embodied by the IWW. The Wobblies in turn produced messaging aimed at challenging the hegemony of the ruling class. If an analysis of the Fresno free speech movement is to be critical, then it is necessary for this study to situate itself within the literature regarding labor struggles as well as the critical approach best suited to exploring the available rhetorical texts that remain of this historic moment.

Review of Literature A wealth of literature has been produced examining the history and tactics of the IWW. These studies help reveal the class basis of these struggles. In the case of the Fresno free speech fight, the outcome further illustrates how the first amendment calls into question the constitutionality of speaking bans such as the Fresno City restriction. A careful examination of how the Wobblies challenged restrictions on freedom of speech should help establish a foundation from which we may draw new insights into the conflict of rhetoric seen in the Fresno free speech fight. This restriction can be seen in the city’s position limiting speech as well as in how the IWW and the City of Fresno engaged with each other. 4 4

Labor unions have struggled to have their messages heard since their inception and studies of this struggle have taken various forms. Historical studies have focused on the durability or longevity of the union as a measure of success. Leland M. Griffin (1952) noted that many labor studies have focused on outlines of important historical dates and events, but these studies seldom take a rhetorical view. Griffin’s complaint remains true today. Although several excellent studies of the IWW, its work, and its founders have been written, the perspective that much of these writings take is historical, not rhetorical. These studies also tend to view ideologies as fixed positions.

Historical Studies of the IWW One of the first studies of the IWW was, Philip S. Foner’s (1965) detailed academic history of the IWW. However, the focus of Foner’s writing was on events and actions of the union not necessarily on the rhetorical implications of these acts, and he fails to critically examine dominant ideologies of the establishment in the early 1900s. Patrick Renshaw’s (1967) book Wobblies, offered a great understating of the founding of the IWW. This book included insights into the union’s commitment to Marxist principals, the rationale for sabotage and the greater international view or “syndicalism” (p. 1). Melvyn Dubofsky’s 1969 book We Shall Be All presented a detailed history of the IWW that remains influential in its encyclopedic delineation of the union. Its influence and dependability as source of information on the IWW cannot be overstated as it remains one of the best sources of general information on the IWW available. Dubofsky’s brief treatment of the Fresno free speech strike sketches the outlines of the events but lacks personal details and firsthand accounts found in less academic works such as Judith Kornbluh’s 1964 anthology of Wobbly artifacts and first- 5 5 person narratives. Although this is not a cohesive history of the IWW, this collection acts as a resource that has been useful to many subsequent scholars and is the source for some of the fragments used in this criticism. In 1978 Glen Broyles wrote a study of the free speech fight in Spokane Washington. His article was a historical study of tactics used by the union in resisting the local ban on street speaking. The Spokane free speech fight is frequently studied as a landmark battle in what became a series of free speech fights. The Spokane chapter of the free speech fight has drawn a great deal of attention partially because of the direct involvement of union leadership including a fiery speech by Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who was imprisoned during the strike (Broyles, 1978). In the absence of strong central figures and a clear text such as Flynn’s oratory, the Fresno free speech fight with a decentralized, fragmented text, remains understudied despite holding a pivotal role in the IWW free speech movement and a more successful outcome (Broyles, 1978). In Spokane, the IWW honed many of the tactics that became useful in the subsequent conflicts most importantly Fresno. IWW organizer Frank Little who played a vital role in advancing the Fresno free speech fight brought valuable experience with him from Spokane. Several other works have focused on the free speech movement of the IWW. In 1981 the labor historian Phillip S. Foner added another book on the IWW free speech fight to his previous work with a collection of firsthand accounts of the events that transpired during the free speech battles throughout the Western United States. The authors tell of their own experiences in the colorful language of iterant workers who willingly traveled by foot and freight car to participate in the free speech fights. Their accounts of the Wobbly network, their travels, participation in 6 6 civil disobedience, subsequent trial and jailing are invaluable artifacts for rhetorical study. Later works by Greg Hall (2001) and Richard Street (2004) offered rich details about the history of the IWW in organizing farm workers. Their books included discussions of the free speech fights in the western states, but they remained historical in nature and failed to explain how the Marxist ideology of the IWW sought to supplant the dominant ideology of the establishment. In addition to the thorough histories of the IWW, many rhetorical scholars such as Mari Boor Tonn (1996) have written excellent rhetorical criticisms of the works of IWW leaders like Mary Harris “Mother” Jones. Other works have looked to the rhetoric of IWW leaders Lucy Parsons and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn (Zandy, 2010). However, these criticisms focus on singular rhetors and do not center on the rhetorical acts of the IWW as a social movement nor on the establishment’s efforts to control them. The IWW free speech fight in Spokane became the study of May’s (2011) rhetorical study. In the study, May focused on class consciousness and on how “capital disciplines and manages speaking bodies” (p. 158). This critical rhetorical study while exploring how the identities of the Wobblies were transformed through rhetoric, remained focused on the rhetoric of resistance as a modality of identity construction. May expands on these ideas in his 2013 book that looks at the free speech movement as a whole including the Fresno chapter. This well- researched resource expanded the overall context and scope by discussing political and historical factors that the union organized to resist. However, the interest is still in the IWW and its members regarding the free speech fights as “a vast oratorical war machine” (May, 2013, p. 114). May illustrated both the importance of the free speech movement as a subject for rhetorical criticism, as well as the 7 7 further need to evaluate the messages produced by the establishment in Fresno and the Wobblies. As an important historical event, the Fresno free speech movement is clearly worth studying. If we are to study it as a rhetorical event, that study should reveal new understandings as the result of asking new and different questions.

Research Questions Lee Artz (2006) contended that communication is a process in which understanding and meaning are always being contested. The dialectical forces of control and resistance create a frame in which these two forces compete for acceptance by society at large. The establishment creates rhetorical meanings that exert a power of dominance that seeks continuity and stability. At the same time, forces of resistance reject the meanings offered by the establishment and then offer up in their place alternative meanings. James Arnt Aune (1994) observed that the forces of control and resistance are always at play in social discourse, vying for supremacy. In the case of the Fresno free speech fight, the establishment of the City of Fresno exerted control in the form of a ban on street speaking, and the forces of resistance offered up a competing message challenging the hegemony and calling for first amendment rights for all citizens regardless of social status. It is these oppositional messages viewed in a dialectical process that was put forward by the established social institutions on the one hand and challenged by the IWW on the other that raise several important questions. By studying the various mechanisms of control exerted by the establishment of Fresno and the resistance from the IWW this paper seeks to answer four important research questions. RQ1: How were particular language choices used by the establishment of Fresno in an effort to control and contain messaging by the IWW?

8 8

RQ2: How does the rhetoric of control reinforce the domination of the ruling class?

RQ3: How were metaphors and, images employed by the IWW in resisting the rhetoric of control?

RQ4: How do these resistance strategies challenge the hegemony of the rhetoric of the ruling class?

The efforts of control that were exerted by the city government and other social structures in Fresno gave rise to the first research question. The first research question asks that we clearly identify what the rhetoric of control was as well as identifying which social elements comprised hegemony in the context of this study. Antonio Gramsci (1971) pointed out that the elements of hegemony are hardly limited to governmental power. This is a study of city laws and police policy regarding the ban on street speaking by the City of Fresno, efforts exerted by the press, church, and the community and as a last resort directed acts of violence at the IWW. The Fresno free speech fight was documented in the daily papers in the City of Fresno, the papers of larger cities, the IWW press and in the personal narratives of the participants. These fragments will be pieced together to present an argument that according to Rayme McKerrow (1989) should expose the deep structures of class repression contained in the rhetoric of the hegemony as well as the rhetoric of resistance found in the work of the IWW. The second research question asks for an evaluation that should help elucidate how the rhetoric of control as used by the ruling elite, worked to reinforce the domination by the ruling class in Fresno. The third research question specifically askes that this study investigate what metaphor(s) were used as rhetorical devices by the 9 9

IWW in development of the rhetoric of resistance. The third research question calls for an explication of the specific strategies of the IWW used to resist control. The IWW resistance of control has a long legacy, and that legacy is due in part to the success of many of the Wobblies tactics and strategies (Foner, 1965; Renshaw, 1967). This inquiry seeks understandings that bear consideration today and should expand the understanding of the rhetoric of control and resistance. This final research question requires an examination of the rhetorical strategies of the IWW that were employed to resist the rhetoric of control utilized by the ruling class in Fresno. If the rhetoric targeting the Wobblies is hegemonic in nature, then the rhetoric of the Wobblies can be seen as counter-hegemonic. The strategies of this counter-hegemonic rhetoric ought to reveal much about how the IWW understood and responded to the rhetoric of the ruling class in Fresno. The rhetoric evaluated to answer these questions is found in a collection of primary source materials that are used to explicate the rhetoric of control as well as the counter-hegemonic rhetoric.

Materials Being Evaluated The fragmentary texts of the IWW Fresno free speech movement, offer a fascinating chronicle of a critical moment in history. A confluence of social forces and ideologies clashed in a struggle between two social classes over the right to speak and organize freely on city streets. After reviewing the body of material on the subjects of labor history, labor rhetoric, social movement rhetoric, with an emphasis on critical rhetoric two clear implications come to light. First, critical rhetorical praxis is particularly useful and appropriate for offering an understanding of the role of social class in producing ideologically driven rhetorics of control and resistance. Despite her criticism of post-modernism, Dana 10 10

Cloud (1994) noted that a critical rhetoric allows for a discussion of competing conceptions of reality constructed by differing parties. In this case, a critical rhetoric allows for the analysis of the competing understandings of American social order and its institutions including the First Amendment. More importantly, this view offers a clear understating of how hegemonic power produces and exercises control and wields this power to repress new confrontational ideologies. Critical rhetoric further enables the critic to evaluate the emergent rhetoric of the resistance to the rhetoric of control. Secondly, it would appear that rhetoric that centers on the work of individuals is insufficient to explore the nuances of a critique of the Fresno free speech movement given the pluralistic nature of the text. Because more traditional rhetorical criticism also lacks the standpoint to offer ethical judgments, they are also poorly equipped to critique power dynamics especially those that include the use of violence in suppressing the union. As noted in the review of the literature, in the case of the Fresno free speech movement, there is not a single individual rhetor, there are no artifacts of speech. What we have is the opposite, we have artifacts surrounding speeches that were conspicuously not allowed to be given, and frankly, the wealth of artifacts come from articles and editorials in newspapers of the era. With the exception of the Wobblies own publications, the material printed at the time of the strike was published by establishment sources and for the most part, reflected the perspective of local businessmen and elected officials. The fragmented texts that remain reflect little of what was said and less about what was intended. The actual names and identities of most of the men and women who participated were never recorded (Botkin, 2017). By way of example, The April 17, 1910 edition of The Fresno Morning Republican reported that a “Mexican speaker” spoke to his 11 11

“peons” (“Mexican speaker is stopped,” 1910, p. 1). The plaque in downtown Fresno identifying the corner of Mariposa and “I” street as a historical landmark commemorating the Fresno free speech strike bears no name. Frank Little perhaps the best known of the Wobblies who fought for freedom of speech on the streets of Fresno is one of only a handful of participants whose name is connected to the struggle (Foner, 1965). Many of the men who were arrested gave aliases when they were booked into the Fresno County Jail, and those like Emma Little who wrote letters to the editor of local newspapers or articles for IWW publications like Solidarity did so with pen names to hide their identity or mask their gender (Botkin, 2017). As the strike wore on an increasing number of letters to the editor offered sympathy for the strikers and expressed frustration with the city regarding the mass incarceration of the Wobblies (Botkin, 2017). The owner of the Fresno Republican Dr. Chester A. Rowell was a physician, businessman, a former state Senator and, also the Mayor of Fresno with strong ties to the local raisin farmers (Street, 2004). It makes sense to look to the works of Gramsci (1971) Todd Gitlin (1980) and Murphy (1992) as useful tools in examining this rhetoric of hegemonic control exerted by the local establishment. These perspectives are especially useful for a critical rhetoric that seeks to examine how the rhetoric of the establishment exerts control in what McKerrow (1989) saw as a contested struggle for meaning and power. In the next chapter, these understandings are expanded on as a necessary part of the larger review of the rhetorical literature. Therefore, the objects of study for the rhetoric of control and domination are primarily the order restricting public speech and, the original news articles published in Fresno’s two newspapers: The Fresno Morning Republican and the Fresno Herald. The artifacts for the study of the rhetoric of resistance consist of 12 12 articles published in the IWW publications Industrial Worker and Solidarity as well as articles carried in the daily newspapers of larger cities. There are also a few firsthand accounts, collected by Kornbluh (1964) and Foner (1981), written by Wobblies who participated in the Fresno Free Speech Movement that are to be considered as fragments of the constituted text in this thesis. Artifacts representing the rhetoric of control are categorized into three groups, each signifying a different aspect of hegemony in Fresno. The first group represents efforts to use the legal system to control the speech of the Wobblies. The second set represents social pressure from civic leaders including the editors of the local papers and the clergy. The last section covers the use of illegitimate force or violence directed at the Wobblies. Artifacts of resistance will be collected in two sets, one representing messages of resistance against external forces. The second set will include rhetoric designed to either bolster union members internally or to attract new members.

CHAPTER 2: THEORY AND METHODS

In an effort to analyze the rhetoric of control used by the ruling elite in Fresno to repress the working class, it is vital first to review the relevant body of literature that grounds the theoretical framework and methods being employed in this study. This chapter focuses on the relevant scholarly literature informing this project. In the first section, changes in rhetorical studies of social movements are observed, culminating in a contemporary understanding that viewed social movements as organic entities that utilize rhetoric, including symbolic acts, to achieve particular ends. Unions that organize unskilled labor, such as the IWW, often are composed of marginalized groups. Furthermore, the study illuminates how rhetorical criticisms have developed innovative practices, including critical rhetoric that enables the critic to select specific perspectives from which to view rhetorical speech and acts. The second part develops an understanding of the rhetoric of control that views the struggle for hegemony as a struggle fought using ideological symbols in which those who enjoy political and social power seek to dominate the subordinate class. In the third section, the literature on the rhetoric of resistance is reviewed developing an understanding of the rhetoric of groups such as the IWW as a co-constructed rhetoric that served to both confront the rhetoric of control but also to build support and identity among workers. The final section builds an argument for the application of critical rhetoric as a framework for deriving understandings from the primary source material used in the thesis.

Social Movements as Subject of Rhetorical Criticism The rhetorical study of social movements such as the IWW became possible with the work of theorists like Leland M. Griffin (1952) who opened the door for the criticism of movements. It is both important and useful to discuss the 14 14 developments in rhetorical theory that led to shifts in how scholars may view texts, audiences and the goals of social movement and protest rhetoric. The trajectory takes us to a contemporary positioning where the critical study of rhetoric allows for a discussion of the rhetorics of control and resistance. This section discusses the development of rhetorical criticism of social movements from its early inception and then identifies crucial relevant developments that included the inclusion of perspective as a factor into how we could evaluate symbolic acts. This move necessitated new rhetorical practices and shifted the focus of rhetorical studies to the message or act. When presented with the prospect of offering a rhetorical criticism of a social movement rather than an individual speech by an individual speaker a series of difficulties arose. Griffin (1952) widened the scope of rhetorical studies when he suggested a course of action by which the student of rhetoric might move from the study of a single orator and examine instead movements made up of multiple speeches given by multiple orators. Griffin observes that groups could be classified as pro-groups supporting a position or anti-groups that oppose a position. Conceptually groups that supported a position might still be seen as agitators. This new perspective opened the door for what has become a productive branch of scholarship. Griffin’s observation that this new perspective on rhetoric might offer new insights into the speeches of great orators by contextualizing these speeches has since become a fundamental part of many subsequent works. Griffin (1952) expanded the way that later scholars viewed the source of the message, and Franklyn S. Haiman (1967) expanded the understanding of what rhetoric might be. In coming to terms with the changes in protest rhetoric in America in the 1960’s, Haiman pointed out that sit-ins, slogans, folk songs, picketing and mass marches all have rhetorical content. Haiman confronted 15 15 questions about the ethical justification for these rhetorical acts. In response to charges that some of the acts of protesters were coercive rather than persuasive, Haiman concluded that since it is difficult to ascertain how much access a group may have to traditional avenues for social discourse, that such acts should be considered in context. Haiman (1967) cautioned: “To whatever extent one finds an imbalance of power and a concomitant unwillingness on the part of the holders of power to engage in genuine dialogue, he may be less harsh in his judgment of those who seek to redress the balance through non-rational strategies of persuasion” (p. 114). It is this imbalance of power and unequal distribution of resources that concerns this thesis. Once we were able to acknowledge the social constraints that legitimize one form of rhetorical expression while marginalizing another, a path becomes clear to look more closely at those marginalized voices. For example, Parke G. Burgess (1968) observed that the Black Power movement could be viewed as a call for justice from a position that is unable to access justice within society at large. This view stood in contrast with the widely held position that the Black Power movement was a call to arms against white culture. Burgess reinforced the conception that shifting context for a message brings new insights into potential meanings for the rhetoric being examined. He also introduced an ideological component in offering “moral commitment” as a solution for what he sees as a collision caused by paradoxical logic held by two opposing sides (Burgess, 1968, p. 132). This perspective that views rhetoric through shifting categories suggests that this thesis should look at the rhetoric of resistance in addition to the rhetoric of control. Burgess (1968) established that the rhetoric of movements was often interpreted differently, depending on the social position of the viewer. He 16 16 discussed movement rhetoric as confronting social perspectives. Robert L. Scott and Donald K. Smith (1969) continued this discussion by examining how the rhetoric of confrontation had been characterized as uncivil, remarking that a mask of civility covered institutions of injustice serving as instruments of power for those who benefited from the injustice. In their discussion of the effects of confrontation, Scott and Smith pointed out that the response to confrontation often confirmed claims made by those who confront. This became the grounds for a broader base for rhetorical studies within which scholars were able to evaluate a wider variety of meaningful behaviors as rhetoric. It also offered a wider range of perspectives scholars might choose from. Scott and Smith (1969) remarked that once scholars look at confrontation as a rhetorical strategy, the violent victory of the establishment could then be seen as a symbolic victory for those who challenged the establishment stating: “In this sense, the confronter who prompts violence in the language or behavior of another has found his collaborator” (p. 8). It is worth considering that while violence is always regrettable, the vivid images of violence the public saw in the news coverage of both the civil rights march in Selma Alabama and at Kent State University may well have created turning points in these social movements. This observation is particularly pertinent in light of the acts of violence visited upon Wobblies in the Fresno free speech strike. The rhetorical study of social movements was restricted by methodologies developed to study individual rhetors and traditional text. Herbert W. Simons (1970) observed that the field of rhetoric had broadened and changed and that the object of study for rhetoric now included the acts of protest identified in Haiman (1967). Simons then recognized difficulties with the use of traditional methods of rhetorical criticism in critiquing movements. His criticism centered on the objection that “[d]esigned for microscopic analysis of particular speeches, the 17 17 standard tools of rhetorical criticism are ill-suited for unraveling the complexity of discourse in social movements or for capturing its grand flow” (Simons, 1970, p. 1). Simons offered a methodology by which scholars could critically evaluate movements that centered on the leader of the movement and thereby the critic was able to delineate exigencies, practices and contingencies’ that the leadership faced. With the growing practice of rhetorical criticism of movements, scholars like Theodore Otto Windt (1972) utilized the study of movements to widen further the scope of what they considered rhetoric. In his critique of the diatribe employed by the Yippies during the Viet Nam protests, Windt examined symbolic acts that functioned as absurdities that would not readily lend themselves to rejoinder, such as attempting to run a pig for president. Despite the questions of efficacy, Windt set the table for the discussion of symbolic acts. He also pointed out that the messaging of the Yippies, although public displays of discontent, served to both recruit new members and entrenched the supporters of the war. This capacity for multiple effects became a vital part of later studies of movement rhetoric and is fundamental to this thesis. This thesis is grounded in a rhetorical tradition that visualized social movements as organic entities that employed rhetorical acts including symbolic direct action (Haiman, 1967). Burges (1968) established that movements are often composed of marginalized groups who sought redress for perceived injustices. Building on ideas in Burges, the work of Scott, and Smith (1969) established that the perspective of the critic was an important factor in how we make sense of rhetorical messages. Griffin (1952) and Simons (1970) both pointed out that the object of study in evaluating social movements could be the message or rhetorical act. This thesis further holds that as Windt (1972) observed, these rhetorical acts can serve as both a form of protest and as a form of recruitment at the same time. 18 18

Perhaps most germane to this discussion is Simons’ recognition that the criticism of social movements necessitated new practices for critics. The thesis is grounded in one of these new practices, critical rhetoric.

Critical Rhetoric The practice of critical rhetoric offers the necessary framework to critique both the rhetoric of control and the rhetoric of resistance. Raymie McKerrow (1989) broadened the scope of rhetorical criticism suggesting that a critical rhetoric should explain both context and contingency. He further notes that rhetoric "seeks to unmask or demystify the discourse of power" (p. 91). Critical rhetoric then was seen as oppositional; it held a position in contrast with a position it critiqued. Drawn from the work of Gramsci (1971), this critique of domination set forth to demystify rhetoric that acts as a tool of domination. It explores and explains the ways in which ideology worked to both enforce and reproduce domination. Rather than a prescribed method, McKerrow (1989) identified eight principles for the practice of critical rhetoric. These eight principles become the guiding principles for this criticism. It is important to contemplate not only how they guide the criticism but why they are each relevant to this critical evaluation. McKerrow observed in his first principle that the critic was not bound to a prescribed technique, the praxis of critical rhetoric required the critic to determine what was needed and useful in critiquing any particular set of fragments then read as a text. In his second principle for critical rhetoric McKerrow (1989) explained that “discourse of power is material” (p. 92), by this he referred first to the idea that ideology was inherent in the minds of the speaker and audience. He also observed 19 19 that in the work of Maurice Charland (1987) rhetoric was consummative in that it could call the audience into existence. The third principle held that rhetoric revealed doxiac truths rather than epistemological truths. Robert Hariman (1986) discussed the use of doxia as a term that described the clouding of possibilities rather than simply as an antithesis of episteme. McKerrow explained that the concealment of rank or economic class was part of regard or social status. Rather than revealing truth in a more conventional sense, a doxiac function of critical rhetoric pulled back the curtain to reveal how power manipulated the shared meaning of symbols. McKerrow concluded that the heterodoxiac act of revealing these truths of power hidden in a rhetoric of control was the function of a rhetoric of resistance. He also pointed out that absent such criticism members of a subordinate class would remain marginalized in their power. This power to conceal enjoyed by those with social and institutional power was evident in the most basic of language act, naming. The contested power of the hegemony has often taken the form of contested names, as Kenneth Burke (1966) illustrated the central power of an authority was the authority’s power to name. For McKerrow (1989) the resistance to power was often the resistance to names-this was expressed in the fourth principle of a critical rhetoric. When a particular meaning was explicated, other potential meanings conversely occluded. This doxiac act of rhetoric became the focus of the heterodoxic rhetoric aforementioned. In this thesis, by critiquing the word choices of the rhetoric of control and contrasting them with the proffered meanings from the rhetoric of resistance, critical rhetoric will reveal ideological underpinnings that were obscured by the rhetoric of control, and in turn, it will illuminate how the rhetoric of resistance offered up a challenge. 20 20

McKerrow’s (1989) fifth principle was that influence was not to be confused with causality. The words of speakers and writers influence, but for Foucault (1972) and McKerrow, influence was not the same as causation. Social and even material forces certainly have influenced rhetorical choices, but the question shifted from why did this happen, to why was this particular choice made at this particular time (Foucault, 1972). This shift in orientation allowed the critic to evaluate influences without committing the error of claiming causality. This focus on influence was centered on meanings that were created with symbols. However, influence and meaning were not only found in the use of symbols, but meaning could also be drawn from the absence of symbols as well, as we see in McKerrow’s sixth principle: absences could often be as important as that which was present. When the fragments of text that were available were gathered up and laid out the gaping holes in the text rather than confounding can be seen as illuminating. In reading the fragmentary text, the meanings drawn from these texts become dependent on how one interprets them. McKerrow’s (1989) seventh principle held that fragments contain the potential for polysemic understandings. Because there is often no traditional speech or even a single rhetorical act by a solitary actor, both the acts of control and the acts of resistance were collective in nature and therefore required a rhetorical framework that viewed collective works as rhetorical. Studies of social movements were frequently left with fragmented texts from multiple sources. The reading of these texts then was interpretive and contestable (McGee, 1990). Critical rhetoric opened the door for the scholar to approach fragmented texts and offer up a meaningful critique of the picture assembled. McKerrow (1989) was clear that readers approaching a text from different orientations would draw differing meanings. Rather than slide into complete relativism, it then was 21 21 incumbent upon the critic to build a case of support for what she or he found. To this point, the thesis seeks to do precisely that: draw conclusions from the fragments assembled and support them with evidence and argument. In performing this task of criticism, the critic knowingly advocates for a position. McKerrow’s (1989) eighth principle identified that criticism is performance. When Philip Wander (1983) urged that rhetorical scholarship should take an ideological turn, he recognized that remaining neutral in the face of great harm and injustice was a morally bankrupt position. The production of criticism was also the production of a critique that now stands as a rhetorical statement on its own. This rhetorical practice yields understandings that may transcend time and serve as object lessons to those who would array forces of resistance against contemporary structures of power that seek to restrict rights or marginalize those in our communities who lack access to power. As a critical performance, this thesis takes a position in regards to the rhetorical struggle between wealthy, powerful interests that make up the ruling class and the hobo orators of the IWW that resisted the rhetoric of control. This criticism of fragments is not intended to be definitive; rather the findings represent an interpretation from a perspective, but a reasoned, informed ideological perspective. Much has been written about the IWW and their free speech fights and even more about critical rhetorical scholarship. This literature implies a direction and practice for the preceding chapters. This thesis is dependent on the praxis of critical rhetorical theory identified by McKerrow (1989). It is these eight principles then that guide this thesis as a discussion of the rhetoric of domination and the rhetoric of resistance. The exploration of the text fragments that make up the identified rhetoric of control focuses on how the power elite in Fresno used negative depictions of the IWW to 22 22 marginalize the union’s messages. The paper then takes a similar course through the fragments that comprise the rhetoric of resistance by examining how the metaphors and depictions used by the IWW sought to challenge the rhetoric of control while co-constructing a group identity among Wobblies. The next two sections trace relevant developments in the study of the rhetoric of control and the rhetoric of resistance.

Rhetoric of Control Contemporaneous with the development of rhetorical studies of movements and critical rhetorical theory; scholarship on a critique of the rhetoric of control began to emerge. This critique observed messages deployed by establishment voices that act to stifle or marginalize dissident voices. This section traces the development of criticism of the rhetoric of control from early efforts to examine the rhetoric of control and agitation through vital developments studying strategies of control. Social movements have organized in response to other groups. An important development in the study of protest rhetoric was the shift to study rhetoric produced to control agitation by social movements. John Waite Bowers and Donovan Ochs (1971) set the stage for the study of the rhetoric of control and agitation between groups by selecting case studies of movements. They argued that rather than examining the individual speeches they could look to movements as a whole and also broaden the study to other mediums as well. By employing these strategies, they were able to look at actions on both sides of an issue that they labeled agitation and control. This work can be seen as foundational to many later works that become equally germane to this study. 23 23

The thesis seeks to identify and critically evaluate messages of control and resistance drawing upon texts that include the use of language, symbolic acts, and visual rhetoric. To this end, Bowers and Ochs serve as a support, and as a starting point for a school of thought in which this thesis is grounded. Subsequent authors building upon the work of Bowers and Ochs established a critical perspective evaluating rhetorics of control. These rhetorics of control exert power and apply strategies for the application of that power. Andrew King (1976) observed that in America the study of conflict and control was a dying school of thought despite the fact that he saw group conflicts as an inevitable course of human interaction. He hypothesized that within these struggles, strategies of power and maintenance emerge. These strategies are employed by elites when they are in conflict with other groups. He identified a set of strategies that he likened to “a wrestler’s repertoire of holds” (King, 1976, p. 134). This understanding of the rhetoric of control suggested the explicit class orientation found in later work and lays the foundation for studies of the rhetoric of control. This study highlights class as a component of rhetorics of control and resistance drawing upon King’s work. As the rhetoric of control was identified by King (1976), rhetorical criticism developed new ways to conceptualize and thereby critique the rhetoric of control. David Zarefsky (1977) observed that pro-groups and anti-groups identified initially by Griffin (1952) also made up establishment groups that fulfill their desires. By identifying governmental agencies as pro-groups that promoted President Johnson’s war on poverty, he illustrated that rhetorical strategies can be used by establishments and were therefore equally subject to the same rhetorical criticism that was used to critique movements. The new understanding that 24 24 establishments produced rhetoric in response to protest led to the study of the rhetoric of control produced by establishments. The rhetoric of control exerts unique pressures in order to achieve domination over social movements. In critiquing the Berkeley free speech movement, Windt (1982) turned the focus from the student protesters to the administrative response. He concluded that the overall effect of administrative rhetoric was to essentially ignore all of the complaints of students in an effort to reposition the argument. The administration at UC Berkeley made an effort to cast themselves as champions of the rule of law but ultimately failed to win widespread support. Nor did they succeed in limiting the first amendment rights of students on campus. Like Zarefsky (1977), Windt moved the focus to establishment rhetoric of control in order to offer an understanding of how institutions and establishment figures worked to deflect or characterize the rhetoric of protesters. This thesis argues that the rhetoric of control functions to frame the acts of control in a socially acceptable light while it reframes and minimizes the rhetoric of resistance through characterizations and depictions identified by Windt. The effort to negatively characterize movements is a common strategy of control. This strategy was further explored by M. Jimmie Killingsworth and Jacqueline S. Palmer (1995), in their analysis of how environmentalists were depicted by their opposition. The environmentalists and their rhetoric were described as hysterical in an effort to delegitimize them and control the public conversation about environmental issues. Drawing on an understating of the development and use of the term hysteria found in Michel Foucault (1978), the authors illustrated how environmental concerns became written off as a mass hysteria that existed only in the minds of the author and their adherents. This is similar to the way the administration of UC Berkeley sought to blunt the message 25 25 of anti-war protesters by portraying them as anarchists (Windt, 1982). This recognition of how rhetorics of control utilize positive depictions of the establishment and pejorative depictions of protesters to fortify their positions is central to the thesis that holds that the elite in Fresno employed such tactics. These observations take on an ideological position that is supported by the work of Michael Calvin McGee (1980) and Wander (1983). Social movements and the establishments they protest often hold positions that invite an ideological criticism. The practice of ideological critique as seen in the work of McGee (1980), who argued that social movements could be described by a set of closely held beliefs. It was just this kind of ideological criticism Wander (1983) argued was required of rhetoric. For Wander, once the critic understood that rhetoric could be ideologically produced, then they were bound to identify those ideologies, and in doing so, they took an ideological position. For Wander and McGee (1980), rhetorical criticism should be focused on ideologies. Celeste Michelle Condit and John Louis Lucaites (1991) also pointed out the need for ideological criticism. They contended that ideological symbols exist in a socially constructed collective understanding. They went on to explain that it was this understanding or consciousness that became the battleground for the competing messages and understandings. Meaning was contested between the dominant class and those that would shake up the social order. Condit and Lucaites observed that these ideologies were contested by other ideologies. Ideological criticism enables this thesis to study hegemony and ideology from a rhetorical perspective. Furthermore, the structure of the thesis allows it to identify the ideologies contained in the rhetoric of control and the rhetoric of resistance, then to study how they vie for domination. The thesis grounds itself in the work of Condit and Lucaites (1991) as the study of an ideologically 26 26 constructed rhetoric of control that is challenged by a competing rhetoric of resistance with a competing ideology. Ideological criticism called for a reevaluation of rhetorical practices used in the study of social movements and the rhetoric of control. John M. Murphy (1992) pointed out that “[t]raditional social movement theory offers little to help the critic interested in social control” (p. 61). The difficulty as Murphy saw it was twofold: traditional social movement studies had focused on the rhetoric of the movement. These struggles often also ignored the rhetoric of control produced by establishment sources. The acts and words of a rhetoric of control targeted a competing rhetoric of agitation. Murphy made clear that when rhetorical scholars examine the rhetoric of control that their criticisms evaluated specific statements and strategies employed by an establishment that was exercising hegemony over a marginalized group. Murphy (1992) went on to observe that the difficulty with the more traditional Establishment-Conflict rhetorical model was that it focused on agency, and that by doing so, the model assumed that the individual agent was persuaded by the individual rhetor, as such this model still had difficulty in explaining the persuasive power of social control. By incorporating a robust ideological critique that utilized Gramsci’s (1971) concept of hegemony, Murphy set forth an intersection of ideological criticism and movement rhetoric upon which this thesis draws. Hegemony is central to understanding how the rhetoric of control functioned in the Fresno free speech fight. Murphy offered a pragmatic approach to exploring how hegemonic messages functioned in a rhetoric of control, and this approach is central to the development of the critique of the rhetoric of control in the next chapter. In much the same way that Murphy employed hegemony in his analysis of the rhetoric of control that was arrayed against the freedom riders; the 27 27 thesis utilizes hegemony in its critique of the rhetoric of control deployed against the IWW in the Fresno free speech fight. The literature regarding ideological critiques has frequently relied on Gramsci’s (1971) concept of hegemony. As this concept is central to the project at hand, the concept as used should be made explicit. Hegemony, according to Gramsci, was a reimagining of what Marx (1867) referred to as the base and superstructures of social formation. In Gramsci’s view then, the base and superstructure were interactive and dynamic, a distinction that Marx did not make. According to Gramsci, the base and superstructure interacted as an organic entity in which the dominant class retained their position through the exertion of not only overt power but also through the use of symbols that are constantly recreating the social order. By introducing hegemony into rhetorical theory, the focus of the criticism was moved from the message itself and instead focused on how hegemonic power arrayed itself in opposition to the movement primarily through an effort to dominate and control the message of the social movement. This understanding of hegemony then allowed for the study of power and influence through discourse without committing the error of claiming causality. It further allowed for a dynamic study of how the rhetoric of control and the rhetoric of resistance struggle against each other for domination. The study of the rhetoric of control has moved beyond Bowers and Ochs (1971) to a study of agitation and control. Our focus has turned an eye to the techniques employed by rhetorics of control employed in order to maintain control through depictions of the elite who enjoy power and rhetoric designed to minimize protest rhetoric (Killingsworth & Palmer, 1995; Windt, 1982). As noted, these depictions are incorporated into this rhetorical study. Murphy (1992) offered a 28 28 constructive model in how to critique ways in which the rhetoric of control seeks to dominate the rhetoric of social movements. McGee (1980) and Wander (1983) identified a need for ideological criticism. As an ideological study, this thesis examines how ideologically driven symbols struggle for hegemony in the competing rhetorics of control and resistance (Condit & Lucaites, 1991). Thus far this review of the literature has traced the course of movement studies through a path covering important work in the criticism of the rhetoric of control as it leads to the use of critical rhetoric in Murphy (1992). A similar path also traces the criticism of the rhetoric of resistance.

Rhetoric of Resistance Social movements that seek to challenge the existing social order, organize around central messages. These messages can function as counterhegemonic messages of ideology, but they can also serve to develop a common identity in a resistance movement. In his discussion of the Chartist movement, James R. Andrews (1973) offered a critique of the movement that suggested that the rhetorical acts of the movement were dependent upon both the perspective the scholar chose and how that scholar interpreted the events. Andrews observed that the poor and working class Chartists were politically unsuccessful and therefore easily dismissed as a failed movement from a perspective that utilized effectiveness as criteria for success. This criticism of scholarship influenced by Simons (1970) argued that if he were to evaluate the Chartist movement based on the ability to achieve identified goals; it would be deemed a failure. Andrews pointed out the influence of the movement on politics and policies of the time. He also illustrated how social consciousness was aroused through the use of petition and charter in order to make the claim that the resistance of the Chartists served as 29 29 a constructive example of rhetorical struggle when viewed from a perspective that shifts the evaluative criteria from achieving the stated goals of the movement to a criteria that evaluated the movement based upon success in other areas, in the case of the Chartist movement; success can be seen in the influence of the movement on the use of petition as a tool used by later movements. While Andrews (1973) illustrated how movement studies could draw differing conclusions depending on the perspective they took, Elizabeth Berry (1981) pointed out that the individual speaker as agitator could be used as a focus of study within a movement. In her study of Emma Goldman’s rhetoric, Berry pointed out how Goldman was instrumental in successfully agitating within the women’s movement by mobilizing women not only for gender equality but for workers’ rights as well. Berry contextualized Goldman’s rhetoric as radical resistance in the face of patriarchy that dominated politics, the workplace, and the home. This context privileges the message of resistance that acted to influence agency despite Berry’s central focus on Goldman as rhetor. In this sense messages of resistance were seen as powerful tools of liberation. This study critically evaluates how these powerful messages of liberation work to challenge hegemonic messages of control often achieving liberation for social movements. Just as Emma Goldman served as the focus of Berry’s (1981) study of how a rhetor within a movement strongly influenced resistance to social order, Mari Boor Tonn and Mark S. Kuhn (1993) focused on the rhetoric of Mary Harris ‘Mother” Jones. They studied her interaction with the audience in co-constructing powerful messages of resistance. Tonn and Kuhn (1993) identified the rhetorical techniques Jones employed in order to encourage interaction with her audience in what Tonn and Kuhn identified as “rhetor-audience collaboration” (p. 325). They argued that this process of co-construction placed the speaker in a more egalitarian 30 30 position with her audience and that this co-creation was particularly useful in engaging subservient workers motivating them to resist the corporations that exploited them. The co-constructed messages that Tonn and Kuhn (1993) identified marked a change in how we envisioned both audience and message. The symbols and meanings become truly shared, and this creates an opportunity to inquire into how these co-constructed messages might be able to function. In particular, the thesis concerns itself with how these co-constructed messages create identities within social movements. It is with an eye toward symbolic acts, and the dramatism of Burke (1966) that Robert S. Cathcart (1978) offered up definitions of confrontation and movements. Movements were seen as agonistic, engaging in a symbolic act of ritual that had contained “a moral aspect, expressing, mobilizing social relationships, confining or altering relationships, maintaining a reciprocal and mutual balancing system” (Cathcart, 1978, p. 234). These rituals then acted not only to confront social structures but also created, affirmed and recreated loyalties among the audience and the participants. Cathcart suggested an understanding of movements as organic and dynamic entities, who employed confrontation not merely as a means to an ends, but as a reason to exist in the first place. The focus of study for Cathcart was the consummative function that rhetoric serves in generating the identity of the group. This distinction was expanded on in the work of Charland (1987). Using the example of the French- speaking Canadians of Quebec that call themselves People Quebecois, Charland’s observation was that prior to rhetorical invention, the identity of People Quebecois did not exist per se. The French citizens saw themselves as Canadians of French ancestry. However, with the rhetoric of French separatism, the rhetoric itself 31 31 created the new identity of the People Quebecois. The creation of this new identity occurred through the interpellation or “hailing” process of Louis Althusser (1971), the People Quebecois became newly constituted as an audience by attending to the rhetoric that called them to identify as People Quebecois (Charland, 1987). The creation of a new identity within the audience was material rhetoric in as far as the effect of the rhetoric was to create this new identity that was then viewed as material. This constitutive effect remains important as grounding for a constituted audience. This thesis is informed by the work of Charland and concerns itself with this power of consummative function of rhetoric. The struggle of orators working to organize labor was further examined by Anne F. Mattina (1996) in her discussion of the difficulties in organizing factory workers. These women faced a patriarchy with class, gender, and financial interests that benefited from the exploitation of women who worked in the mills. As part of their resistance to the mill owners, these women sought to redefine their identity by rejecting contemporary social expectation on women of their class. The struggle for self-identification in Mattina can be seen as a continuation of Tonn and Kuhn’s (1993) observations that working-class union members were dependent upon identification as a movement as part of achieving agency but the locus of control for identity shifts more appropriately to the audience who were seen to have full agency of action including self-identification. The rhetoric of resistance produced by the IWW in the Fresno free speech strike is described in this paper as a co-constructed rhetoric that served two distinct functions. On one level this was a rhetoric of liberation, functioning to influence agency as seen in Berry (1981) (Tonn & Kuhn, 1993). On another level, the rhetoric serves the consummative function as seen in Charland (1987) and Mattina (1996) calling a new identity forth co-constructed with an audience. This 32 32 thesis identifies and critiques the rhetoric of control as well as the rhetoric of resistance. It employs an ideological criticism in doing so. The practice of a critical rhetoric enables the thesis to offer ideological critiques of both the rhetoric of control and the rhetoric of resistance.

Rhetorical Practice Employed in This Study In approaching a rhetorical event like the Fresno free speech fight; it becomes incumbent upon the critic to not only select a frame for understanding the events but also to justify the critical method selected by the scholar. Given the facts that the Fresno free speech fight concerned itself with a rhetorical struggle between messages that sought social control, the fragmentary nature of the available texts and the obvious absence of speeches actually delivered, a critical rhetoric stands out as particularly appropriate for the task at hand. Despite the fact that no text exists of any of the speeches given by any of the Wobblies in Fresno, there have been good rhetorical studies of the IWW Free Speech movement. Most notable among these is Mathew S. May’s Soapbox Rebellion (2013) which focused on the symbolic and rhetorical acts of the IWW and the Wobblies internal messaging about the importance of free speech and solidarity. Murphy’s (1992) position was that by focusing on messages and their meaning, the study of the rhetor is lost. This position was influenced by McKerrow (1989) who argued that rhetorical practices that view the individual orator as possessing the agency to effect change in the audience were problematic in the study of social movements as “the concept of social control is antithetical to traditional social movement studies” (Murphy, 1992, p. 62). Relying instead on the analysis of McGee (1980) Murphy supported the claim that social movements were better viewed as shared meanings that attach to particular artifacts. The 33 33 solution Murphy found is in critiquing the messages of control as part of hegemony that sought to silence the rhetoric of dissent. This perspective has not been used in the existing critiques of the free speech movement and is valuable when applied to the rhetorical situation of the Fresno chapter in this battle. The following chapters involve the careful selecting of examples of metaphors and depictions and an analysis of those artifacts. Chapter three draws upon newspaper articles published in the two Fresno daily newspapers, the Fresno Morning Republican and the Fresno Herald as primary source materials. In chapter four, in addition to the words of the Wobblies who participated in the Fresno free speech strike, artifacts will include articles and cartoons from the two IWW publications: the Industrial Worker and Solidarity, as counterhegemonic depictions of the situation, the ruling class, and the Wobblies themselves. The publication style of smaller newspapers of the era was to in general forego bylines for the stories they printed. Many of citations from primary source materials in this thesis have no attributed author. The analysis of these rhetorical texts should reveal how the rhetorics influenced each other and the social or political structures in Fresno and beyond.

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS OF THE RHETORIC OF CONTROL

The historical record of the Fresno free speech fight reveals a pattern of concerted efforts to control the members of the IWW and their rhetoric. These efforts to control the Wobblies necessitates a detailed examination of what Murphy (1992) referred to as “domesticating dissent” (p. 61). It is, therefore, appropriate and useful to employ Gramsci’s (1971) view of hegemony as a tool for examining and uncovering the rhetoric of control exerted by the establishment superstructure in much the same way as seen in Gitlin’s (1980) examination of how hegemony was asserted in the effort to control the new left. This practice offers the opportunity to evaluate rhetoric on moral grounds, critiquing the ethical underpinnings of this rhetoric that sought to construct a dominant social understanding of labor's social relation to the establishment. This understanding also sought to establish a dominant view of the proper role of the right of freedom of speech. An insight into the rhetorics of control and resistance can be found in the metaphors that create the context within which we construct meaning. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980) illustrated how ontological metaphors function to scaffold new information and situations into familiar structures that then operate to guide how we think about this information. In the case of the Fresno free speech movement, the metaphor used by both sides was a war metaphor. The following chapter outlines how the metaphor of war was populated with the depictions of the IWW by the Fresno police, the political establishment, and in the pages of the two daily newspapers in Fresno; the Fresno Morning Republican and the Fresno Herald. These depictions generated an understanding of Fresno as a city under siege from an invading force. Chapter 4 will explore how the Wobblies also 35 35 utilized the metaphor of war in response to the hegemonic messaging coming from the ruling elite of the City of Fresno. This chapter explores how the metaphor of war was employed in depictions of the Wobblies created by the elite in the City of Fresno. These depictions were class-based, and as such sought to trigger fears based on perceived criminality and overt racism. The union itself was depicted as an illegitimate organization. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the consequences and limitations of the war metaphor for the rhetoric of control.

Hegemony in Fresno Like many other growing cities in the early 1900s, the City of Fresno was run by a handful of powerful men who functioned within multiple spheres of influence. This expansive influence involved powerful farmers, labor agents, the police chief, newspapers, the Mayor and the city trustees. These men constituted a power elite who enjoyed hegemony over the working class of the City of Fresno. Gramsci (1971) emphasized the role of consent within the dynamics of hegemony. In describing the roll hegemony plays in society Ayotte (2000) stated, “Gramsci envisioned ideological hegemony as a complex process of relations between competing modes of thought whereby the dominant ideology-in this case, capitalism- maintains its prestige and leadership over society” (p. 219). Denis Mumby (1997) rightly pointed out that for Gramsci hegemony was not necessarily exclusive to a particular social class. Mumby claimed that progressives and other groups have also sought through discourse and other means to influence popular understandings. When a group has been successful in producing an ideology that exerts domination over the competing ideologies that group enjoys hegemony. As a rule, hegemony has depended upon a subordinate class consenting to the social 36 36 and ideological domination. Ideally, this has been accomplished discursively, but Gramsci (1971) left room for coercion to function as a compelling force. The use of force to compel acquiescence to those who hold power was part of hegemony for Gramsci. However, Gramsci cautioned that when consent has been withheld, hegemony would be challenged. Thus, when coercion has been exerted, a fracture appears in the hegemony as the non-official force exerted power. Meanwhile, the elite have sought to reassert hegemony. In the context of the free speech fights, hegemony can be seen as the process by which the ruling elite sought to maintain power. This chapter concerns itself with the messaging of the elite in Fresno who employed a rhetoric of control to silence the IWW, who in turn sought to challenge the hegemony of the ruling elite. As such, the rhetoric of the IWW can be seen as a counter-hegemonic message. The Mayor of Fresno at the time of the free speech strike was local physician Dr. Chester A. Rowell, who also owned the Fresno Morning Republican. He employed his namesake and nephew, Chester H. Rowell, as editor and chief of the publication (Vandor, 1919). Dr. Rowell had cultivated close relationships with the raisin growers and other local businessmen (Botkin, 2017; May, 2013). The owner and editor of the Fresno Herald, Paul E. Vandor, also served as a Colonel in the National Guard and was an active member of fraternal organizations including the Improved Order of Red Men (IORM) (Vandor, 1919). It is worth noting that the IORM, was founded as an all-white secret society, held strong anti-communist, and pro-business positions. Despite its blatant racism and cultural appropriation, the organization still exists in several American cities, although it is defunct in Fresno (Schmidt, 1980). The capitalist interests reached beyond the halls of government and the pages of the local newspaper, and into the pulpit of some of the local churches as well. Reverend J. M. Gillespie (1910) of 37 37 the United Presbyterian Church was a strong supporter of business interests and condemned the IWW in his sermons. With the power elite of Fresno aligned in opposition to the ideology of the IWW, the dominant culture’s hegemonic response to the union took the forms of police actions and persistent discursive efforts to stifle the voice of the Wobblies. As an unapologetically socialist organization, the IWW was far different from contemporary labor unions. The pages of Solidarity and Industrial Worker, the two national IWW publications, openly called for an end to capitalism and wage slavery. Wobbly speakers, like Frank Little, not only sought to organize workers for better pay and working conditions, but they freely spoke of ending corporate ownership of the means of production (Dubofsky, 1969; Foner, 1965). The Wobblies presented a threat to the financial interests of the farmers and other employers of unskilled labor. Moreover, the rhetoric of the Wobblies challenged the capitalist system that had given the elite of Fresno access to power and influence. One of the chief complaints of the union was that they felt workers were being unfairly taken advantage of by the unscrupulous practices of labor agents. Agents would charge for job leads and often colluded with employers and foreman to keep a cycle of men working in succession in order to maximize their income. Men would be let go a few weeks after being hired so the agent could sell the same job over and over (Street, 2004; W.F. Little, 1910). Police Chief William Shaw required that any person or group that wanted to speak on the streets of Fresno must first obtain a permit from his office (W.F. Little, 1910). Emma Little wrote in the article “Court Crookedness in Fresno” published in the February 11, 1911 edition of Appeal that late in the summer of 1910, the Fresno Employers’ Association urged Shaw to stop the union’s interference with agents and employers. As a result, Shaw began arresting Wobblies on vagrancy charges and 38 38 denying the union permits to speak. Frank Little reported in his story “Struggle for Free Speech in North and West,” published in the June 4, 1910 edition of the Industrial Worker, that Chief Shaw had notified the union that “to talk against the business interests is treason. He says the big corporations are the government and that we must obey their decisions” (p. 1). The IWW openly challenged capitalism and the power enjoyed by the ruling class in Fresno. The elite responded by exerting hegemony through tactics designed to silence the union through a rhetoric of control. Among the discursive tools, this rhetoric of control employed the use of a war metaphor.

War as a Metaphor When the IWW established Local 66 in Fresno in 1909, Fred and Emma Little began to distribute Wobbly literature and to recruit new members openly on the streets of Fresno. It was after the arrests on the night of April 17, 1910, that a free speech fight loomed on the horizon (W. F. Little, 1910). In the editorial “Wrong Union” published in the April 19, 1910 edition of The Fresno Morning Republican Chester H. Rowell referred to the IWW as “a class revolutionary organization that brings neither peace to the community nor stable prosperity to their members” (p. 4). The term revolution was meant to conjure up images of popular revolt, and an overturning of the social order. Once combined with the term class it further invoked scenes from the French revolution where the aristocracy was imprisoned or put to death, their wealth confiscated. C.H. Rowell summoned the image of class war in a clear effort to position the citizenry of Fresno in the position to worry about their personal safety and the security of their possessions. The Fresno Morning Republican openly acknowledged that the conflict between the IWW and Police Chief Shaw was a class-based conflict. This 39 39 view that the conflict was class-based was embraced by the IWW themselves (Dubofsky, 1969; Foner, 1965). The Wobblies would not have agreed with much in C. H. Rowell’s view, but they did, in fact, see themselves as being embroiled in a class struggle. However, even before the IWW called for a strike or employed civil disobedience, C.A. Rowell’s paper was warning of a full-on class war being waged by a disruptive unstable force against the people of Fresno. The war metaphor is sustained throughout much of the coverage of the IWW free speech movement. After Frank Little and several other Wobblies were arrested for disturbing the peace, the August 27, 1910, edition of the Fresno Morning Republican ran a report entitled, “The IWW Plans to Wage War on Police.” In the article, the paper reported that Frank Little had wired Vincent St. John, the IWW General Secretary, and Treasurer, in Chicago in order to ask that word be put out that a free speech strike would be carried out in Fresno. Little asked for all available Wobblies to come and join the effort. According to the Fresno Morning Republican, St. John told Little to “Carry the fight to an end if it takes all summer. Reinforcements on the way” (p. 5). At this point, the war metaphor began to use the term invasion. The Wobblies were being described as being at war with the police. The thoughts of citizens were guided by the metaphor to visualize Wobblies attacking the men that protected the community and served as a force of law and order. The reported promise of reinforcements on their way would have heightened the sense of fear and dread of the Wobblies. The use of the term reinforcements further supported the idea that Fresno was under siege by the IWW. It calls to mind a Wobbly army amassing to create havoc and loot the city. A later article, “Industrialists Renew Street Speech Fight,” published in the November 29, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican, would claim that free speech was not an unconditional right but rather a privilege and that if the 40 40

IWW wanted a fight, the city would be happy to oblige. The implications of this distinction in the context of the war metaphor point out that C. H. Rowell wanted the reader to view the Wobblies as inferior beings who were less deserving of free speech and an enemy to the city itself. The idea that the Wobblies were not deserving of free speech protection is one that is addressed again in this chapter, but in this usage, the claim served the chilling effect of justifying silencing the IWW given in the context of the war metaphor. It is important to step away from the metaphor and reexamine the language C. H. Rowell used. The IWW was not an army, and this was not warfare. As a union who sought to exercise freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, the effort to silence them was on its face a violation of the constitutions of both the State of California and the United States of America. The situation was a disagreement over speaking permits and labor practices in which the IWW’s only actual weapon was its rhetoric supported by the union’s first amendment rights to express it. What C.A. Rowell’s Fresno Morning Republican suggested in advocating that the union not be extended the freedom of speech was to leave his opponent defenseless on the field of battle. The two daily newspapers in Fresno depicted the war as an invasion of outsiders casting the police and city officials as a bulwark against the barbarians at the gate. In describing the Wobblies, C. A. Rowell’s paper made this report: The residents of Belmont, near the city limits lines, are up in arms against the invasion of the I.W.W. members…There are now thirty-six I.W.W.’s in the county jail and the total amount of money taken from the three dozens does not aggregate $10. All were dressed in ragged, dirty clothes and several admitted that they had not taken baths for years. (“Woman is Insulted,” 1910, p. 12) 41 41

This depiction of the IWW solidifies the invasion metaphor. Looking at the term “up in arms” the metaphor can be seen depicting the citizens of Fresno as metaphorically arming themselves, perhaps with guns, against the Wobbly invasion. The metaphor is focused tightly on a war of invasion and all that the metaphor brings to the table. Unlike revolutions that come from within, invasions involve outsiders, foreigners who seek to conquer. Invasions involve changes to the social order and a potential loss of status and property. The metaphor of invasion creates a clear dichotomy of us vs. them and of course indicates the acceptable use of force to repel the invaders and protect society. In casting the IWW as outsiders, the Wobblies were clearly being depicted as dirty vagrants who did not belong in the community. The intent here is clear: as part of the establishment, those in control of the local media were crafting and imposing on the reader an understanding of the confrontation through a depiction of an invasion. This served the purpose of positioning the reader to view the Wobblies as undesirable invaders. The next three sections focus on three types of depictions that were used in support of this metaphor to cast the Wobblies as “others” in the minds of the citizens of Fresno. These depictions took three distinct forms. The first group of characterizations consists of depictions of the Wobblies as dangerous criminals. The second set of depictions sought to portray the Wobblies as outsiders but utilized distinct and overtly racist language to do so, thus taping into racist sentiments in the community. The last set consists of depictions used to portray the union as illegitimate and undeserving of free speech. The war metaphor of the elites was made possible through several class- based depictions of the Wobblies. It was not sufficient to merely warn of the arrival of newcomers; the metaphor demanded that the Wobblies be viewed as a 42 42 threat. The first among the dehumanizing and defamatory depictions made by the ruling elites were depictions of the Wobblies as dangerous criminals.

Depictions of Criminality The representation of the Wobblies as an invading horde was made easy in light of the fact that almost all of the Wobblies had come into Fresno from out of town. These were hobos who by the very definition are always outsiders. Virtually all of them were itinerate, impoverished, unskilled men. When the younger Rowell undertook a campaign to alienate his readers from the Wobblies further, the task was simple. He began publishing a series of stories attributing criminal and disturbing behavior to the Wobblies. The crimes attributed to the Wobblies ranged from petty to very serious in nature. At the petty end, one account of disturbing behavior was contained in the story “Woman is Insulted” published in the October 22, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican, which reported that a member of the IWW insulted a local woman on the street in Fresno. Other crimes attributed to the Wobblies included not paying for a meal in a restaurant (“Declines to Pay,” 1910), and petty thefts (“Woman Insulted,” 1910). In a much more serious accusation, the October 25, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican ran the story “IWW Man Suspected in Dynamiting Case.” The story reported that a Wobbly was suspected of a dynamite plot although no charges were ever filed. The most dramatic case was a story reported on the front page of the September 30, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican entitled “IWW Member En Route to Fresno Becomes a Burglar.” The story reported that a man who was shot and killed while committing an armed robbery in Firebaugh was found to have a paid up IWW red card in his possession. He “was en route to Fresno to join the 43 43 local I.W.W. members in their much-talked-about war against the city police in an effort to gain what they call ‘free speech’” (p. 12). By depicting the Wobblies as dangerous criminals, the elite sought to generate feelings of both fear and helplessness among the citizens of Fresno building support for the police actions against the Wobblies. Crime elicits fear, and fearful people seek out protection and are often willing to accept restrictions that they might otherwise find objectionable. Feelings of vulnerability and fear also work to make the war metaphor more acceptable. Fear is a powerful motivator, and the power elite in Fresno actively sought to instill fear through the depictions of criminality. In addition, the criminal smear campaign against the IWW also had a racist vein, designed to elicit a different kind of fear.

Racist and Classist Depictions of the Wobblies Much of the rhetoric of control targeting the IWW contained distinctly racist language. The use of racism served the purpose of characterizing the Wobblies as “others” who did not belong in Fresno. The founding principles of the IWW invited this kind of attack. As one of the first inclusive unions, the IWW refused to bar any person based on race or nation of origin (Dubofsky, 1969; Renshaw, 1967). Fresno Local 66 had been in the process of organizing Mexican, German, Russian and Chinese workers in Fresno when the free speech strike began (Botkin, 2017). The July 17, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican ran the story” Mexican Speaker is Stopped by Police: Socialist Agitator Has no Permit; is to Enter Protest.” The story referred to a “Mexican speaker” addressing a crowd of “peons” (p. 12), and overt racism was evoked through the focus on the race of the Wobblies and the audience. The appeals to racism are seen as another facet of the effort to cast the Wobblies as outsiders, 44 44 alien to the people of Fresno in appearance, language, custom, and class. The use of the word “peon” has a distinctly racist meaning, especially when applied to Spanish speaking workers. In part, the Oxford Dictionary of English Online defines the word as: “Spanish-American day labourer or unskilled farm worker. North American a person who does menial work… historical a debtor held in servitude by a creditor, especially in the southern US and Mexico” (Peon, 2010). The word does double duty invoking at the same time the image of poor migrant laborers with no assets or vested interest in the community. Rhetorically using the word “peon” further describes these workers as a group of foreigners who may not speak English. This depiction directly supports the metaphor of a foreign invasion that permeates the rhetoric of control seen in Fresno. There are numerous examples of the use of racism in the rhetoric of control produced by Fresno’s ruling elite. On May 26, 1910, The Fresno Morning Republican ran another story; “Industrial Workers Public Disturbers.” The story reported the arrest of another Wobbly that occurred while the man was “addressing a crowd of foreigners” (p. 4). Another example of depictions of the Wobblies as both criminals and foreigners can be seen in the story: “Industrial Workers’ Meeting Was a Fizzle” in the May 30, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican. The paper reported on a mass meeting the IWW held noting that “Not over two hundred people attended. The majority were working class men whose appearance indicated not have worked much recently, while there was a considerable scattering of peons” (p. 10). Once again, the rhetoric employed the word “peon” and all that the term brings with it, invoking the classist and racist view that these “working class men” did not appear to “have worked much.” This can be read as a not so subtle jibe to indicate that these were not working class men at all but rather men who refused to work. However, from another 45 45 perspective, this statement can be seen as classist blaming of the poor for their own condition. There is no evidence offered to support this conclusion of refusing to work other than the appearance of being destitute. Perhaps one of the most egregious examples of racism and dehumanization was described in the story, “Thirty I.W.W.'s Now in Custody: 23 Enter Pleas in Court” that ran in the December 2, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican. The paper reported the arrest of two Wobblies: “John Doe,” one of the agitators arrested was unable to spell his name, couldn’t write it and didn’t know his nativity. He was booked on the jail register as Joe Erdegafer, as that sounded something like his name. When taken into custody, Joe was standing on a soapbox at I and Mariposa streets waving his arms like a windmill and chattering like a monkey. (p. 11) The Fresno Morning Republican’s dehumanizing description of the arrested Wobbly literally portrayed the man as behaving like an animal. He was depicted in such an alien fashion that his nation of origin is completely indiscernible; it seems very likely that the man in question simply spoke a language that police did not understand. The purpose of this story is worth questioning as it appears to serve little purpose other than to elicit potential racism in the reader. Racism served as a powerfully divisive weapon in the kind of class warfare exhibited in Fresno. It served to gin up the racist sentiment that may already be present in the audience. In addition, racism has also long been a tool of hegemony used to divide workers against each other (Foner, 1965). In this case, racism served to terminate discussion as an always present depiction that circumvents any real argumentation. Following the Republican’s lead, John Hamilton Gilmour editor of the Fresno Herald and Democrat ran an editorial by stating: 46 46

It is incumbent upon all classes of citizens to aid the police in the suppression of these Industrial Workers of the World if they attempt to disturb the peace of the city…For men to come here with the express purpose of creating trouble, a whipping post, and cat-o-nine tails well- seasoned by soaking in salt water is none too harsh a treatment for peace breakers. Indeed such a punishment would prove more effective than a term in a dark cell. (Gilmour, 1910, p. 4) The image of a whipping post and a brine-soaked cat-o-nine tails cannot help but conjure up images of the worst vestiges of slavery. These are images of the cruelest and most dehumanizing condition any human may be subjected to. Calling for the public flogging of protesters was not just a tactic to rally enmity against the Wobblies. This effort to dehumanize the union members created the argument that the IWW members deserved such abuse simply for giving a speech on a city street without permission. In this slave narrative, the chief of police acts like the master on the plantation keeping slaves in their place through violence. It is worth asking if Gilmour had in the past argued that any and all peace breakers should be flogged, or perhaps, was the IWW’s challenge to social order the real threat he urged the city to guard against? Racism was not the only form of dehumanizing rhetoric employed by the ruling elite in Fresno. Many of the pejorative depictions of the Wobblies focused on what were fundamentally broader issues of class, which again is not surprising given the premise that the conflict was class based. The view that the Wobblies represented a subordinate class of people undeserving of free speech and that they represented a danger to the people of Fresno was also expounded from the Fresno pulpit of the United Presbyterian Church by Revered J.M. Gillespie (1910): 47 47

As I look at it the Industrial Workers of the World do not care to work…We should not encourage this class of men, the idlers of the community, in their practices… Their speaking on the streets should be stopped as a nuisance. From what I have learned, the men who have addressed the crowds from the curbstones are no men of substantial opinions. They have indulged in no deep thought, and their utterances do not bring any message to the listeners. The authorities should not grant them liberties which they do not deserve. There are multitudes of men traveling about the country who practically do nothing at all. It seems to me that the Industrialists are among these from what I can learn. We should not encourage men of idleness but should take steps to make them work. If they will not work, their rations should be cut down. It seems to me that the best methods of dealing with these men and with the Industrialists is by the legal establishment of a chain gang, where they may be given an opportunity for work. (p. 4) The sermon by Gillespie (1910) offered depictions of the Wobblies as lazy, stupid men, who did not abide by the conventions of civilized society and therefore did not deserve First Amendment protections. He felt the appropriate punishment was for the Wobblies to be forced into labor on a chain gang. This depiction again blamed their poverty on the men themselves. This all too common effort to blame poverty on the poor by claiming that the poor did not want to work served to demonize the poor, in this case, the Wobblies. It is derived from, and further served to bolster the claim that capitalism produced wealth and opportunities for those who were smart and worked hard. It did this by utilizing a fallacious argument that denied the antecedent. The argument stated: If a person was smart and worked hard, they would get rich. Since these people were poor, they must not 48 48 have been smart or hardworking. We see in the rhetoric of Gillespie that freedom of speech was described as a right reserved for a particular class of learned men whose opinions were worthy of protection. Since this was a sermon delivered in public to his congregation, we must assume that Gillespie saw himself as belonging to that exclusive class worthy of the right to speak in public. What is most disturbing was Gillespie’s (1910) call for a chain gang for the IWW and other “idle men.” As a feature peculiar to the Southern States for the forced labor of predominantly poor black inmates, the practice of the chain gang is viewed as a practice of institutionalized racism. Once again, we see race and class inextricably intertwined in such a way that the effect was to dehumanize the Wobblies based on depictions so enmeshed they cannot be easily cleaved apart. Gillespie’s (1910) sermon is indicative of how the power elite of Fresno exercised its hegemony. The law, the press, and the clergy guided the public perception not only of the Wobblies as people but also in terms of what should be done about the free speech strike. It is of no surprise that as the Fresno County Jail filled up with Wobblies, they were indeed forced to work in the park, and if they refused, they were placed on a bread and liquid diet (Minderman, 1981). We see in the words of Gillespie, calling for the implementation of a chain gang, the first public discussion that culminated in the implementation of a rock pile for prisoners (Minderman, 1981; Renshaw, 1967). Bearing in mind that these men were charged with offenses such as, speaking without a permit, vagrancy and disturbing the peace, the implementation of a rock pile was a vastly disproportionate punishment for the crimes they were incarcerated for. Smashing rocks with sledgehammers is a punishment that is associated with felons sentenced to hard labor. The imagery survives in popular culture as a memory of inhuman treatment of prisoners in film and song. The imposition of the rock pile much like 49 49

Gillespie’s call for a chain gang was intended to cast the Wobblies as serious criminals deserving of such punishment. Of course, these punishments were also intended as a form of control that sought to frighten Wobblies into leaving town. On October 10, 1910, a warning was given to the readers of the Fresno Herald. In the story “Spokane Journalist Speaks About the Industrial Worker,” Chas Mengle, a reporter from Spokane who had covered the free speech strike in Washington State, said the following: “What the city authorities want to do is to put a damper on the IWWs just as soon as they begin their appearance in the city…your average IWW is unable to make a speech, and I see no reason they should be clamoring for free speech” (p. 6). This statement summed up the essential class-based argument made by the ruling elite of Fresno: the hobos of IWW did not deserve access to free speech. The rationale made for this position was that the speech of the IWW is uninformed, inarticulate, and dangerous. This was meant to justify harsh treatment of the Wobblies who were depicted as less deserving because they were seen as less intelligent, inarticulate and therefore less human. Perhaps more influential was the depiction of the Wobblies as shirking social responsibilities because what really made the Wobblies dangerous was not that they represented a threat to the rule of law or personal safety, but rather their rhetoric questioned the conventions and precepts of capitalism and the wage system. Racism and classism functioned to arouse fear in the people of Fresno and to alienate the population of the city from the laboring class including the Wobblies. The ruling elite in Fresno in a crudely racist fashion engaged in a rhetorical attack on the hobos of the IWW as a class, and groups of members by race, depicting the IWW as a group of mixed race hobos who were too dirty, ignorant, and too inarticulate to be listened to. In addition to these depictions of 50 50 the Wobblies, the elite of Fresno also sought to cast aspersions on the union as an organization.

Depictions of the IWW as Illegitimate The IWW challenged the hegemony of the Fresno power structure which in turn worked to delegitimize the union, criminalize the Wobbly rhetoric, and dehumanizing the members of the movement. In the editorial “Wrong Union,” published in the May 26, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican, C. H. Rowell warned the people of Fresno “let no one delude himself with the idea that these people are a legitimate labor union, entitled to the respect and consideration which labor unions receive” (p. 4). It was C. H. Rowell’s position that the IWW was substituting “anarchist” philosophy for what he called “law abiding trade unions” which in his mind were legitimate. For C. H. Rowell legitimacy was a question of ideology. What made for a legitimate union was a union that sought to collaborate with the ownership class, while a union that took an oppositional position to the ownership class was seen as an illegitimate group of “anarchists.” Rowell went on to criticize the IWW for not improving living conditions for their membership, in his estimation. Meanwhile calling the IWW illegitimate because it perceived that the interests of its members class as being at odds with the businesses that exploit them. C. H. Rowell’s view became reflected in policy when the IWW was forbidden from bearing their standard, the red flag, in the Labor Day parade resulting in an IWW boycott of the parade (“Looking for Man Who,” 1910). The union was told the only flag permissible was the American flag and the IWW, which saw its self as an international union, wanted to march under their own banner. In the end, the IWW refused to compromise and were absent from the 51 51 parade. Again, the elite of Fresno conflated patriotism with capitalism delegitimizing the socialist union through exclusion. This was an act of control exerted to silence the union’s political beliefs. In his discussion in the October 10, 1910, article “Spokane Journalist Speaks About the Industrial Worker” published in Fresno Herald, Chas Mengle is quoted as saying of the IWW that “In the papers in Spokane they call them the ‘I Want Whisky’ and the ‘I Won’t Work’…They were honestly so lazy they would not build a fire, and so many of them suffered with the cold” (p. 6). Once again, we see a wholesale depiction of the union membership as being lazy drunks. In addition to alienating the union members from the citizenry of Fresno, the members are dehumanized as lesser creatures unable or unwilling to control their drinking, and social deviants who shirk responsibility as citizens. Since both vagrancy and public drunkenness were crimes, the implication, of course, was that the entire union was composed of criminals engaged in criminal behavior. The purpose of Mengle’s remarks was to delegitimize and thereby marginalize the union. The last set of depictions portraying the IWW as an illegitimate union worked to support the metaphor of war by supporting distrust of the union as an organization. In the war metaphor, the union acts very much in the same way as a military uniform, and also as the flag and the country of the metaphorical hobo army that itself is depicted as descending on the City of Fresno. While depictions of criminality, race, and class cast the Wobblies as the other, the characterizations of the union gave these depictions the shape of an invading army. This is an image that was designed for the purpose of creating fear. 52 52

The last section of this chapter examines the ways in which the metaphor works and where the metaphor tends to break down. It also further examines how these depictions work to add texture to and support for the invasion metaphor.

Implications of the War Metaphor The power elite of Fresno employed the war metaphor, successfully framing the public’s understanding of the free speech fight. Of course, this metaphor had consequences. Once a metaphor is accepted as a frame for reality, people act on that particular understanding. In Fresno, what constituted acceptable actions for the citizens shifted from peoples’ everyday experience into a war construct. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) note that: “Metaphors may create realities for us, especially social realities. A metaphor may thus be a guide for future action. Such actions will, of course, fit the metaphor…In this sense, metaphors can be self-fulfilling prophecies” (p. 157). On the night of December 8, 1910, the Fresno free speech strike erupted in violence. To understand the violence visited upon the Wobblies by the citizens of Fresno, it is useful to look at the events that led up to that night in the context of the metaphor of a war of invasion; this context helps to explain these acts perpetrated by ostensibly otherwise law-abiding citizens. In the December 9, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican, the article “F.H. Little Acquitted: IWWs Speak on Streets Again” appeared. The story reported that Frank Little represented himself in court after having been arrested and held in jail with other Wobblies for speaking without a permit. Little surprisingly won release for all of the Wobblies when he pointed out that no law existed requiring a permit to address people openly on the streets of Fresno. The December 15, 1910 edition of the Industrial Worker printed the story: “Capitalist 53 53

Sluggers in Fresno.” It reported that the day after Frank Little was acquitted, Police Chief Shaw gave orders to the police that they were to allow the members of the IWW to give speeches on city streets without arrest, but he added a revealing statement that “the citizens may do as they wished” (p. 1). That night when the Wobblies took to their soapboxes, they were assaulted. Genini (1974) noted that the violence began when two former prizefighters Onig “Nig” Normart and “Professor” Jimmy Quinn grabbed the first speakers and began to beat them (p. 108). Then the crowd turned on the other Wobblies that were present and began to beat them as well. Normart was employed as a firefighter by the City of Fresno. Also included in the mob were several other firemen and off-duty law enforcement officers (“Mob Attacks IWW,” 1910). The mob chased the Wobblies out of town to the tent that served as the IWW headquarters. There more of the Wobblies were beaten, and the tent was burned to the ground. In the December 15, 1910 edition of the Industrial Worker, the story “Capitalist Sluggers in Fresno” reported that many Wobblies fled in their underwear. The Fresno police stood by, remarking that since the lot was located outside the city limits, it was Fresno County Sheriff Chittenden’s responsibility (Genini, 1974; “Mob Attacks IWW Speakers,” 1910). The employment of the war metaphor and the depictions of criminality contained in the rhetoric of control acted as justification for the mass arrests and incarceration of Wobblies. This rhetoric made the arrest of men who dared to speak on the streets of Fresno seem reasonable, by casting the Wobblies as an invading force. The war metaphor also meant that when it was revealed that the law had no power to arrest the Wobblies, the citizens of Fresno felt defenseless against the invading IWW. Robert L. Ivie (1974) pointed out that war metaphors always contain images of a frightening other “lying in wait for a chance to destroy 54 54

America’s freedom, democratic form of government, and her sacred rights” (p. 343). Within the framework of this particular metaphor of war, violence was not only permissible but was to be expected. The dehumanizing rhetoric calling for the whippings of Wobblies helped to set the tone that led to the mob violence in Fresno. The war metaphor had created a sense of helplessness and vulnerability that was no doubt enhanced by the discovery that the police had no authority to arrest the Wobblies for speaking. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) noted, metaphors not only guide our understanding but they also constrain understanding. In this case, the limits of the metaphor restricted the perceptions of the power elite and the mob in such a way that discourse, negotiation, or non-violent engagement of ideas became impossible. The descent into violence also reveals a fracture in the hegemony of Fresno’s ruling class. Gramsci (1971) observed that hegemony is dependent upon consent on the part of those dominated by a hegemony, and while he noted that consent could be coerced, he also remarked that consent not freely given could be easily withdrawn. He warned that vigilante violence is a harbinger of social failure: A weakened state structure is like a flagging army; the commandos – i.e., the private armed organizations – enter the field, and they have two tasks: to make use of illegal means, while the state appears to remain within legality, and thus to reorganize the state itself. (Gramsci, 1971, p. 232) Gramsci’s (1971) observation rings true in the case of the Fresno free speech fight because it was this use of extrajudicial violence that also generated sympathy towards the IWW further endangering the consent given to the ruling elite (“Disgrace to Fresno,” 1910). A crack in the hegemony of the ruling elite was exposed once it was revealed that the police did not have the authority to arrest 55 55

Wobblies simply because they failed to get a permit to speak. The fact that some citizens were compelled to take the law into their own hands is evidence that the perception of the IWW as a threat persisted in their minds to the extent that members of the public felt justified to break the law by committing acts of violence to defend against the threat of the IWW. This supports the argument that the rhetoric of control produced by the elite of Fresno was hegemonic in nature. The strength of their belief also stands as evidence of the strength of the metaphor. The violence then may be read as an attempt by some of the citizens of Fresno to assert power while the city trustees hurriedly met to reassert their hegemony. They did this by passing a new ordinance requiring a permit for speaking on the street, and thereby reorganizing the city in order to reestablish hegemony over the IWW and their supporters (“Capitalist Sluggers in Fresno,” 1910). The December 20, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican ran the headline: “Ordinance is Passed to Forbid Speeches in Streets.” The new ordinance banned soapboxing on the streets of Fresno, and the police resumed the arrests of Wobblies. The rhetoric of control in the forms of newspaper coverage and police action continued until spring. However, this rhetoric seemed incapable of doing more than suppressing the individual speeches of Wobblies who at this point seemed more interested in being arrested and filling the jails than engaging in oratory. Free speech in Fresno had to be won before a full effort could be given to recruiting, and the Fresno free speech fight depended on the strategy of filling the jail (St. John, 1910). With the Wobblies openly resisting this rhetoric of control, the situation became untenable with no end in sight for the City of Fresno. Acceptance of the war metaphor restricted the citizens understanding of the free speech fight. We have seen how this restriction made the probability of violence much higher. It also had a second effect that made it much more difficult 56 56 for the ruling elite in Fresno to seek or accept anything short of complete victory. Hartmann-Mahmud (2002) observed that the application of the war metaphor to ideological struggles has the effect of chilling dissent, minimizing public debate, and at times dehumanizing the opposition in such a way that only annihilation of the enemy was an acceptable outcome. In the case of the Fresno free speech fight, victory was defined as preventing the IWW from speaking on street corners and a return to the status quo. As the winter of 1910 wore on, the Fresno jail filled back up, swelling with over 100 prisoners. The costs of jury trials and incarceration mounted, and the Fresno Morning Republican reported in the story “I.W.W. ‘Army’ Much Reduced” on February 21, 1911, that there were as many as 5,000 Wobblies heading to Fresno from cities from all across the country. The story reported on a meeting of the Brotherhood Welfare Association in St. Louis where volunteers were encouraged to go to Fresno as an “army”: They say their plan is to fill Fresno with unemployed men and hold gatherings in the streets. By collecting large numbers of men, they say, they expect to make the local authorities tire of arresting them and cause the taxpayers to protest at the expense of feeding while incarcerated. (p. 1) The 5,000 men heading to Fresno were stopped before the army ever had much chance to get underway. With the ongoing expense and disruption and no clear end in sight, the power elite in Fresno reconsidered its position. In the story “Call Citizens Together to Hear Report on IWW Situation,” the March 1, 1911 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican reported that the city trustees began to secretly negotiate with the IWW crafting an agreement by which to end the strike. This was the first published discussion of this settlement. The metaphor of war is a forceful and potent rhetorical tool, but the metaphor also brings with it significant complications. In his discussion of how 57 57 war metaphors function to inform our understanding of crime, Heinz Steinert (2003) made clear that although crime and war were not the same things at all, the metaphor generates a sense of helplessness that breeds authoritarianism and hegemony. Steinert’s first point was that the effect of the metaphor on the public is to expand hegemony and increase compliance. On another level, Steinert offered a reminder when engaging with strong metaphors, crime, or in this case the free speech strike, was not actually a war. The elements of political direct action can include civil disobedience, political objectives, and voluntary cooperation among protesters who are free to withdraw consent at any time. The consequences of direct action can include conflict with police and incarceration, but we do not necessarily expect violence or deaths. War entails the use of deadly force to achieve a political objective. Participants may or may not be voluntary but once engaged they become professionals and not free to withdraw their cooperation without serious consequence. The consequences of war involve mass killings and the use of force to compel capitulation. This understanding helps to illuminate how the use of the war metaphor can result in the fallacy of false analogy that acts to mask better understandings of the disagreement. In building understanding, metaphors can also generate misunderstandings. Hartmann-Mahmud (2002) observed that the war metaphor could limit understanding of a situation and thereby also limit potential responses by dictating what responses are considered acceptable. As part of a rhetoric of control, the strategy of limiting and thereby controlling understanding was desirable. When that strategy failed to produce results, a calculated retreat and conditional appeasement was applied as a new strategy to retain hegemony. King (1976) pointed out that the power elites utilized multiple strategies of control that worked to dominate popular understandings. He pointed out that “[s]ince continuous, 58 58 direct combat is physically and emotionally exhausting, schemes of limited warfare have been worked out” (p. 134). The breakdown of the metaphor was apparent when we observe that the dispute between the IWW and the power elite of Fresno could have been resolved in any number of ways, and in fact, in the end, an agreement was negotiated between them. The employment of the metaphor of war called for a victory over the enemy. The dehumanizing depictions made negotiation with invaders an anathema. The power elite of the City of Fresno through the use of the war metaphor sought early on to make negotiation or acquiescence unthinkable through their depictions of the Wobblies as an invading group of foreign anarchists. When the power elite chose to change strategies the metaphor simply lost its explanatory power. The war of invasion metaphor was limited by the perceived acceptable outcomes for the free speech strike. The war metaphor left little room for a negotiated settlement, hence the secrecy of the Citizens Committee who negotiated the agreement. The Fresno newspapers all but ceased to employ the language of war in discussing the strike by the end of April 1911. On March 1, 1911, the Fresno Morning Republican ran the story “Call Citizens Together to Hear Report on IWW Situation” it did not use a war metaphor when it reported: “conference between the Citizens Committee and the Industrial Workers was held...the committee would render its report… it is hoped to have as many citizens as possible in attendance at the Chamber of Commerce” (p. 1).The Fresno Morning Republican continued to discuss the details of the agreement which allowed the IWW to speak on a section of K and Mariposa streets. The city also agreed to release all of the Wobblies from jail, in exchange for a promise from the IWW that all Wobblies that were not seeking work would leave town. Future 59 59 stories in, the Fresno Morning Republican discussed the free speech fight with almost no use of war metaphors. The language surrounding the negotiations helped describe the limits of the war metaphor. Once the ruling elite of the city began discussing negotiations, the confines of the war of invasion metaphor no longer made sense and so the metaphor was abandoned by the local press. Years later Vandor (1919) published his book History of Fresno County California with biographical sketches of the leading men and women of the county who have been identified with its growth and development from early days to the present. In it, he found little space to discuss the Fresno free speech fight. In her research on Frank Little and the Fresno free speech strike, Little Botkin (2017) observed that while the IWW still speak of the fight in Fresno “residents would call it merely a ‘skirmish’” (p. 168). The use of war as a metaphor for a strike is not surprising. After all, the strike was the product of a disagreement that had reached an impasse, and disagreements are essentially arguments. In discussing metaphors, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) observed that we often understand argument as war. When we do describe the elements of the argument in terms of war, we use phrases such as attacking our opponent, defending our position and destroying the opposition’s argument. When we speak of arguments utilizing war terms the very structure of our understanding of what constitutes an argument is then based in part on our understanding of what constitutes a war. “The concept is metaphorically structured, the activity is metaphorically structured, and, consequently, the language is metaphorically structured” (Johnson, 1980, p. 6). By way of example, Police Chief Shaw defined criticism of business interest as treason (F.H. Little, “Struggle for Free Speech,” 1910). Once the audience accepted that speaking against businesses, in general, was treason, it became logically impossible also to 60 60 accept that a speech criticizing a particular business practice was constitutionally protected speech. Once the discussion of the free speech strike employed the metaphor of war, meaning was structured within a frame of understanding as described in Lakoff and Johnson (1980). This understanding was constructed with particular depictions that worked to explain to the audience what type of war this was, and what the nature of the warfare should be. In addition to building support for particular metaphors depictions serve a persuasive function of their own, tapping into prejudices building understandings of the rhetor, the situation and the subject of the rhetoric (Killingsworth & Palmer, 1995). Depictions of the IWW worked to dehumanize and marginalize the Wobblies. The rhetoric surrounding the Fresno free speech strike served a similar function to the rhetoric Windt (1982) observed at UC Berkeley. In an effort to retain power and control the public perception of the dispute with student protesters, the administration depicted the student protesters as disruptive and operating outside the law. In particular, the students were depicted as agitators only pretending to be interested in democratic freedoms in an attempt to undermine the institution. The depictions made by the ruling elite in Fresno also functioned to marginalize and delegitimize the Wobblies in much the same way as the UC Berkeley administration’s depictions of student protesters as out of control radicals. Federica Ferrari (2007) discussed how ideological discourse used the war metaphor in support of the government. Specifically, she noted the use of us vs. them language that tapped into peoples fears. In the Fresno free speech strike, the rhetoric of control employed these same tactics to silence and otherwise marginalize the IWW. 61 61

The attacks on the legitimacy of the IWW sought to marginalize the union in the eyes of the citizens of Fresno. Delegitimizing the voice of protest through a blanket attack on the group itself is a tactic documented by Killingsworth and Palmer (1995). They observed that by depicting all environmentalists as hysterical, the message of the movement as a whole became subject to distrust and skepticism. A similar approach was taken by the elite in Fresno in the depictions of the union as illegitimate because it was critical of capitalism and formed by slothful inebriants. The depictions of the IWW functioned in a similar fashion as the anti-environmentalist rhetoric observed by Killingsworth and Palmer. While the metaphor of war ultimately proved problematic for the power elite in Fresno, a far different war metaphor was deployed by the IWW in constructing a rhetoric of resistance. By examining how the rhetoric of control sought power over the rhetoric of resistance, Murphy (1992) called for a dynamic criticism that observed the interplay of the rhetoric of control and the rhetoric of resistance in order to reveal how hegemony functioned. In order to further examine the dynamics of hegemonic discourse in Fresno the rhetoric of resistance produced by the Wobblies needs to be examined as well.

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF RHETORIC OF RESISTANCE

The ruling elites of Fresno positioned the free speech strike as an invasion by unwashed uncivilized bums of diminished value, who sought to destroy the city. Meanwhile, the Wobblies made a much different case. The IWW created an understanding of the conflict as a class war between those with social and economic power and those without. They accused the power elite of Fresno of abusing the working class and recast the union as a liberating force (Harper, 1910). This metaphor was populated with depictions of the police, the establishment of the City of Fresno, the workers of Fresno, and of course the Wobblies themselves. This chapter explores how the IWW constructed a rhetoric of resistance to the hegemony exercised by the ruling class in Fresno. The ruling class of Fresno effectively prohibited the union’s ability to speak and disseminate literature freely on the streets of Fresno. The rhetoric of resistance that the IWW employed was directed toward at least two different audiences. First, messages were directed externally to the public. The intended audience included not only the citizens of Fresno but also an audience as large as the circulation of the national newspapers that would carry the story. Second, the rhetoric of the Wobblies was also directed inward to craft a group self-identity and to fortify the members during a prolonged and challenging strike. Just as the rhetoric of the ruling class in Fresno had, this rhetoric employed the war metaphor but in the depictions of the rhetoric of resistance we see the war cast as a war for liberation. A close examination reveals that this metaphor was pervasive and can be found in much of the language used by the IWW. This metaphor was supported by depictions of the elite in Fresno, as well as by depictions of the workers, the IWW themselves, and the power structure in Fresno. The first part of this chapter explores the construction of the 63 63 war metaphor; then it goes on to explicate how the metaphor supported a rhetoric of resistance that targeted the public who heard the messages in and beyond Fresno. This was done through depictions found in writings and cartoons that directed messages of Wobbly identity outward to the public. These depictions sought to (1) create identification with the laborers in Fresno, (2) depict the workers as abused, dominated and exploited, (3) depict the ruling elite, and law enforcement of Fresno as abusive and hypocritical, and (4) depict the IWW as a liberating force. The second section explores how the internal messaging of the IWW sought to (1) create and perpetuate a sense of identity for the IWW and, (2) to foster solidarity and empower the members of the union, especially the jailed hobo orators. This was to help protesters to persevere during a prolonged strike marked by horrendous jail conditions and violence. To be clear this distinction does not argue that there were two separate sets of messages for two different audiences, but rather observes how a single rhetoric functioned for multiple audiences.

Rhetoric of Resistance as Counter-Hegemony While the elite of Fresno employed a war metaphor, they characterized it as an invasion of the City of Fresno. The IWW characterized the free speech strike much differently. To the IWW the strike was a war of liberation from the hegemonic control that sought to exploit labor and to restrict freedom of speech in Fresno. For the union, the organization of labor was the primary objective. The socialist ideology of the union drove the need to recruit new members and spread the socialist message of the union. This was done via the soapbox and through the dissemination of literature that the union itself freely called propaganda. It is worth observing that for the socialist union in the early 1900s, the meaning of the 64 64 term propaganda was derived from emerging Marxist thought (Rogers, 1994). For the Wobblies, propaganda was the necessary propagation of information and ideology used to educate and mobilize the proletariat against the ruling elites who ruled over the working class. The Wobblies claimed this ascendancy was accomplished by a dominant ideology and through control of the means of production. The rhetoric of the IWW was by design a rhetoric of resistance to the domination of the capitalist class. It is the position of this thesis however that the writings and cartoons found in Solidarity and Industrial Worker, while clearly propaganda, are no less so than the editorial pages of the Fresno Morning Republic and the Fresno Herald as both sets of literature promoted a particular ideology. An example can be found in the editorial by John Hamilton Gilmour (1910) was discussed in chapter three. Gilmour had called for the whipping of Wobblies with “brine-soaked cat-o’-nine tails” (p. 4). This suggestion was so horrific that it was reproduced in part on the pages of October 10, 1910 edition of the Industrial Worker in the article “Fresno Fight is on: Many Men in Jail,” as an example of the bigotry and brutality in Fresno. For the IWW this war of liberation for the workers in Fresno required an army willing to purposefully engage in acts of civil disobedience and direct confrontation with the ruling class who prohibited, oratory on the streets of Fresno. The strategy was straightforward. Wobblies would engage in civil disobedience by giving speeches and being arrested. They would refuse bond, and they would each request a jury trial. The point was to clog up the courts and fill up the jail, forcing the city to incur the costs of trials and incarceration. The IWW informed the press what they intended to do and the Fresno Herald reported their plan in the October 8, 1910 edition in the story “Determine to Harrass [sic] the Police.” 65 65

We will place our speakers on the street with instructions to address those who gather about them. When an officer puts in an appearance and makes demands to see our permit for making a public address on the street we will inform him that our permit consists of the Constitution of the United States which gives any citizen the privilege of free speech. The officer then should the speaker refuse to stop and probably in accordance to instructions previously given him will march our man off to jail. If he does the, speaker’s place will be promptly taken by another man and when he is arrested, another will take his place, and so on until the jail is full. (p. 1) The Wobblies’ goal was to force the city to allow the union access to speak on city streets. To do this required an army of activists. Building this army required the persuasion of hobos from all over the country to ride the rails or walk to Fresno. The union sought to engage them through rhetoric to view themselves as more than dispossessed others living on the periphery of society. This radical reimaging was accomplished with the use of metaphor.

Metaphor: The War of Liberation The Wobblies had carefully employed the of war metaphor in previous free speech strikes, most recently in the Spokane fight that ended a few months earlier (Botkin, 2017; May, 2011). Prior to the call for direct action, in Fresno, there had been much grumbling on the part of the Wobblies in the city about the restrictive permitting process. This grumbling included threats of a free speech strike. The August 6, 1910, edition of the Industrial Worker ran the story “More Law and Order.” In it the paper reported: Word comes from Fellow Worker F. H. Little that the bulls of Fresno, Cal., are again discriminating against the workers by denying them the right to 66 66

speak on the street. The Starvation Army is permitted to spread their scab propaganda and is protected by the cops in doing it which is enough to show that the bosses know who are favorable and who are detrimental to their interests. The workers of Fresno may count on the aid of all reds in regaining the privilege of free speech. (p. 2) Not only did the Industrial Worker suggest the possibility of a free speech strike, but it also made the case that the discrimination in Fresno was based on whether or not an organization served the interests of the elite. As part of the ruling class and arbitrator of the permitting process, Fresno Chief Shaw controlled who could speak and who could not. The IWW’s long-standing disdain for the Salvation Army (referred to as the “Starvation Army” in the above quote) made clear that the union decried the discrimination as based on class and ideology. The union had long criticized the Salvation Army for its efforts to aid the poor without addressing what the union saw as the root cause of poverty; namely the capitalist system. The Wobblies critiqued the Salvation Army with arguments grounded in Marxism. They argued that offering rewards in heaven simply served to placate workers into accepting their own exploitation (Dubofsky, 1969; Foner, 1965; Renshaw, 1967). This is the theme of Wobbly songs that lampooned songs sung by the Salvation Army. One example was “Dump the Bosses Off Your Back” sung to the tune of “Take It to the Lord in Prayer” (Brill, 1916). A criticism of religion can be seen in Gramsci (1971) who identified religion as part of the cultural hegemony that exerts pressures on the dominated class. The function is to create consent for the hegemony through the adoption of an ideology that placates the working class while serving the interests of the ruling class. The rejection of the Salvation Army was part of a refusal to be exploited. The Wobblies in Fresno clearly recognized that Chief Shaw was issuing permits to the Salvation Army not 67 67 because they were a neutral party but rather because they served as part of the cultural hegemony. Their message of servility and social conformity was part of the rhetoric of control. The statement promising that the “Workers of Fresno” could expect help from “all reds” speaks to liberation, positioning the reds or Wobblies as a liberating force and the working class of Fresno as being oppressed by a force strong enough that they are not able to free themselves from it. The use of the term “regaining free speech” implies that the workers once enjoyed free speech and it was taken from them. By inference, we can assume that the ruling elite of Fresno are the ones responsible for ordering the “bulls” or police to deny the workers the right to free speech they once enjoyed. The language in this news report supports a liberation metaphor by assuring the workers of Fresno that the IWW would soon come to their aid. In August of 1910, the Little brothers were both arrested. W. F. Little published a telegram in The August 27, 1910, Industrial Worker bearing the title “Free Speech Denied; Many I.W.Ws. Jailed.” The Telegram reported the arrest and asked for assistance from fellow Wobblies. In the September 10, 1910 edition of the Industrial Worker the story “Free Speech Must Be Won in Fresno” reported that the charges against Frank Little were trumped up and that the union was asking all Wobblies to head to Fresno to take direct action. The Industrial Worker urged that no compromise should be made with the “boss” noting that “[i]f he will compromise he will surrender. LET US MAKE HIM SURRENDER” (p. 1). The images in this statement supported the war metaphor. The refusal to compromise and use of the term surrender invoked the image of war, calling to mind a battle to the death. 68 68

The August 27, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican published the article “IWW Plans to Wage War on Police.” The story reported a telegram exchange between Frank Little and Vincent St. John the Union’s National Secretary. Little reported there had been more arrests in Fresno and noted that “The police are bound to force a fight.” St. John’s responding telegram, published next to Little’s read: “General organization endorses Fresno’s local fight for free speech and the right of assemblage. All locals ordered to take part. Carry fight to an end if it takes all summer. Reinforcements on the way” (p. 5). Frank Little identified that a “fight” was coming in response to the city’s restrictions, but he characterized the city as the aggressor, and the union was the aggrieved party for exercising their right to free speech. St. John’s use of the term “reinforcements” generates the image of a liberating military force. Moreover St. John identified the central issue under discussion as the right of freedom of speech and free assembly. The promise to return these rights to the citizens invoked the image of a liberation force sent to free citizens of an oppressive occupation. St. John’s telegram suggested a metaphor that depicted the Wobblies as a liberating force headed to Fresno to free Fresno’s oppressed workers. In the September 24, 1910, Industrial Worker the story “Free Speech and Fresno” was published. It called on Wobblies to “report for duty” to join the “Spokane squadron” and directing that “all the forces will concentrate in the town of Fresno and proceed to use their ‘inalienable’ right of free (?) speech” (p. 1). The repetition of militaristic terminology using the phrases “report for duty,” “squadron,” and “forces” all reinforce the war metaphor without the use of the word war. The term “duty” invokes two meanings. The reference to military duty is fairly clear and refers to a period of service fulfilling a contractual obligation, but 69 69 that usage itself is based on the broader concept of an obligation derived from either a moral construct or social contract. In that case, the duty being invoked is a reference to an obligation to the Union, the brotherhood of workers. This appeal to “report for duty” calls upon layers of both ideological and militaristic thinking. The military term “squadron” invokes a fighting unit, in this case, identified with the city of Spokane. This implies that other squadrons would form in other cities to do their duty, it reinforces the war metaphor and offers the suggestion of a larger threat at the same time. The use of the term “forces” as a noun invokes the militaristic use of the word and brings to mind images of the armed forces, a generic synonym for the various branches of the actual military. The effect of this call to action was to begin to craft a rhetoric of resistance utilizing the war metaphor. It served as a call for resistance in respect to what the IWW saw as unjust, unconstitutional acts asking Wobblies to behave like troops in marching on the City of Fresno. The war metaphor can be found explicitly used in the Industrial Worker on October 8, 1910, in the story “Free Speech Must Be Won in Fresno” The paper reprinted a telegram from the Fresno IWW local 66: “Have declared war, 5,000 rebels wanted at once. Report Fresno. Will fight to the finish” (p. 1). The language was fairly unambiguous. Fresno local 66 of the IWW stated that they had metaphorically “declared war” on the City of Fresno. The request for “5,000 rebels” utilized terminology that evoked images of revolutionary armies fighting to overthrow governments. This language was natural since the enemy was identified as the city government and police of the City of Fresno. The rhetoric of resistance remains consistent in its use of the war metaphor. By claiming that they will “fight to the finish,” Fresno local 66 made the claim that the union will not surrender, utilizing the war metaphor. It did this in language designed to empower 70 70 and motivate the Wobblies who were asked to envision themselves as a rebel army. The telegram was included as part of the headline story about the need to win free speech in Fresno. On the same page, a letter from A.V. Roe, an IWW organizer in Spokane, stated that groups from Spokane and Portland were heading to Fresno and would “have the capitalist slugging committee on the run,” the report continued to observe that “the free speech fight in Fresno is not a fight against the petty larceny grafters in Fresno, but a fight between the exploiting capitalist and the exploited class” (Roe, 1910, p. 1). Roe’s language was pugilistic. He offered a flavor of liberation to the rhetoric of resistance. The colorful term “capitalist slugging committee” was packed with meanings. He identified that the capitalist interests were behind the brutal police force that he delegitimizes by neglecting to identify either the police or the city trustees as being part of any legitimate government. He recognized the economic interest behind the ruling class’ hegemonic effort to silence the IWW through organized force. Roe then expands on this theme as he rejected the idea that the enemies of the IWW were the elected officials or other government employees that he labeled “petty larceny grafters.” Roe instead identified the real enemy as the deeper more powerful class of “exploiting capitalists.” The description of the Fresno free speech fight as a war between the capitalist class and the class of exploited workers grounds the war metaphor in Marxism positioning the IWW as an army of rebels heading to Fresno to liberate the exploited class of workers. These quotes support the claims that the IWW was utilizing the war metaphor specifically, through the invocation of images of the Wobblies as a liberation force and portraying the conflict as primarily a class struggle. Strong metaphors are often supported by depictions that are incorporated into the 71 71 metaphor. Depictions may depend on verbal or written word, but they also may employ visual images. In the case of the IWW, the cartoon was a valuable asset for depicting the lives of workers, the nature of the free speech fight, the oppression of the police and the collusion of the ownership class of the City of Fresno.

Visual Images The IWW locals, including Fresno local 66, ordered copies of Wobbly newspapers that served as propaganda. As such the intended audience was not only the members of the union but prospective members in the working class that might be found on the job or in the streets. In the article “The California Fruit Belt” published in the August 27, 1910 edition of Solidarity, Frank Little reported that the union was working to organize many immigrant communities and many of these workers were not native speakers of English. Despite the influx of immigrants, Street (2004) noted that IWW Local Headquarters were reported to be places where men read philosophy, played, and discussed ideas: [N]othing more captivated bindlemen and advanced the cause of industrial unionism than the IWW’s own publications. Written not by professional journalists but by fellow workers Wobbly literature employed appealing language, a distinct point of view and gritty content. Reading the IWW press, bindlemen acquired a clear image of what not to become along with a good dose of union lore and tales of heroes and martyrs. (p. 602) Street (2004) pointed out that of the IWW publications, the Industrial Worker was a clear favorite and could be found in union halls, flop houses, and other places Wobblies might gather. The front page of the Industrial Worker prominently featured a cartoon in each issue. 72 72

Several of the Industrial Worker comics published during the Fresno free speech fight focused on the struggle in Fresno. These comics serve as excellent depictions of how the Wobblies viewed the strike, the ruling elite, and workers. These images along with the written accounts depicting the events in Fresno created and supported the metaphor of a war; as such they comprise a rhetoric of resistance directly challenging the rhetoric of control produced by the elites in Fresno. Three examples of these comics are used in this paper as examples of the the rhetoric of resistance and are included in the Appendices. This rhetoric of resistance sought in part to persuade Wobblies to travel to Fresno to join in the fight. For workers in Fresno, it offered encouragement to join the union, but it also attempted to convince citizens inside and outside of Fresno that the members of the union were being maltreated. The rhetoric of resistance utilized the war metaphor in its messaging directed to the community. It produced messages designed to confront the rhetoric of control and to challenge the popular depictions of the IWW propagated by the elite of Fresno.

External Messaging The Wobblies produced rhetorical messages that were intended for an audience outside of the Fresno union. One of the purposes of these messages was to build identification with workers in Fresno. Burke (1950) described identification as a rhetorical tool that may be used to persuade an audience. Once a speaker identified with the audience, the audience was more likely to be persuaded. Burke argued that identification was necessary to bridge the separate interests of non-identical individuals. Wobbly organizers knew that the lived life of the itinerant workers was a struggle that was common among their life 73 73 experiences. Lives lived on the road, in hobo jungles and working long hours of manual labor created a common lived life experience that harvest workers could all draw from. The themes of alienation and exploitation of laborers featured prominently in the IWW rhetoric (Street, 2004). These depictions became part of the union’s liberation metaphor. By detailing the harsh and difficult situation they were all in, the Wobblies soapbox speeches and their literature illustrated an understanding of the life they fought to help workers escape. The following three sections explore how the understanding of the war metaphor used by the IWW was informed by identification, depictions of the elite in Fresno as abusive and unfair, and depictions of the IWW as a force of liberation.

Identification Although the Wobblies were undoubtedly a rough group, they endeavored to communicate a sense of shared identity with the workers in Fresno that they sought to educate, organize and liberate. When a Wobbly began a speech on a city street, it usually began “Fellow workers and friends” as they addressed the laborers that tended to congregate in downtown Fresno seeking work or socializing (Foner, 1981). Minderman (1981) was a member of the IWW who traveled to Fresno to help with the free speech strike. He kept a diary of his experiences with his fellow Wobblies in Fresno. In his diary, he reported that on November 27, 1910, Frank Little once again took to the soapbox in defense of the need for unionization: Little… pointed out the necessity of organization and as example took the police. He told them that the law in California is that every State, County or City officials shall work not more than eight hours a day, but that the police 74 74

in Fresno work ten hours a day. If police obeyed this law, they lose their job because they are not organized and the best that the police could do in Fresno was to organize, in order to enforce the law in their own behalf. This was called by the authorities, abusing the police and dangerous for Fresno, and for this reason the permit was revoked. (Minderman, 1981, p. 108) This account is open to some interpretation, as it is unclear if Frank Little was attempting to build identification with the police who he understood to be part of the proletariat and therefore honestly sought to enlighten or if he was just looking for a fight. Regardless the message to workers in the audience would have been clear, that if they toiled by the hour, they had more in common with the Wobblies than they did the ruling class. Minderman (1981) also underscores the point that the entire purpose of the restrictions on freedom of speech was to prohibit content that challenged the ideology and hegemonic power of the Fresno ruling class. As they began to fill the jail, the Wobblies offered support, understanding, and comfort to those citizens who found themselves sharing the jail with the Wobblies. In one instance an intoxicated “Mexican” (or possibly a Frenchman according to some accounts) who spoke no English, was beaten by four policemen. The beating reportedly drove the man mad while Sheriff Chittendon looked on. The Wobblies set about protesting and trying to protect the man from the sheriff’s deputies. The Sheriff responded by placing the Wobblies on a bread and water diet. The next morning the Wobblies tossed their bread at the guards and began to sing (“Hurled Back Bread at Jailers,” 1910; Minderman, 1981). In the summer of 1910, while pressure was building in Fresno during the harvest months, the front-page comic “An Identity of Interest” was published in the July 16, 1910, Industrial Worker. It set out to depict farm families in contrast 75 75 with harvest Wobblies (see Appendix A for image). On the left side of the comic a farmer, his wife, and two children sat to dinner. The farmer remarks: “I’ll make them hobos get up at 3 o’ clock.” To which his son replies, “You better cut their wages.” Beneath the family is the caption “Brother Farmer.” By way of contrast, the right side of the comic depicts three hobos bedding down on a haystack. One worker asks another, “Where is your family Jack?” to which Jack responds “I haven’t any.” The third person, likely a Wobbly, states “Let’s strike for higher wages-it was by our labor the farmer got his home.” The caption beneath them read “Brother Farm Hand” (p. 1). The comic was more dependent on text than many other Industrial Worker comics. While a reader might have appreciated the obvious contrast between a family dining in their home and workers sleeping outside, the text was important in grasping the class critique in the comic. The title of the comic, “An Identity of Interest,” (1910) was supported by the images to create a succinct argument that those people who share common interests share a common identity. In terms of specific depictions, the farmer and his family are drawn eating and looking happy and well fed. The text reveals them to be selfish and indifferent to the hobos. For their part the field workers are drawn as tired, the pitchfork and tall haystack indicate hard work. They are depicted in both image and text as homeless, yet powerful. A close examination of the image and text reveals that the true power of the farm is the workers. Without their labor, the farm fails. In the image on the right, the worker laying to the left of his companions displays a rolled-up sleeve exposing a muscled arm. The three farm workers sleep at the foot of a very tall haystack with a pitchfork at their feet, implying it was their strength that built the tall haystack. The farmer is drawn as fat with a large meal provided by the men sleeping outside. Being published in July, this comic would have served as a 76 76 message targeting migrant farm workers as part of the campaign to organize farm workers. The cartoon was positioned in the July 16, Industrial Worker above the article “Harvesters Get on Job and Saw Wood” urging Wobblies to get hired on farms or on logging jobs to organize workers in the field. Creating identification with workers was built into the descriptions the Wobblies created of the capitalist system and their depictions of workers lives. Depictions of the actions of the police and the abuse of the legal system were used to develop sympathy for the cause of the free speech strike. Identification was a vital component in the rhetoric of the Wobblies. In order to attract members to the union, the IWW engaged in a rhetorical campaign that featured leveling language that created a discursive space in which workers consuming their messages shared common ground with the Wobbly orators. The literal sharing of space and conditions by the Wobblies furthered the efforts of the union to build identification with workers in Fresno.

Depictions of Fresno as Abusive and Unfair In their efforts to persuade an outside audience that the union had a legitimate grievance, the Wobblies sought to highlight the hypocrisy of the elites who were restricting free speech. They reemployed a tactic that had been used in Spokane. On Sunday, May 29, 1910, the Wobblies challenged the authority of Police Chief Shaw by setting up soapboxes on corners around Courthouse Park at the end of M street. The speakers were armed with copies of the State and Federal constitutions as well as the Declaration of Independence. The hobo orators would, in turn, climb a soapbox and begin reading. When one speaker would be arrested, another would take their place and continue reading the founding documents. The police began to rend the documents into pieces, and it was reported by E. B. Little 77 77

(1911), who was in the audience, that Chief Shaw tore up a copy of the California State Constitution. The purpose of reading the founding documents as a violation of the ban on public oratory was to humiliate the police and the city trustees who had passed the ban on street speaking. This was accomplished through the rhetorical act of civil disobedience; violating the law in a visible setting with the intent of being arrested as a symbolic act. To add to the symbolism, the Wobblies were violating a city ordinance while reading from the Bill of Rights. This early street theater worked to crystallize the Wobbly’s campaign into an easily understood, salient moment of abject hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of the ruling elite was a depiction that was useful in crafting a rhetoric of resistance that claimed the oppression of the Wobblies was unconstitutional. This public rhetoric of the Wobbly’s served to support the war of liberation metaphor by establishing the police and the city trustees as the restrictive force restraining the freedom of the workers and as disrespectful of the founding documents. The Wobblies’ depiction of the ruling elite as unfair and hypocritical also served the purpose of publicly shaming the ruling elite of Fresno. This shaming served to counter the rhetoric of the elites that depicted the Wobblies as criminals and lawbreakers. The Wobblies sought to turn the tables and were now self-depicted as upholding the law while the police literally tore it up. Street-speaking had been vital for recruiting new members. With police interference, the soapbox became a limited platform, but the tactics of civil disobedience transformed the soapbox into a stage the Wobblies took for symbolic acts. As their trial dates neared, the Wobblies found the courts could also be a useful forum and tool for resisting the rhetoric of control of the Fresno ruling class. 78 78

The IWW set about using the courts as a forum for liberation; on December 7, 1910, while on trial for speaking without a permit, Frank Little called Police Chief Shaw as a witness for the defense. Little asked Shaw to locate the city ordinance that required street speakers to obtain a permit. Unable to locate the ordinance in any city code book, an embarrassed Shaw was dismissed by the judge who then found Little innocent and ordered the release of all Wobblies being held for soapboxing (“Fifty-five IWWs Confined in Jail,” 1910; Minderman, 1981). The short-lived victory went beyond gaining the release of 55 Wobblies as it also clearly established that the arrests were an arbitrary and extrajudicial abuse carried out by the police on behalf of the interests of the ruling class in Fresno. The December 20, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican reported in the story “Ordinance Is Passed to Forbid Speeches,” that the city trustees were quick to pass an ordinance requiring permits to speak on the streets of Fresno. Although the Wobblies were actively denied the opportunity to express their objections to the unfair hiring practices of labor agents or the capitalist system on the street corners of Fresno, they took the opportunity to directly address these injustices to 12 citizens and anyone else in the courtroom when they mounted their defense at jury trials (Botkin, 2017). The article entitled “Convict Three IWWs on First Ballot,” published in the February 15, 1910 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican reported that as the Fresno free speech strike wore on, the Wobblies appeared in court one at a time usually represented by Frank Little, and while Judge Briggs had made clear that he found the new ordinance prohibiting street speaking to be constitutional, the jurors and spectators were treated to speech after speech by Little, as he asked the jury to find the defendants innocent based on the First Amendment. 79 79

The IWW was ineffective at winning their own release in court but given that the Wobblies had traveled to Fresno for the explicit purpose of being jailed; their defense in court needs to be viewed as rhetorical performances. Perhaps there is an irony to the fact that these hobos who were denied a public forum on a busy street were then by default given consecutive captive audiences. Each and every juror and court spectator heard oration condemning the city ordinance and heard a lecture on the First Amendment. The effectiveness of the speeches is, of course, unknown, but the strategy of using the courts as a public forum for their grievances allowed the silenced union to voice its message in an alternative forum. The Wobblies characterized the city ordinance as an unconstitutional abridgment of their rights and an attack on the working class. They described the police as tools of wealthy interests (“Fresno Fighters Show Solidarity,” 1911). These depictions functioned as support for the war metaphor, but they characterized it as a war of liberation. This metaphor is supported by further representations of the Wobblies as liberators. The depictions of the Wobblies as liberators can be seen in their words and in their comics.

The IWW as Liberators Some of the most substantial support for the metaphor of a war of liberation was seen in the statements and images that blatantly depicted the IWW in the role of liberators. As noted earlier in this chapter the depiction of the Wobblies as a liberating force could be seen very early on in St. John’s telegram to Frank Little promising that “reinforcements” were being sent (“IWW Plans to Wage War,” 1910, p. 5). Clear images can be seen in the cartoons the IWW crafted, displaying the Wobblies’ view of the free speech movement in Fresno and offering an introspective view of union membership. 80 80

As the strike wore on, the front page of the February 2, 1911 edition of the Industrial Worker a cartoon was published entitled “Free Speech is Yet Muzzled in Fresno” (see Appendix B for image). This comic presented the image of a harried man wearing a muzzle in the center of the comic. Each corner of the comic featured a different caricature representing three types of union members. The central figure wore a work shirt, and on the collar were the letters IWW. A ring in the man’s nose was attached to a chain that led down to the lower left corner where a hobo was sitting in front of a stove that bore the caption “stove philosophy aint going to win the free speech fight” (p. 1). This was an indictment of Wobblies who were opposed to direct action, preferring instead to support socialist politicians. The upper left and upper right corners also depicted union men who were either apathetic or tired; each of them was tied up. But in the lower right, an eager Wobbly was on his way to Fresno to join in the free speech strike. This comic was relatively straightforward making both a visual and textual case for Wobblies to join in the free speech strike. The Wobbly in the center was drawn with a muzzle that covered the bulk of his face making the man unidentifiable, but in doing so, it also made the man universal as he becomes any and every Wobbly in Fresno. The muzzle bore the name Fresno clearly identifying the city as a single entity and symbolized as the very structure of restriction. The men depicted in the lower left and top two corners represented the three types of union men who the artist felt were not helping and were therefore portrayed as useless. All three were drawn bound by ropes displaying their impotence. The fourth Wobbly was drawn sprinting down railroad tracks next to a sign pointing to Fresno. An onlooker asked the runner, “which way pal” to which the runner replies, “Fresno.” The caption next to him read “All that can ought to be like this one” (“Free Speech Muzzled,” 1911, p. 1). The cartoon makes it clear that 81 81

Wobblies in Fresno were being silenced. The cartoon points out that the proper response for a good Wobbly was to head to Fresno on foot or by train. This front- page comic would have been read by Wobblies all across the nation but also by laborers who received the propaganda on the streets of Fresno. Members of the IWW traveled to Fresno for the purpose of going to jail to help fight an unjust law. In doing so, they were also coming to commit a rhetorical act. They displayed a genuine identification with the workers in Fresno and as such were also acting to become liberators. In one of Frank Little’s many court appearances, a court onlooker threatened to hang Little; he responded with words that were eerily prophetic: If a noose were dangling in front of my face, I would laugh at it. I am willing to die for the cause, if necessary, as I have committed no crime, unless you call it a crime to help uplift the working man. (“Convict Three IWWs on First Ballot,” 1910, p. 12) Frank Little’s court address summed up the image of the Wobblies that the IWW was offering up as a counter-hegemonic response to the characterizations that had been put forth by the Fresno Morning Republican and the Fresno Herald. Little presented himself as neither criminal nor as an inarticulate oaf. Instead, he countered by presenting himself as a selfless fighter willing to die in the liberation of his fellow worker. The substance of his words was supported by the context of the quote. Little was in a courtroom defending his fellow workers. The rhetoric of resistance produced by the IWW sought to create an understanding in the community that the Wobblies were a force of liberation that was bravely confronting the oppression of the ruling elite in Fresno. Once confronted with the rhetoric of control that prohibited them from speaking on the city streets, the restriction itself became evidence of the oppression that they 82 82 metaphorically cast as a war. The metaphor created a powerful understanding that the union mobilized in order to direct pressure on the city trustees in an effort to allow the union to address workers on the streets of Fresno. An understanding of how the war metaphor functions can illuminate how this rhetorical shift led to the protracted strike. It is of no surprise that much of the rhetorical study of war metaphors mirrors much of the language used to discuss actual war. Ivie (1980) in his discussion of the use of metaphors in war rhetoric explained how images of savagery act as topoi in justifications for war. Ivie contends that Americans conceive of themselves as empowered to bring democracy and liberty to those who suffer in tyranny. When we see the IWW apply the rhetoric of war metaphorically this same role of liberator now applied to the Wobblies. The depictions of the Wobblies as liberators are seen in the cartoon, “Free Speech is Yet Muzzled in Fresno” (1911) and in the rhetoric seen in Frank Little’s court address (“Convict Three IWWs on First Ballot,” 1910). In his discussion of the war on poverty Zarefsky (1986) pointed out that President Johnson advanced his domestic agenda utilizing his position as “the chief inventor and broker of the symbols of American politics” (p. 384). This was done through the use of the war metaphor as an attempt to redefine what had been known as “the poverty problem.” Zarefsky’s observations about the use of war metaphor to aggressively reposition an agenda helped develop an understanding of how war metaphors function. The IWW employed the war metaphor to rally support from the community by depicting the city ban on street speaking as unconstitutional and oppressive. The IWW can be seen here as repositioning their disagreement with the city over the constitutionality of the city policy on street speaking. Rather than mount a legal challenge, the union chose direct action and 83 83 civil disobedience to try to force the city to abandon the policy. Rhetorically the Wobblies repositioned the situation by describing it as a war, casting themselves as heroes by depicting themselves as liberators of the oppressed. Although much of the rhetoric seeking to create identification and to communicate the liberation metaphor was directed to an audience composed of unorganized workers and citizens in and outside of Fresno; there can be little doubt that the Wobblies in Fresno also consumed much of this rhetoric as well. Other messages served to help the Wobblies build a common identity for themselves. These internal messages worked to empower and create solidarity among those Wobblies who were locked up in the basement of the Fresno County Jail.

Internal Messaging Up until this point we have examined how the Wobbly rhetoric was directed outward for an audience of non-Wobblies as a counter-hegemonic message it sought to supplant the hegemony of the Fresno ruling class. This section explores how the Wobblies’ depictions of themselves, the establishment of Fresno, and the wage system supported the liberation metaphor that also functioned to move audiences of workers comprised of Wobblies, and non- Wobblies who they sought to recruit. When this same rhetoric was consumed by the rank and file members, the messages resonated differently. Hobo orators and cartoonists supported the war metaphor with similar depictions in order to build a Wobbly identity and empower the strikers by depicting them as powerful within this metaphor. As a group of impoverished itinerant workers, the IWW was dependent on the intangible spirit, wit, and the willingness of the men who made up the union. Given the IWW’s dependence on these human resources, it bears 84 84 discussion on how the Wobblies maintained the necessary force to hold out against the more substantial resources of the powerful Fresno elite. This second section evaluates the ways in which the rhetorical messages that were consumed by the members of the union functioned to create a shared sense of identity, called Wobbly. This powerful internal rhetoric worked to generate empowerment and build solidarity among the Wobblies who endured horrific conditions in the basement of the Fresno County Jail. The Wobblies chose to go to jail in order to secure the right to speak freely on the streets of a city few of them called home. Conditions in the Fresno City Jail were intentionally harsh. Sheriff Chittenden overloaded the basement of the jail with over 100 Wobblies. They were housed in an area called the bullpen, which held 49 beds and forced the Wobblies to sleep in shifts (“Dr. Burks Reports on Jail Conditions,” 1911). Disruptions by the Wobblies that included oratory and singing were met with what the Wobblies called the water cure. A firehose was used to blast the raucous hobos with 150-200 pounds of pressure leaving the hobos injured and soaked in the flooded basement during the foggy Fresno winter months (Dubofsky, 1969; Minderman, 1981). It is, of course, no surprise that a great many of the men got sick. The county health inspector declared the basement unhealthy noting that the basement’s airspace was not adequate for the crowd of Wobblies that eventually exceeded 100 men, but it might suffice for 15 to 30 men (“Fresno County Jail is Unsanitary,” 1911). Minderman (1981) also reported that several of the prisoners were beaten in the jail as well. The San Francisco Call, published a story by Fred Bechdolt (1911) covering much of the front page of the paper. In it, he pondered one of the essential but puzzling elements behind the strike: 85 85

It is one of those strange situations which crop up suddenly and are hard to understand. Some thousands of men, whose business it is to work with their hands, ramping and stealing rides, suffering hardships and facing dangers- to get into jail. And to get into that one particular jail in a town of which they have never heard before, in which they have no direct interest. (p. 1) The situation in Fresno puzzled Bechdolt, but the answer that seemed to elude him was the common cause and shared identity of the Wobblies. The revolutionary Marxist rhetoric of the Wobblies served a necessary and sufficient role in calling individuals with a common cause into becoming a collective voice for change. By crafting messages based on the common life experiences of some of society’s most marginalized people, the Wobblies drew these people together under the banner of the IWW producing a group identity. This section of the chapter examines how the group identity of Wobbly was discursively produced by the IWW through rhetorical strategies that sought to transform disorganized individual transient workers into Wobblies with an identification with and dedication to the IWW. We can see this transformation on display in Fresno. By examining the internal rhetoric of the IWW and the effect that it had on its members, the constitutive force of rhetoric emerges as an answer to the implied question Bechdolt (1911) raised.

Identity The Wobblies can be seen as more than just a collection of hobos because that is not how they saw themselves. The identity they forged for themselves was enacted rhetorically with words, comics, and song. The IWW depicted Wobblies as a potent force challenging the entire wage system in a class war against capitalists. Street (2004) painstakingly detailed how the Wobblies began the 86 86 arduous process of recruiting laborers in California starting in 1906. Organizing workers in factories, mines, and other enclosed permanent structures that offer steady employment was a far more straightforward task. Trade unions including the IWW organized workers on a shop by shop or industry by industry basis (Brissenden, 1920). With seasonal workers such as field hands, lumberjacks, and other temporary laborers, organizing workers was complicated by several factors. With no lunchroom and reduced contact on the job, workers were spread out into small groups. Because the jobs required limited skills and training, scabs or replacement workers were easy to find. Furthermore, with crews being hired and let go with the seasons, the process of organizing had to be replicated over and over (Hall, 2001; Street, 2004). To overcome these complications the IWW devised a plan: First, they would continue with their soapbox campaign among bindlemen during the off-season in the urban slave markets. Second, they would focus on a common enemy, the employment agent or “shark” …Third, from their street-corner pulpits, Wobblies would continue to excoriate the evils of seasonal employment, while in the pages of the Industrial Worker they would launch a program to help workers find permanent jobs and avoid trouble. Finally, they would establish small IWW locals throughout California’s agricultural districts. (Street, 2004, p. 598) The recruiting strategy of the Wobblies was to use the soapbox to create identification with men who, as Street observed, shared a common lived experience inhabiting hobo jungles and tramping from job to job. The standard soapbox speech included pointed criticisms of the capitalist system and spoke of class conflict. Kornbluh (1964) recounted stories of a well know speaker, named Jack Phelan, who would stand up on his soapbox and shout out “I’ve been 87 87 robbed!” over and over until all eyes were on him, and then he would continue, “I’ve been robbed by the capitalist system” (p. 71). These speeches featured criticisms of the wage-slave system and also included lofty discussions of what Wobblies had accomplished and what they would do once all the workers were part of the one big union (Dubofsky, 1969; Foner, 1965; Kornbluh, 1964). The process of identification was not only part of the recruitment pitch, but it also served to help forge and fortify a new identity as a member of the IWW. In Fresno, members of the union faced a difficult time in the county jail, and the Wobblies engaged in a series of rhetorical acts designed to create and reinforce a central identity. Behaving less like individuals charged with crimes and more like prisoners of war, the Wobblies held regular meetings and sang protest songs to express their political perspective and show solidarity in their incarceration. The February 15, 1911 edition of the Fresno Morning Republican printed the story “Convict Three IWW’s on First Ballot.” In an effort to make jail more uncomfortable for the criminal orators newly elected Sheriff McSwain told the press he intended to build a rock pile and to have the Wobblies work on it. An unfazed Frank Little was reported as saying: “rock pile doesn’t scare IWW’s because in Spokane the city treasury suffered the most from the cost of replacing hundreds of broken hammer handles” (p. 12). When McSwain did introduce the rock pile and ordered the Wobblies to work on it. In a showing of democracy and solidarity to the working class, the union members called for a vote. On February 28, 1911, guards took the Wobblies outside to work in the park and on the rock pile. In their vote; the Wobblies decided not to rake leaves in the park or clean city streets, as the act of providing labor for the city constituted scabbing and might cost a worker his job. The union felt that working on the rock pile was not competitive, meaning they would not be replacing any workers. The Wobblies 88 88 agreed to work on the rock pile (“Call Citizens Together,” 1911). In his description of the jail’s conditions, Minderman (1981) also described how the Wobblies engaged in activities to strengthen union identification. He reported that when new prisoners were placed in the bullpen with the Wobblies, they would work to recruit them into the union. The jailed hobos would give speeches and lead sing-alongs in the jail. The Wobblies frequently gave speeches to any of the passersby who would linger outside the jail to hear the Wobblies speak or sing. The Wobblies found that song was a powerful force for attracting and indoctrinating crowds. The Wobbly songs were “[s]ung with near-religious fervor around campfires, Wobbly songs spread rapidly among the floating population and created a sense of unity among widely dispersed bindlemen” (Street, 2004, p. 603). Although the Wobbly songbook I.W.W. Songs to Fan the Flames of Discontent, popularly known as the little red songbook, was first published in 1909 it may not have been in possession of any of the Fresno Wobblies. However, many of the hobos in Fresno were no doubt well versed in the better-known union songs. Of the propaganda printed and sold to Wobblies; cards with songs printed on them were in the highest demand (Carter, 1980). Minderman (1981) revealed that the hobos would sing the “Red Flag and other songs” (p. 112). This was done in order to draw attention and show solidarity. In studying the songs of the IWW as rhetoric, Carter (1980) pointed out that singing raised the spirits of Wobblies who sat in jail, expressing their pride at being a member of the union. Carter continued to discuss how songs have historically been a way that people deal with difficult situations. This is consistent with other rhetorical studies that have revealed how songs, in conjunction with oratory “can add to the attitude change resulting from a speech of social action” (Kosokoff & Carmichael, 1970, p. 301). 89 89

The rhetorical criticism of the lyrics to Wobbly songs revealed that many of the songs shared a dominant theme that the collective strength of labor is powerful and transformative. Perhaps no better example of this power of song can be found in the collection of Wobblies songs than “The Internationale” (1871) that served as an unofficial anthem for the Wobblies. The first stanza invokes the power of liberation found that stems from the union. Arise, ye prisoners of starvation! Arise ye wretched of the earth, For justice thunders condemnation, A better worlds’s in birth No more tradition’s chains shall bind us, Arise, ye slaves; no more in thrall! The earth shall rise on new foundations. We have been naught, we shall be all. (Pottier, 1871, p. 6) These lyrics describe slave-like working conditions in much the same way the Wobblies had talked about the wage system using the term wage slave. The use of the term condemnation in conjunction with the promise of a better world being born gave a sense of religious revelation that goes on to promise that the chains of slavery will fall, and the liberated workers will rise up freed and fulfilled. Themes of oppression and liberation in “The Internationale” echo themes found in the Wobblies’ rhetoric. According to Carter (1980), protest songs work to build commitment to the cause and were such an integral part of the IWW that union halls would arrange the furniture to accommodate pianos and other instruments. A group of Wobblies known as the overall brigade would often parade with music and song as Street (2004) discussed how music was a vital part of being a Wobbly. 90 90

Along with the plight of workers and their liberation another theme of popular Wobbly songs was the oppression of the capitalist class. John Brill’s (1916) “Dump the Bosses Off Your Back” displays the gritty style and sardonic wit of the Wobblies while it conveys a message both indicting the ruling class as a source of oppression while offering the typical IWW direct action as a solution. Are you poor forlorn and hungry? Are there lots of things you lack? Is your life made up of misery? Then dump the bosses off your back. Are your clothes all patched and tattered? Are you living in a shack? Would you have your troubles scattered? Then dump the bosses off your back. Are you almost split asunder? Loaded like a long-eared jack? Boob-why don’t you buck like thunder And dump the bosses off your back? All the agonies you suffer, You can end with one good whack- Stiffen up, you orn’ry duffer- And dump the bosses off your back. (p. 18) The capitalist class is personified as “the boss,” and the lyrics give a list of particulars indicting the boss for hunger, deprivation, and physical misery. Once again these are conditions that any laborer could identify with so while the song holds the boss accountable it also creates identification with the worker who internalizes the lyrics. Carter (1980) observed that themes seen in the songs of the 91 91

Wobblies included the depiction of capitalists as selfish and cruel masters, who hold domination over workers. Singing these songs in jail as part of a refusal to be compliant prisoners illustrates how the use of song worked to forge and maintain the collective identity as a Wobbly in the direst of circumstances. The rhetoric of the Wobblies worked to create an identity for the members of the union based on common interests and an understanding of the power that collective action could have. As Wobblies endured hardships that tested their commitment, the rhetoric of the IWW also served to empower the Wobblies and to build solidarity within the union.

Empowerment and Solidarity There are fewer people that hold lower social and economic status than vagrants occupying a county jail; yet, the Wobblies’ rhetoric sought to transform hobos into an army of resistance, depicting the IWW as a bulwark against the capitalist interests that was seen as the source of their oppression. Through this new perspective, the Wobblies viewed themselves as a powerful, liberating force challenging the structures of oppression identified in the rhetoric. The comic on the front page of the October 1, 1910, edition of the Industrial Worker was entitled “Is it About to Strike?” The cartoon offered an image that was drawn to support the Wobblies as they prepared for the impending free speech strike (see Appendix C for image). Feeling confident after achieving success in the Spokane free speech fight several months earlier, the artist depicted a police officer beaten and lying on the ground with the name Spokane written across his chest. A second law enforcement officer held a club in one hand and was choking a man with his other hand. This second officer is emblazoned with the name of Fresno. The strangled man’s hat had fallen off and on it were the 92 92 words, “Free speech agitator.” Above them, emerging from the clouds was a muscular arm clutching lightning bolts in a fist. On this celestial arm were the three letters IWW (p. 1). In this comic, the union was elevated to the status of deity, displaying a God like superhuman power. The righteousness of the Wobblies’ cause and the power of the IWW is displayed by aligning the union with the hand of God. The free speech agitator was drawn as struggling against the power of the police and distinct from the power of the union, which was intentionally depicted as disembodied. The image shows the power of the union, defying human embodiment existing beyond the corporal limits of a single individual, transcending into an ethereal Wobbly. As a mere mortal, the fate of the individual agitator appears to be in the hands of the brutal police. The power lay not in the individual agitator but in the solidarity with the union presented visually as a transcendent entity. The police and the City of Fresno are consubstantial illustrating a near police state of hegemonic power. This comic served as a message of empowerment for the Wobblies spelling out that the source of power and liberation lies in the strength and solidarity of the union as a social movement. The caption above the comic posed the question “Is it About to Strike?” (1910). This, of course, was a play on words referring to a lightning bolt of the IWW and the impending free speech strike. This image reinforced the strength and righteousness of the union and offering moral justification for the strike. In the rhetoric of war, the use of moral grounds as justification is identified in Ivie (1980) as part of a just war. In using the war metaphor, the IWW was in a similar position seeking to justify direct action by claiming the moral authority to break laws as part of a metaphorical and just war of liberation. 93 93

As the strike wore on and more and more Wobblies found themselves in jail, news of a large group of Wobblies heading to Fresno to participate in the free speech fight gave encouragement to the Wobblies that victory seemed to be in sight. As mentioned in the preceding chapter, on February 21, 1911, The Fresno Morning Republican ran the story “I.W.W. Army much reduced” The story details a meeting in St. Louis where it was reported that as many as 5,000 Wobblies from eastern towns were heading to Fresno. The Industrial Worker had been asking Wobblies to head to Fresno in nearly every issue since the strike began. In the February 23, 1911 edition of the Industrial Worker, Frank Little wrote a short article entitled “City Would Like to Holler ‘Enough’-More Men Are Needed to Board with the County.” In the article Little writes: The fight for free speech is still going on in Fresno. The men are all “stickers and are determined to strike until they win. We have held two street meetings Sunday, February 5 and 12. We had large crowds at both meetings and the public sentiment is changing in our favor. (F. H. Little, “City Would Like to Holler,” 1911, p. 1) The response from Little illustrates that the Wobblies were feeling buoyed by the support at meetings; he felt that they would win out with the backing from the community. The depiction of the strikers as “stickers” seems evidence of a strength of belief and persistence The rhetoric of the IWW worked to challenge the rhetoric of control by offering a war metaphor. This war metaphor was specifically presented as a war of liberation that worked to build identification with the workers the IWW sought to unionize. It was supported by depictions of the workers, the establishment in Fresno, and the police. The metaphor worked to support the creation of a common identity among Wobblies and to empower the Wobblies during a difficult strike. 94 94

This understanding helps to answer the puzzlement that beset Bechdolt (1911) when he wondered why Wobblies were coming from all across the county to Fresno in order to be arrested. The answer to the question was the identity constructed discursively through speech, visual images, and song. The identity built by the rhetoric of resistance helps explain why the hobos who identified as Wobblies chose to take on the burdens required of them to fight for free speech in Fresno. Rhetoric transformed vagabond workers into an army of radicalized hobo activists. Chapters 3 and 4 have focused on the rhetorics of control and resistance separately. In chapter five this thesis provides a summary of the analysis, discusses the implications of the interplay of the rhetorics of control and resistance, and offers suggestions for future research.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

In concluding this criticism of the rhetorics of control and resistance produced by the IWW and the elite of Fresno this last chapter of the thesis is divided into four parts. The first part summarizes the thesis. In the second part, an interpretation of the findings is offered. The third section offers suggestions for further research. The final section contains some brief final thoughts.

Summary Reading about the Fresno free speech strike and then hearing Wobblies tell stories about the events in Fresno over a hundred years ago generated a fascination with the IWW and the power of rhetoric to effect social change. The Fresno strike stands out as a historic example of the struggle between a rhetoric of control that is in conflict with a rhetoric of resistance. This struggle has its roots in a class conflict. As research into the strike progressed the focus of interest became the ways in which the elite of Fresno exerted hegemony in order to effect control over the IWW through discourse. Four research questions then became the impetus for the thesis. The first question asked how were particular language choices used by the establishment of Fresno in an effort to control and contain messaging by the IWW? The second research question was how did the rhetoric of control reinforce the domination of the ruling class? The third question was how were metaphors and images employed by the IWW in resisting the rhetoric of control? The fourth question asked how did these resistance strategies challenge the hegemony of the rhetoric of the ruling class? The specific purpose of this thesis then has been to analyze the rhetoric of control used to silence the IWW and the rhetoric of resistance that emerged as a response in order to identify patterns and themes that reveal how ideologies worked to produce each of these rhetorics. 96 96

One of the challenges in studying the Fresno free speech strike as a social movement was the absence of speeches to use as text. However, a plethora of primary source material exists in the form of newspaper coverage of the strike and some firsthand accounts preserved in Foner’s (1981) book Fellow Workers and Friends: I.W.W. Free-Speech as Told by Participants. In consideration of the ideological focus of the rhetoric and the fragmented texts being examined, the praxis of critical rhetoric was chosen to guide the process of writing this thesis. In order to draw meaning from the text fragments that were analyzed the texts were reviewed seeking out examples of metaphors and images that revealed how the rhetorics of control and resistance sought to influence their audiences. The use of war as a metaphor for the strike stood out in the text as a persistent and powerful metaphor. It is not surprising to find the use of war as a metaphor for a strike. The strike was essentially a disagreement that had reached an impasse. In discussing metaphors, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) pointed out that ontological metaphors such as the war metaphor structure our understanding in such a way that our understanding is guided and limited by the way we understand war. The use of the war metaphor to discuss the free speech strike structured meaning within a frame of understanding as described in Lakoff and Johnson (1980). This meaning is in part constructed with particular depictions that worked to explain to the audience what type of war this is and what the nature of the warfare should be. The first set of text fragments from the rhetoric of control were selected primarily from the two daily newspapers in Fresno with an eye toward text from primary sources that acted to guide public perception of the strike in order to retain public support for silencing the Wobblies through the restriction of free speech. Other fragments were selected as evidence of the rhetoric of control that exerted hegemonic power to repress the Wobblies who challenged the institutions of 97 97 capitalism and threatened the elite’s efforts to silence the union by arresting Wobblies and discursive marginalization of the union. The second set of text fragments were selected from the Wobbly newspapers and firsthand accounts as primary source materials that illustrated a rhetoric of resistance that employed strategies of rhetorical acts to confront the rhetoric of control. Further texts were selected that detailed a rhetoric of resistance that functioned in two spheres of influence. One sphere was comprised of an audience outside the union. Here the rhetoric sought to recruit new members and build support for the union and the strike. The second smaller sphere was comprised of members of the union. In this sphere, the rhetoric sought to encourage dedication to the strike. A single set of messages operated in both spheres, and artifacts selected to build arguments for analysis simply reflected an approach to find the best fit as this thesis makes no claim that the rhetoric of control was by design crafted with these different spheres in mind. The fifth and final chapter of this thesis allows for a synthesis of ideas that have been brought to the forefront in the previous four chapters. In preparation for this final analysis, this summary brings the focus back to some of the analysis regarding how the war metaphor and images found in the rhetoric of control and the rhetoric of resistance functioned to develop meanings in these two rhetorics. By employing the war metaphor, the power elite in Fresno sought to create an understanding of the IWW, the nature of the strike, and the establishment in Fresno. This metaphor was supported with class-based depictions designed to gin up fears of the Wobblies by dehumanizing them. Portrayals of the Wobblies cast them as criminals. Other depictions also evoked fear through overt racism, depicting the Wobblies as foreigners. The union itself was portrayed as a seditious and dangerous organization in the effort to delegitimize it and amplify the fears of 98 98 the individual Wobblies in the public’s minds. These characterizations played upon classist fears by focusing on the Wobblies as a subservient class of people who did not merit first amendment protections. The analysis of the rhetoric of control revealed that the depictions of the Wobblies constructed a war metaphor that sought to explain the free speech strike as an act of war against the City of Fresno. This war metaphor characterized the Wobblies as an invading force that threatened not only the institutional and social structure of Fresno but posed a real and serious threat to the personal safety and private property of the residents. This is consistent with the observations of Ivie (1974) when he observed that the war metaphors seek to frighten the audience and the observations of Hartmann-Mahmud (2002) who claimed that such depictions serve to limit debate and dissent. The consequences of the war metaphor were seen in two specific instances. When it was revealed that the police lacked the power to jail the invading hobos for speaking on the streets, the public viewed this revelation as an immediate threat and lost trust that the police could protect them. This resulted in a mob attacking the Wobblies. The mob violence revealed both the strength of the metaphor in its persuasive function and its limitations as a strategy for hegemony given Gramsic’s (1971) understanding of vigilantism as a breakdown of hegemony. The second consequence was seen when the city trustees sought to negotiate a settlement with the IWW. The metaphor created an inflexible understanding that limited the ability of the elites to talk publicly about any settlement with the IWW. The rhetoric of resistance constructed by the IWW is viewed as a necessary response to the rhetoric of control. The first function of this rhetoric was to refute and engage the metaphor and depictions created by the power elite in Fresno. In 99 99 doing so, the IWW constructed a war metaphor as well; however, the depictions that populated this metaphor portrayed the Wobblies as liberators who were coming to Fresno to fight injustice, restore freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. In this metaphor of a war of liberation, the police of Fresno were cast as unjust and acting unconstitutionally through unlawful arrests and the repression of the freedom of speech. Public acts such as reading the Constitution without a permit helped to combat the understanding of the Wobblies created by the ruling elite of Fresno as well as bringing into question the nature of the disagreement on street speaking. Other tactics used by the IWW included passing out Wobbly literature that expressed the union’s perspective on the streets and using the courts as a forum for the airing of grievances that the Wobblies were unable to voice from soapboxes. The primary strategy of the IWW was to commit acts of civil disobedience designed to fill the jail and clog up the courts making the prohibition on street speaking so costly that the citizens would demand an end to it. The Wobblies rhetoric of resistance also sought to generate sympathy from people in Fresno and elsewhere through depictions that helped create identification with other working people. Another tactic used to generate support was to hold up the unfair treatment by the police and the attacks by the mob as a reflection for the public to look at in a direct challenge to the depictions of the Wobblies found in the local newspapers. The second function of the rhetoric of resistance was to empower the Wobblies and build the solidarity necessary to motivate members to travel to Fresno, participate in civil disobedience and go to jail enduring harsh treatment inside. This was accomplished through the creation of a shared identity. This identity was constructed and shared through the Wobbly writings and comics as well as through the rhetorical act of singing union songs. The war metaphor that 100 100 positioned the Wobblies as an army arrayed against the forces of capitalism on a mission to save their brothers was demonstrably potent. The constructed identity of being a Wobbly engaged in a class war helped explain the level of dedication necessary to willingly travel to endure the hardships of the strike. In the end, the city ceded to the Union and negotiated an end to the strike that left the IWW with the right to speak and recruit in a designated part of town. The Wobblies were released from jail on the promise that any Wobblies not seeking work would leave town. The analysis of the text has offered up several insights into how these two-rhetoric’s functioned; what follows are interpretations of those insights.

Interpretation of Findings The application of critical rhetorical practices seeks to direct what the criticism reveals by altering the essential questions that are asked. This criticism has not concerned itself primarily with techniques of persuasion or questions of effectiveness. The driving issues throughout the criticism have been how did the rhetoric of control or resistance function? Who benefited from these messages, and how did they benefit? Metaphors were useful to study how the rhetorics of control and resistance struggled against each other in an effort to create a dominant understanding. This was particularly useful due to the extensive use of the same metaphor by both rhetorics. When we consider the findings that the rhetorical processes revealed from the texts, four essential observations standout. First, the thesis enhances our understandings of how the war metaphor functions. Second, the thesis adds to the understandings of the ways in which social movements may confront the rhetoric of control. Third, the analysis of the thesis enhances our understanding of how identities within social movements are constructed. Fourth, 101 101 the analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of critical theory in revealing structures of power inherent in the construction and dissemination of the rhetorics of control and resistance. It is clear that although the war metaphor was employed in both the rhetoric of control and the rhetoric of resistance, it was used quite differently in each case with far different implications. As discussed, the rhetoric of control produced by the ruling elite in Fresno used the war metaphor to dehumanize the IWW as an invading horde. Research into the use of the war metaphor by Ferrari (2007) was deeply grounded in the theoretical work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) Ferrari observed that “the ideological basis we can infer is that of a conflict frame with its standard form of a polar opposition of two sides – typically us vs. them” (p. 620). In his analysis of the use of war metaphors, Steinert (2003) pointed out the limitations of the war metaphor derive largely from the fact that the two situations being compared were not in fact consubstantial. In this case, the strike was not a war. In these writings on theory, the exemplars can be abstract and are often brief and lacking in context. By looking at the extended use of the war of invasion metaphor and its consequences, this thesis offers an enhanced understanding of how stoking the fears of the public and limiting the perceived options set the stage for mob violence. It further describes how the hegemony exerting legitimate power through the police suffered a momentary lapse. Other consequences of the war of invasion metaphor are seen in the analysis of how the depictions of the Wobblies limited the acceptable outcomes in public discourse about the strike. The influence of this rhetoric and the limitations the metaphor constructed are demonstrated in historical contexts with the concrete outcomes placed on display for the reader. This rhetoric was constructed using the war metaphor by the power elite in order to retain consent and gain compliance from the citizens in Fresno. 102 102

The IWW constructed a strong pervasive war metaphor as part of the rhetoric of resistance. It created the opportunity to directly contrast these metaphors within the same historical context. As discussed, the metaphor constructed by the IWW employed the war metaphor much differently than the war metaphor used by the power elite in Fresno. By using depictions of a war of liberation, the rhetoric of the IWW portrayed the Wobblies as part of an army on a righteous cause to liberate the working class. In part, this metaphor was constructed to directly challenge the depictions contained in the rhetoric of control. The Wobblies depicted the police as being the ones with no regard for law and themselves as upholding the law. We can see the depictions made in the rhetoric of control, challenged in the rhetorical acts of Frank Little. By representing himself and other Wobblies in court, Frank Little publically challenged depictions of the Wobblies as lazy or ignorant. The ideologically driven metaphor of the Wobblies as liberators was shown to motivate individual Wobblies and to encourage the perception that this free speech fight is a battle in a larger class conflict. The metaphor depicting the ruling elite as unkind masters exploiting the workers also left little room for compromise much less capitulation. This influenced the strikers to reject offers to leave town prolonging the strike until an acceptable deal was struck. The rhetoric of the IWW that employed the war metaphor was generated to confront the depictions that were part of the rhetoric of control but also to motivate fellow Wobblies to take direct action and remain in the fight. The research into the use of the war metaphor is expanded upon by this analysis and given a richly detailed study within a historical context that provides insights into how this metaphor functioned differently as part of the rhetoric of control than it did as part of a rhetoric of resistance. 103 103

As a study of how a social movement confronted the rhetoric of control this thesis offers insight that enhances the understanding of the ways that social movements may co-opt the messages of control they confront. The use of the metaphor of war by the elite in Fresno also presented the opportunity for the IWW to co-opt that metaphor. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) observed that when metaphors share entailments, they have coherence; they are understandable and readily accepted based on their overlap. In this case, the overlap is the use of metaphors that share the common elements of war. They both entail war and war terms. The shared common root makes it more likely that either metaphor will be accepted by an audience; however, the presence of one war metaphor supports some of the essential entailments of the other war metaphor. This commonality also makes it easier for an audience to shift or to be persuaded to reject one metaphor and then to embrace the other. Where the metaphors diverge, the audience will find meaning in the metaphor most closely linked to their experience (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). In examining the conflict between the ruling elite and the IWW in Fresno, this thesis exposed these competing depictions that serve as points of identification between the rhetors and their audience. Whether by design or by providence, the IWW chose to utilize a war metaphor while seeking to create identification with workers in the audience thusly co-opting the war metaphor of the power elite. This study enhances our understanding of how this metaphoric co- option takes place by illustrating how it was accomplished by the rhetoric of resistance. This study also enhances our understanding of the transformative effect that rhetoric can have on individuals within social movements. The thesis provides a discussion on the creation of identification through shared experience and messaging within the ranks of the Wobblies. This thesis posits that the acceptance 104 104 of this rhetoric offered a reasonable explanation for the phenomena of Wobblies traveling to Fresno to occupy the jail. The analysis identified that as individuals the hobos were members of a social class with very little power or status. Moreover, their lifestyle offered high levels of physical mobility quite literally leaving inhospitable locations for better conditions on a regular basis. Yet it would seem that the discursive practices of the IWW had a transformative effect on the self-perception of the hobos who joined the IWW. Itinerant Wobbly farm workers enjoyed little more financial security or status in the community than other farm workers. However, the rhetoric of these men reveals a sense of power and purpose as they sacrificed themselves for a cause because they understood that sacrifice is what it took to be a good Wobbly. Finally, this study demonstrates the effectiveness of critical rhetorical theory in revealing the role ideology played in the formation of these two rhetorics. The study revealed the social and economic structure that supported the ruling elite in Fresno who created a rhetoric of control for the explicit purpose of silencing one particular group, the IWW. By asking the questions: Why this rhetoric? Why this group and who benefits from this control? Critical rhetorical theory reveals the simple, plausible explanation that the IWW was singled out because their rhetoric targeted local business interests that stood to lose money from Wobbly efforts to call out job agents and to organize unskilled labor in Fresno. The Wobblies Marxist ideology also directly challenged the hegemony exercised by local police and newspapers. The rhetoric of control served the needs and purposes of the ruling elite, but it is difficult to see how the citizens of Fresno benefited from this rhetorical positioning. For its part the rhetoric of resistance was a more democratized message with voices of multiple would be orators and singers, articles written, and comics 105 105 drawn by multiple authors virtually all anonymous and unpaid. Who benefited from this social movement? While it is true the victory in Fresno raised the profile of the union, the critic must ask were the individual members of the union rewarded beyond the stories of their time in Fresno and perhaps a physical scar left from a beating? Certainly, the intended beneficiaries of this rhetoric were the workers in Fresno both in and out of the union. This analysis finds a ring of authenticity to the rhetoric of the IWW that seems absent in the rhetoric of control that somewhat shamelessly employed a war metaphor to encourage an audience to act in the interests of the ruling class. This is reflected in McKerrow (1989) in his discussion of critical rhetoric when he stated: What is important here is the interaction between class and people in the articulation of a ‘position’ as subject: To win adherence to a class position, the themes are expressed in terms of the rhetoric of the; “people.” To maintain power, the ruling class also must address themes in terms of a “people.” (p. 94) For its part, the IWW produced a compelling theme of and for the people. The criticism of the effectiveness of the rhetoric produced by the ruling elite must observe that the metaphor of war was insufficient to retain the necessary compliance hegemony demanded to support the repression of the First Amendment rights of the Wobblies.

Suggestions for Future Research The findings of this rhetorical criticism offer implications for further inquiries that may stem from some of the subject matter and practices used to construct this study. In particular, three recommendations stand out as potentially fruitful sources of investigation: a study of Frank Little as single rhetorical voice, a 106 106 study of rhetoric used to organize extremely marginalized groups and a criticism of the rhetoric of control as governmental policy. Although this study made a conscious effort to avoid privileging a single rhetor in gathering research materials, it became impossible not to include many references to and quotes from Frank Little. Readers who became interested in Little will find that like other Wobbly organizers such as Mary “Mother Jones” Harris, “Big” Bill Hayward, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Eugene V. Debs; Frank Little was a fascinating character who had an interesting career as an organizer for the IWW. Although not necessarily as well-known as other organizers, his impact on union organizing in the West is both noteworthy and underserved as a subject of rhetorical study. This study touched upon the impressive role discourse played in transforming the identity and self-concept of hobos who self-identified as Wobblies. It seems as if further study of social movements of largely dispossessed people such as Coxey’s Army, James Eads How’s International Brotherhood Welfare Association, or the Bonus Army would prove productive. Much might be learned from the study of how they employed discursive practices such as identification to attract members and then to empower and motivate them as a social movement. The application of critical theory to examine the rhetoric of control and the rhetoric of resistance proved to be a productive process. It also was particularly appropriate as an approach to examining official policies that operate to silence and control specific groups. Although the McCarthy era certainly also fits this description, scholars also might do well to look to the first red scare during 1919- 1920 to see how the governmental efforts to control the IWW were met with resistance from the union as its leaders were put on trial. 107 107 Final Thoughts The free speech strike in Fresno served as an example of a rhetorical clash between two social groups struggling for hegemony. The Fresno free speech strike has left a lasting impression. In downtown Fresno, at the corner of Broadway and Mariposa stands California State landmark plaque number 873 commemorating the Fresno free speech movement (Botkin, 2017). No book on the IWW seems complete without some discussion of the free speech strike in Fresno as the free speech strike in Fresno left indelible marks on the union and the city alike. The March 7, 1911 Fresno Morning Republican in the article “Interior of Jail is cleaned by Trusties [sic]” recorded that when the Wobblies were freed from the jail, and a crew was sent in to clean the bullpen, John Murdock, a cartoonist among the Wobblies, had covered the walls and ceiling with political cartoons. Wobblies had also carved the preamble to the IWW constitution into one wall of the large cell. Whatever traces the union left on the City of Fresno, the strike was clearly more consequential to the Wobblies than it had been to the power elite in Fresno. The literature on the Fresno free speech strike makes clear that the Wobblies were energized by a sense of victory. Kornbluh (1964) noted that Wobblies leaving Fresno added a verse to Harry “Haywire Mac” McClintock’s hobo song “Hallelujah, I’m a Bum” adding new lines to the refrain: Springtime is come and I’m just out of jail. Without any money Without any bail (p. 96).

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Althusser, L. (Ed.). (1971). Lenin and philosophy, and other essays. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. An identity of interest. (1910, July 14). Industrial Worker. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/industrialworker/iw/v2n17-w69- july-16-1910-IW.pdf

Andrews, J. R. (1973). Confrontation at Columbia: A case study in coercive rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 55(1), 9-16. doi:10.1080/00335636909382932

Artz, L. (2006). On material and the dialectic: toward a class analysis of communication. In L. Artz, S. Macek, & D. L. Cloud (Eds.), Marxism and communication studies: The point is to change it (pp. 5-51). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Aune, J. A. (1994). Rhetoric & Marxism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ayotte, K. (2000). Constructions of violence: Labor, capital. and hegemonic struggle in the Pullman strike of 1984. In C. A. Stabile (Ed.), Turning the century: Essays in media and cultural studies (pp. 217-234). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bechdolt, F. (1911, March 2). Hundreds in jail and more seek martyrdom. San Francisco Call. Retrieved from http://chroniclingmerica.loc.gov/ Iccn/sn8566387/1911-03-02/de-1/seq-1/

Berry, E. (1981). Emma Goldman: A study in female agitation. Women's Studies in Communication, 4(1), 32-46. doi:10.1080/07491409198111089633

Botkin, J. L. (2017). Frank Little and the IWW: The blood that stained an American family (1 ed.). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Bowers, J. W., & Ochs, D. J. (1971). The rhetoric of agitation and control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brill, J. (1916). Dump the bosses off your back. In I.W.W. songs to fan the flames of discontent (19th ed., p. 18). Oakland, CA: PM Press. (Original work published 1916).

Brissenden, P. F. (1920). The I.W.W.: A study of American Syndicalism (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University. 110 110 Broyles, G. J. (1978). The Spokane free speech fight, 1909-1910:A study in IWW tactics. Labor History, 19(2), 238-252. doi:10.1080/002366567808584491

Burgess, P. G. (1968). The rhetoric of black power: A moral demand? Quarterly Journal of Speech, 54(2), 122-133. doi:10.1080/00335636809382881

Burke, K. (1950). The rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Call citizens together to hear report on IWW situation. (1911, March 1). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 1.

Capitalist sluggers in Fresno. (1910, December 15). Industrial Worker, p. 1. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/industrialworker/ iw/v2n39-w91-dec-15-1910-IW.pdf

Carter, D. A. (1980). The Industrial Workers of the World and the rhetoric of song. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(4), 365-374. doi:10.1080/00335638009383535

Cathcart, R. S. (1978). Movements: Confrontation as rhetorical form. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 43(3), 233-247. doi:10.1080/ 10417947809372383

Charland, M. (1987). Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the “Peuple Quebecois.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73, 133-150. doi:10.180/00335638709383799

Cloud, D. L. (1994). The materiality of discourse as oxymoron: A challenge to critical rhetoric. Western Journal of Communication, 58(3), 141-163. doi:10.1080/10570319409374493

Clyde, E. M. (1981). On the Wobbly train to Fresno. In P. S. Foner (Ed.), Fellow workers and friends: I.W.W. free-speech fights as told by participants (Vol. 92, pp. 79-104). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Condit, C. M., & Lucaites, J. L. (1993). Crafting equality: America's Anglo- African word. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Condit, C. M., & Lucaities, J. L. (1991). The rhetoric of equality and the expatriation of African-Americans 1771-1826. Communication Studies, 42(1), 1-21. doi:10.1080/10510979109368318 111 111 Convict three IWWs on first ballot. (1911, February 15). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 12.

Declines to pay for meal. (1910, September 27). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 1.

Determine to harrass [sic] the police. (1910, October 8). Fresno Herald, pp.1,3.

Disgrace to Fresno. (1910, December 10). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 2.

Dr. Burks reports on jail conditions. (1911, February 18). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 6.

Dubofsky, M. (1969). We shall be all. Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.

F.H. Little acquitted: IWWs speak on streets again. (1910, December 9). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 2.

Ferrari, F. (2007). Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: Investigating a 'preventive war' persuasion strategy. Discourse and Society, 18(5), 603-625. doi:10.1177/0957926507079737 2

Foner, P. S. (1965). History of the labor movement in the United States: Volume IV: The Industrial Workers of the World, 1905-1917. New York, NY: International Publishers.

Foner, P. S. (1981). Introduction. In P. S. Foner (Ed.), Fellow workers and friends: I.W.W. free-speech as told by participants (Vol. 92, pp. 3-22). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans). New York, NY: Harper & Rowe.

Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality an introduction Vol1 (First American ed.). New York, NY: Random House.

Free speech and Fresno. (1910, September 24). Industrial Worker, p.1. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/industrialworker/iw/v2n27-w79- sep-24-1910-IW.pdf

Free speech is yet muzzled in Fresno, California. (1911, February 2). Industrial Worker, p.1. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/indsutrialworker/iw/v2n46-w98-feb-02- 1911-IW.pdf 112 112 Free speech must be won in Fresno. (1910, October 8). Industrial Worker, p.1. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/industrialworker/iw/v2n29-w81-oct-08- 1910-IW.pdf

Free speech must be won in Fresno. (1910, September 10). Industrial Worker, p.1. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/industrialworker/iw/v2n25-w77-sept-10- 1910-IW.pdf

Fresno County Jail is unsanitary report health officers. (1911, January 11). Fresno Morning Republican, p.6.

Fresno fight is on: Many men in jail. (1910, October 10). Industrial Worker, p.1. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/industrialworker/iw/v2n31-w83-oct-19- 1910-IW.pdf

Fresno fighters show solidarity. (1911, January 5). Industrial Worker, p. 1. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/industrialworker/iw/v2n42-w94-jan-05- 1911-IW.pdf

Genini, R. (1974). Industrial Workers of the World and their Fresno free speech fight, 1910-1911. California Historical Quarterly, 53(2), 101-114. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stble/25257499

Gillespie, J. M. (1910, December 12). Pastor favors a chain gang for industrial workers here. Fresno Morning Republican, p. 4.

Gilmour, J. H. (1910, October 10). Trouble breeders. Fresno Herald, p.4.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Prison notebooks. New York, NY: International Publishers.

Griffin, L. M. (1952). The rhetoric of social movements. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 38, 184-188. doi:10.1080/00335635209381762

Haiman, F. S. (1967). The rhetoric of the streets: Some legal and ethical considerations. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 53(2), 99-114. doi:10.1080/00335636709382822 113 113 Hall, G. (2001). Harvest Wobblies: The Industrial Workers of the World and agricultural laborers in the American west 1905-1930 (1st ed.). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Hariman, R. (1986). Status, marginality and rhetorical theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72, 38-54. doi:10.1080/00335638609383757

Harper, E. B. (1910, December 12). Says workingman in without rights. Fresno Morning Republican, p. 23. (E. B. Little writing under a pen name)

Hartmann-Mahmud, L. (2002). War as metaphor. Peace review, 14(4), 427-432. doi:10.1080/1040265022000039213

Harvesters get on job and saw wood. (1910, July 14). Industrial Worker, p.1. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/industrialworker/iw/v2- w69-jul-16-1910-IW.pdf

I.W.W. "Army" much reduced; Agitators in east active. (1911, February 21). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 1.

I.W.W. songs to fan the flames of discontent. (1923). I.W.W. songs to fan the flames of discontent (1923 ed.). Oakland, CA: PM Press.

Industrial workers' meeting was a fizzle. (1910, May 30). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 10.

Industrial workers public disturbers. (1910, May 26). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 4.

Industrialists renew street speech fight. (1910, November 29). Fresno Morning Republican, p.1.

Interior of jail is cleaned by trusties [sic]. (1911, March 7). Fresno Morning Republican, p.14.

Invasion of California. (1911, March 4). Solidarity, p. 1.

Is it about to strike? (1910, October 1). Industrial Worker, p.1. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/industrialworker/iw/v2n28-w80-oct-01- 1910-IW.pdf

Ivie, R. L. (1974). Presidential motives for war. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60(3), 337-345. doi:10:1080/0033563740938324 114 114 Ivie, R. L. (1980). Images of savagery in American justifications for war. Communication Monographs, 47(4), 280-291. doi:10.1080/03637758009376037

IWW member en route to Fresno becomes a burglar. (1910, September 30). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 1.

IWW plans to wage war on police. (1910, August 27). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 5.

Killingsworth, M. J., & Palmer, J. S. (1995). The discourse of environmentalist hysteria. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81(1), 1-19. doi:10.1080/00335639509384094

King, A. A. (1976). The rhetoric of power maintenance: Elites at the precipice. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(2), 127-134.

Kornbluh, J. L. (1964). One big union: The philosophy of industrial unionism. In J. L. Kornbluh (Ed.), Rebel voices (pp. 1-32). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Kosokoff, S., & Carmichael, C. W. (1970). The rhetoric of protest: Song speech and attitude change. Southern Speech Journal, 35(4), 295-302. doi:10.1080/104179417947009372062

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By (1 ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Little, E. B. (1911, February 11). Court crookedness in Fresno. Appeal, p. 117.

Little, F. H. (1910, August 27). The California fruit belt. Solidarity, p. 4.

Little, F. H. (1910, June 4). Struggle for free speech in North and West. Industrial Worker, p.1. Retrieved from http://www,marxists.org/history.usa/pubs/ industrialworker/iw/v2n11-w63-june-4-1910-IW.pdf

Little, F. H. (1911, February 23). City would like to holler 'enough'- more men are needed to board with the county. Industrial Worker, p. 1.

Little, W. F. (1910, August 27). Free speech denied; Many I.W.Ws. jailed. Industrial Worker, p.1. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/history/usa/ pubs/industrialworker/iw/v2n23-w75-aug-27=1910-IW.pdf 115 115 Looking for man who disowned flag. (1910, September 7). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 2.

Man suspected in dynamiting case. (1910, October 25). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 16.

Marx, K. (1867). Capital Vol 1: A critique of political economy (1976 ed., Rev.). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1845). The German ideology including theses on Feuerbach and introduction to the critique of political economy (1998 ed., Rev.). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Mattina, A. F. (1996). Corporation tools and time-serving slaves: Class and gender in the rhetoric of antebellum labor reform. The Howard Journal of Communications, 7, 151-168. doi:10.1080/10646179609361721

May, M. S. (2011). Hobo orator union: Class composition and the Spokane free speech fight of the Industrial Workers of the World. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97(2), 155-177. doi:10.1080/00335630.2011.56017

May, M. S. (2013). Soapbox rebellion: The hobo orator union and the free speech fights of the Industrial Workers of the World, 1909-1916. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

McGee, M. C. (1980). The "ideograph": A rhetorical alternative. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 1-16. doi:10.1080/0035638009383494

McGee, M. C. (1990). Text, context, and the fragmentation of contemporary culture. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54(3), 274-289. doi:10.1080/10570319009374343

McKerrow, R. E. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Communication Monographs, 56, 91-111. doi:10.1080/03637758909390253

Mexican speaker is stopped by police: Socialist agitator has no permit; is to enter protest. (1910, April 17). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 12.

Minderman, H. (1981). The Fresno free-speech fight. In P. S. Foner (Ed.), Fellow workers and friends: I.W.W. free-speech fights as told by participants (pp. 105-122). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Mob attacks IWW speakers, surrounds jail. (1910, December 10). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 1. 116 116 More law and order. (1910, August 6). Industrial Worker, p.2. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/industrialworker/iw/v2n31-w83-oct-19- 1910-IW.pdf

Mumby, D. K. (1997). The problem of hegemony: rereading Gramsci for organizational communication studies. Western Journal of Communication, 61(4), 343-375. doi:10.1080/10570319709374585

Murphy, J. M. (1992). Domesticating dissent: The Kennedys and the freedom rides. Communication Monographs, 59, 61-78. doi:10.1080/03637759209376249

Ordinance is passed to forbid speeches in streets. (1910, December 20). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 1.

Peon. (2010). In A. Stevenson (Ed.), Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/ view/10.93/acref/9780199571123.001.0001/m en gb0617960

Pottier, E. (1923). The Internationale. In I.W.W. songs to fan the flames of discontent (C.H. Kerr, Trans.). (19 ed., p. 6). Oakland, CA: PM Press. (Original work published 1871)

Rabban, D. M. (1994). The IWW free speech fights and popular conceptions of free expression before World War I. Virginia Law Review, 80(5), 1055-1158. doi:10.2307/1073625

Renshaw, P. (1965). The Wobblies: the story of syndicalism in the United States (1999 ed., Rev.). Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee Publisher.

Roe, A. V. (1910, October 8). More recruits for Fresno. Industrial Worker, p.1. Retrieved from http://marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/industrialworker/ iw/v2n29-w81-oct-08-1910-IW.pdf

Rogers, E. M. (1994). A history of communication study: A biographical approach. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Rowell, C. H. (1910, April 19). Wrong union. Fresno Morning Republican, p. 4.

Rowell, C. H. (1910, May 26). Not martyrs. Fresno Morning Republican, p. 4.

Schmidt, A. J. (1980). Fraternal Organizations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 117 117 Scott, R. L., & Smith, D. K. (1969). The rhetoric of confrontation. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 55(1), 1-8. doi:10.1080/00335636909382922

Simons, H. W. (1970). Requirements, problems, and strategies: A theory of persuasion for social movements. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56(1), 1-11. doi:10.1080/00335637009382977

Spokane journalist speaks about the industrial worker. (1910, October 10). Fresno Herald, p.6.

St. John, V. (1910, November 19). Free speech to continue. Solidarity, p. 3.

Steinert, H. (2003). The indispensable metaphor of war: on populist politics and the contradictions of the state's monopoly of force. Theoretical Criminology, 7(3), 265-291. doi:10.1177/13624806030073002

Street, R. S. (2004). Beasts of the field. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Thirty I.W.W.'s now in custody: 23 enter pleas in court. (1910, December 2). Fresno Morning Republican, p. 1.

Tonn, M. (1996). Militant motherhood: Labor's Mary Harris "Mother Jones". Quarterly Journal of Speech, 82(1), 1-21. doi:10.1080/00335639609384137

Tonn, M., & Kuhn, M. S. (1993). Co-constructed oratory: Speaker-audience interaction in the labor union rhetoric of Mary Harris "Mother" Jones. Text and Performance Quarterly, 13(4), 313-330. doi:10/1080/10462939309366060

Vandor, P. E. (1919). History of Fresno County California with biographical sketches of the leading men and women of the county who have been identified with its growth and development from early days to the present. Los Angeles, CA: Historic Record Company.

Vokey, S. (2000). Inspiration for insurrection or harmless humour? Class and politics in the editorial cartoons of three Toronto newspapers during the early 1930s. Labour/Le Travail, 45, 141-170. doi:10.2307/25149045

Wander, P. (1983). The ideological turn in modern criticism. Central States Speech Journal, 34(1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/10540978309368110

Windt, T. O. (1972). The diatribe: Last resort for protest. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58(1), 1-14. doi:10.1080/00355637209383096 118 118 Windt, T. O. (1982). Administrative rhetoric: An undemocratic response to protest. Communication Quarterly, 30(3), 245-250. doi:10.1080/01463378209369456

Woman is insulted on street by member of the IWW. (1910, October 22). Fresno Morning Republican, p.12.

Zandy J 2010 Dangerous working-class women: Mother Jones, Lucy Parsons & Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. DQR Studies in Literature, 45(1), 41-62. doi:10.1163/9789042029781

Zarefsky, D. (1977). President Johnson's war on poverty: The rhetoric of three establishment movements. Communication Monographs, 44(4), 352-375. doi:10.1080/0363775709390146

Zarefsky, D. (1986). President Johnson's war on poverty. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: AN IDENTITY OF INTEREST

121 121 122 122

APPENDIX B: FREE SPEECH IS YET MUZZLED IN FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 124 124

125 125

APPENDIX C: IS IT ABOUT TO STRIKE? 127 127

128 128