Full Page Photo Print
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Drew Review is the annual research journal for the undergraduates of the Drew University College of Liberal Arts, publishing undergraduate research from the previous calendar year. Our mission is to showcase the intellectual vibrancy of the students of the CLA. Currently there are five editors; editors were selected by faculty nomination, application, and invitation. Different categories of membership exist, but all members are coeditors and share equal responsibility within the journal. All eligible published students will be offered a position on the board, with the remaining positions filled by faculty nomination and student application with writing sample. Submissions to the Review require a faculty nomination. Students who believe their work is exceptional should approach their professor for a nomination. The Drew Review accepts papers of no more than twenty-five pages in October and February from the previous semester. These papers must be submitted along with a cover letter and faculty nomination. There is a limit of five nominations per professor per semester in order to guarantee a range of submissions. As we are a double-blind, peer-reviewed journal, all submissions should be sent as a Word document to the corresponding editors without naming the student author or professor for whom the essay was written in the body of the essay. The student author’s name and paper title should be in the faculty nomination. Images and graphs will be published in black and white and must be compatible with Word. It is the responsibility of the author to make sure that all images can be reproduced. All published essays will use in-text citations referencing a works cited bibliography (style of in-text reference may vary). Students can expect to be asked to make revisions prior to publication. TIMOTHY BARNUM (CLA 2013), CORRESPONDING EDITOR KATHERINE BITGOOD (CLA 2011), CORRESPONDING EDITOR MIYA CAREY (CLA 2011), EDITOR, ADVERTISING JOHN DABROWSKI (CLA 2012), EDITOR, TREASURER SUZANNE SHEPTOCK (CLA 2011), EDITOR, TREASURER COVER ART BY RICARDO ASTACIO (CLA 2011) LOUIS I. HAMILTON, FACULTY ADVISOR THE DREW REVIEW VOLUME 4 APRIL 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS REACTION OF THE METHODIST TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT TO THE REPEAL OF PROHIBITION: THE SHIFTING NATURE OF AMERICAN MORALITY JAMES FARGHER (CLA 2013) 4 WHO PAINTED THE LION?: MISOGYNY AND THE WIFE OF BATH ELIZABETH FERRARA (CLA 2011) 15 ACHIEVING THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS DIRECTLY RELATED TO HEALTH IN ERITREA: SUCCESSES AND NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS KRISTIN GERMINARIO (CLA 2010) 28 BARAKA’S DUTCHMAN: LIES IN WORDS AND TRUTH IN ACTION GAELAN JOHNSON (CLA 2012) 45 A PRECIOUS TEXT: NEW PRIMARY EVIDENCE FOR THE MISSAL AS AN INSTRUMENT OF LAY LITURGICAL UNDERSTANDING IN EARLY MODERN CHRISTIAN EUROPE MICHAEL JOKUBAITIS (CLA 2010) 56 ADVOCACY FOR FREDERICK M. ALEXANDER’S TECHNIQUE OLIVIA JORGENSEN (CLA 2010) 68 THE MALLEUS MALEFICARUM: A STUDY OF MARGINALIA AND CULTURAL ATTITUDES IN EARLY MODERN EUROPE TRACY MEEHAN (CLA 2011) 84 2 TRANSCRIPTIONAL REGULATION OF MANNITOL SUGAR UPTAKE BY MTLR IN VIBRIO CHOLERAE LISA MARIA MUSTACHIO (CLA 2011) 111 “YOU TAUGHT ME LANGUAGE”: GABBLE, CURSES, AND LYRICISM IN CALIBAN’S POSTCOLONIAL VOICE ERIN NEWELL (CLA 2010) 130 THE EFFECTS OF PERSONAL NAMES ON LIFE OUTCOMES NOAH RICH (CLA 2011) 147 3 REACTION OF THE METHODIST TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT TO THE REPEAL OF PROHIBITION: THE SHIFTING NATURE OF AMERICAN MORALITY JAMES FARGHER (CLA 2013) The passage of national Prohibition was a triumph for the Methodist church, which had long campaigned for social abstinence from alcohol. The subsequent repeal nearly fourteen years later was an unmitigated disaster. This study examines the reaction of the Methodist temperance movement following the 21st Amendment and its significance in the American story. The remarkable difference between the passionate Prohibitionist crusaders of the late 1920’s and their temperance-minded counterparts a mere thirty-five years later demands closer investigation. The change in attitude from Prohibitionism to temperance acknowledged an ongoing, profound moral realignment. This shift in values brought about by larger political and social forces is not unique in US history, and therefore serves as an example of changing moral trends within our own national consciousness. The Methodists came from a long legacy of temperance and anti-alcohol campaigning throughout the nineteenth century. But as the possibility of national Prohibition became increasingly likely, the Methodist Episcopal Church (one of the precursors to the present-day United Methodist Church) formed the Board of Temperance in 1916 to lobby political leaders and to disseminate pro-Prohibition propaganda. The headquarters of the Board was located on Capitol Hill, an indication of the political power which it wielded. It was through this Board that the Methodist Episcopal Church conducted most of its political enterprises. Records of the Board’s activities are accordingly a valuable glimpse into the vanguard of the church in its attack on alcohol. The 1929 annual report to the Board of Temperance by then General Secretary Dr. Clarence Wilson revealed the ambitious excitement which the Methodists felt during the heyday of Prohibition. Wilson officially suggested that the supporters of temperance should have no scruples about “committing [the church’s] interests, and influence, its popularity and its prospects, 4 to the Prohibition of all the liquor traffic in the United States and its announced program of extending it around the world,” (Wilson) indicating the determined effort of the movement to aggressively press its advantage still further onto a global scale. Their enthusiasm was not unfounded either, that same year Congress had confirmed its support of Prohibition by drastically increasing Federal penalties on liquor. (Mungler 141). This moment of triumph for the Methodists and Prohibitionism will serve as the starting point for this case study. Even as the tide began to turn against the efforts of the temperance movement, Deets Pickett, an influential Prohibitionist leader at the time, brazenly reported to the Board of Temperance, “[W]e find nothing to support the contention of the opponents of Prohibition that the noble experiment is tottering upon the brink of repudiation” (Deets). In spite of Pickett’s defiant retort, his language tacitly admits that Prohibition was rapidly becoming unpopular, a defense of Prohibition implying a political counterattack which needed immediate redress. Michael Munger and Thomas Schaller of the University of North Carolina emphasize the impact of the stock market crash on Prohibition stating, “with the Depression growing worse and an increasing need for revenue to finance the incoming Roosevelt administration’s “New Deal” economic stimulus programs, all political will to maintain Prohibition had disappeared” (141). The widespread economic hardship of the Great Depression would dominate the public sphere as Prohibition increasingly came under attack, and renowned Prohibition expert Jack Blocker puts it best when he writes, “while unemployment spread and bread lines lengthened…insistence that Prohibition remained the most pressing issue made its cause ridiculous” (125). The economic collapse seemingly acted as a catalyst, speeding up an already shifting moral consciousness, and “what was thought impossible became certainty” (128) when in late 1933, the electorate resoundingly voted in favor of national repeal. The New York Times applauded Congress for, as they saw it, regaining political backbone when they scathingly announced “the Senate, to the general surprise, broke entirely loose from its old subservience to…the Methodist Board of Temperance.” The movement had failed its highest mission. Stunned, the Methodist Episcopal Church attempted to contain this defeat as much as possible. “The death of Prohibition 5 was not the death of Prohibitionism,” (355) according to noted social researcher John Kobler, and the Board of Temperance scrambled to save Prohibition amongst individual state constitutions. Clarence Wilson, Board member, was quoted as saying, “Prohibition will come back, full powered,” and that the, “ultimate objective will be the winning of at least thirty-six states.” As state after state fell to the supporters of liquor, the Methodists found themselves “utterly without influence upon the politics of the nation and most states” (Blocker 139). The effort to stem the rising tide of anti-Prohibitionism failed, and by the end of 1933, temperance forces had lost numerous state referenda. The idea that “a person is either a Christian abstainer or pagan drunkard” (241), which had been promulgated by the church, according to academic William Phipps, had ceased to exist, and American society rejected the notion of alcohol being morally ruinous. On Sunday, November 4, 1934, Reverend Charles Wesley Christman addressed his congregation in the Methodist Episcopal Church of Haines Falls, New York. His message was somber yet challenging in tone when he promised to continue the fight against liquor by saying, “all is not lost…it’s only the beginning, only the beginning.” He surprisingly admitted that Prohibition was “a social success and a political failure,” (Deets) which was a departure from the fiery optimism of temperance during the height of Prohibition, or even immediately afterward in the struggle to regain lost ground. One week later, in part two of his sermon, the Reverend Christman reminded his flock that he would “call upon each of you this