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