Emma Goldman and Anarchist Movement - Research Paper Example

Emma Goldman: Rhetoric Introduction The simple definition for anarchy, according to McLaughlin, is the “philosophy of non-authoritarianism“(27). However, the full philosophy has a depth of meaning that is far more complex. Emma Goldman was an activist who fought for the principles of anarchy, even going against those who had parallel ideologies, in order to support a belief that a person had a right to voice their opinions and to live peacefully in disagreement with those in authority. Although the anarchist movement has a reputation for having been violent, Goldman believed in non-violent resistance to authority, despite some of the crimes she was accused of committing with violent undertones. Part of her activism including championing the rights of women, most specifically through the distribution of information about birth control In 1917, after declaring war, Woodrow Wilson instituted a draft for which Goldman and Alexander Berkman, helped to resist through the development of the No-Conscription League. The advocating of resisting the draft was illegal and those who resisted the draft risked arrest and sometimes deportation. Goldman and Berkman were arrested for conspiracy to obstruct the draft under the Espionage Act for which they which they were both sentenced to two years imprisonment. After serving their terms in prison, they were each deported under laws that had been enacted to provide for the deportation of those who were seditionists (Zinn 291). During the course of her trial, Goldman gave a speech addressing the jury in order to help to provide for her defense. The speech is eloquent and meaningful, the rhetoric rich and powerful. She utilized a series of rhetoric tools in order to create a powerful and well crafted argument through which to attempt to convince the jury that prosecuting her on the charges that had been brought against her was unconstitutional. Because of her experience and talents of a writer, despite her conviction, the speech that she gave during her trial is one of the most powerful examples of rhetorical writing in trial history. Anarchy In the introductory notes of Emma Goldman’s biography, re-released in 2008, Mirium Wright wrote that Edgar Hoover proclaimed her the most dangerous woman in the United States and the newspapers, who dubbed her ‘Red Emma Goldman’ said of her that she “claimed no God, had no religion, would kill all rulers, and overthrow all laws”(Goldman 1). Originally from Russia with a Jewish heritage, Goldman had adopted American as her homeland and had come to her shores ready to fight battles for what she believed. She was a writer who wrote about the many ills she found most poignant and was an activist who supported her ideals through action. She stated in her speech to her jury during her trial in 1917, “I wish to say that I am a social student. It is my mission in life to ascertain the cause of our social evils and of our social difficulties” (Goldman). Goldman defines her role within society succinctly and with purpose so that her role within the charges she is facing is clarified. Her beliefs were on trial, she believed, more than was the crime for which she is charged. She states “we refuse to be tried on a trumped-up charge, or to be convicted by perjured testimony, merely because we are Anarchists, and hated by the class whom we have openly fought for many years”(Goldman). Specific fear of anarchism was associated to the violent acts of some anarchists during events that had happened near the close of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. The Haymarket riots of 1886 had begun the fear of the movement with the deaths of eight police officers in Chicago during a protest supporting striking workers. Furthermore, the 1900 a member of a New Jersey anarchist group assassinated King Umberto of Italy, furthering the association with violent protest and anarchists (MacLachlan 14). Therefore, in her speech, Goldman used the conceptualized fear in contrast to her own actions that had not been to support violent protest. As a point of fact, Goldman makes it clear that as she had always taken responsibility for her actions during her activism, but denies the charges that have been brought against her, is proof that she is not guilty of those charges. She states “ We have gladly and proudly claimed responsibility, not only for what we ourselves have said and written, but even for things written by others and with which we did not agree. Is it plausible then that we would go through the ordeal, the trouble and expense of a lengthy trial to escape responsibility in this instance? A thousand times no!” (Goldman). In drawing a parallel between what she has always done in the past compared to what she does now, she intends to show circumstantial proof that she would not lie about what she has said as she has always taken responsibility for what she has said, and for what those whom also share her beliefs have said, whether she agreed or not. She stands by those in her group who share her basic beliefs. Tools of Rhetoric Mindell lists eight tools of rhetoric that are the core of good persuasive writing. These tools are listed as; parallelism, balance, enumeration, rhetorical question, tricolon, simile, metaphor, and alliteration (64). In the quote concerning her proof of innocence by comparing her denial to all that she admitted to, Goldman was using the rhetorical question to give her audience something that they could answer themselves for which she had provided the evidence. As well, she answered the question, her response emphasizing her innocence of the charges. She had been charged for a statement that was supposedly said within a meeting that “We believe in violence, and we will use violence” (Goldman). However, by setting up the evidence for the answer for the rhetorical question, and then through answering that question, she has created a sense of conclusiveness within her argument. She provides what she intends to be proof that she is innocent of what she will not take responsibility for having occurred allegedly occurred during the meeting in question. Goldman uses the rhetorical question again when she approaches the concept of liberty. She asks “But may there not be different kinds of patriotism as there are different kinds of liberty?” (Goldman). She asks this in order to incite her listeners to think about the nature of patriotism through the ideologies that are set forth in the constitution. She has already brought to the attention of her audience that to say a thing is not the same as to do a thing, defending the supposed statements as falling under the liberties of the first amendment. Therefore through her use of rhetorical questions, a technique she uses liberally throughout her speech, she has established that not only did she not commit the crime for which she is accused, had those words been uttered during her meetings, they would not have constituted a crime. In order to reach her audience and convince them that the crime is not actually a crime, Goldman uses a metaphor of a story about Jesus in order to express her opinion about the charges that have been levied against her. She uses a shock value by stating to her audience that “You might as well accuse Jesus of advocating prostitution, because He took the part of the prostitute Mary Magdalene.”(Goldman). She believes that she is being tried through a guilt by association form of accusation, whether the statement had been said within her meeting or not. Therefore, her use of a shocking metaphor to make her point is a powerful form of persuasion. Goldman goes on to later draw a parallel between her own position and that of Christ who was put on trial because he spoke of things that authorities did not approve of being put out into society. She says that “Gentlemen of the jury, most of you, I take it, believe in Jesus. Bear in mind that he was put to death by those who considered his views as being against the law”. From this point, she draws a parallel to patriotic sentimentality by saying “I also take it that you are proud of your Americanism. Remember that those who fought and bled for your liberties were in their time considered as being against the law, as dangerous disturbers and trouble-makers” (Goldman). Through the use of two topics that incite strong emotional responses, she draws parallels between them and her own belief systems, for which she believes she is being persecuted rather than prosecuted. As Goldman approaches the concept of progressive and developing philosophy, she uses the concept of tricolon in order to utilize a series of three to emphasize her point. Three is a number that is pleasing to the mind, the sound of it seeming to create a circular and balanced progression of balance, and emulating the religiosity of the concept of three that seems to denote perfection within the Western culture, as well as many other cultures across the world (Mindell 66). Goldman states “Progress is ever renewing, ever becoming, ever changing - never is it within the law”. Through the repetitive syntax with three concepts being introduced, she appeals to the audience through pleasing aesthetics. The same technique is used at the end of her speech where Goldman states “Please forget that we are Anarchists. Forget that it is claimed that we propagated violence. Forget that something appeared in Mother Earth when I was thousands of miles away, three years ago”. Through using the word ‘forget’ three times, she emphasizes this concept, while also bringing attention to the things for which she commands her audience to forget. She is stating that these things, although having no relevance, are the true reasons for the charges that are being brought against her. She says to ‘forget’ them, but at the same time proves they are without value by suggesting they be disregarded, while bringing attention to them. Previous to this passage, she does a similar bit of emphasis when she says “I do not wish to influence you. I do not wish to appeal to your passions. I do not wish to influence you by the fact that I am a woman.”, although once again she brings attention to those aspects by speaking of them and creating a triad connectivity between them. One of the overall tools that she uses as she intends to build her case is through first, defining her prosecution as part of a circus. Goldman states, “The methods employed by Marshall McCarthy and his hosts of heroic warriors were sensational enough to satisfy the circus men, Barnum and Bailey”. She uses a mix of metaphors to exaggerate the actions of the law enforcement officers to equate them to performers of a circus, past the sarcasm of her metaphor of calling them warriors. She uses a false semiotic discourse about heroics as she equates the scene to the foolish impressions of a circus. Through creating this set of metaphors, she denigrates authority figures involved in her prosecution in order to set up her claims that she has been wrongly accused of actions that did not qualify as criminal. Through a discourse on the various ways in which the procedures were done in such a way to make a spectacle more than to carry out justice, Goldman frames her speech with a concept of injustice from which she bases her argument that she has been injured, thus she should not be found guilty of the crimes she has committed. She progresses through stages of discussions about the many ways in which she was injured in the process, then towards the reasons why she shares similar ideas of her own sense of liberty with the audience, then concludes suggesting the reasons why they should consider her through the lens of their own bias, by suggesting that is exactly what they should not do. The speech was well crafted in order to create specific points through which she should not be held accountable for the alleged actions, whether or not they had happened during a meeting that she hosted. Conclusion Why the speech did not affect the outcome in the sense that she was found guilty during the process and sent to prison for two years, is most likely because the jury feared what they believed to be radical philosophies that threatened their safety more than they could listen to her thoughts on her innocence. In reading the speech, it is crafted to be successfully persuasive, diminishing her foes then bringing to a point her argument through the use of powerful imagery and within the context of concepts that related to the jury through both religious and patriotic contexts. Read without the knowledge of the outcome of her trial, one would say it was created in such a way to win her innocence. However, she and Alexander Berkman both went to prison for their beliefs, represented through violent statements that Goldman claimed had never occurred during her meeting. Despite the intelligent and eloquent nature of her speech, she was convicted, thus proving that eloquence and mastery of rhetoric is not always enough to sway biased members of panel who holds power over the outcome of a proceeding. The nature of the incident suggests that perhaps her philosophies were proven out by virtue of the trial, that in living willingly under the authority of a government she was subject to the usurpation of her freedoms. Through the actions of the authority of the time, she had her liberty taken from her, her voice, which she claimed had not been used to promote violence, was silenced despite those denials. Even had she suggested such a concept or supported those who did, the idea of authority was made corrupt by using legislation to silence those thoughts. Her speech, though not setting her free, succeeds in shedding light. Works Cited Goldman, Emma. “Speech, Address to the Jury.” Berkley Digital Library. 2 July 2003. Web. 10 December 2010. MacLachlan, Colin M. Anarchism and the Mexican Revolution: The Political Trials of Ricardo Flores Magon in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Print. Mindell, Phyllis. How to Say It for Executives: The Complete Guide to Communication for Leaders. How to say it. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 2005. Print. McLaughlin, Paul. Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism. Ashgate new critical thinking in philosophy. Aldershot, Hampshire [u.a.: Ashgate, 2007. Print. Wright, Miriam and Emma Goldman. Living My Life. New York: Penguin Books, 2006. Print. Zinn, Howard, Anthony Arnove, and Howard Zinn. Voices of a People's History of the United States. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2009. Print. Read More