356 Rhetoric & Public Affairs also presents a barrier to publicity and obviates the need for public action because, by his account, no distinct public realm exists beyond the confines of the private." The result is that Emerson is able to proclaim "with stunning self-assurance, that the truest form of participation in public life is vanishing from that life; that publicity is best accomplished by sitting at home" (186). Patterson seems too anxious to make concrete the boundary between private and public protest. As recent scholarship in the humanities has illustrated, the distinction between these realms is, at best, blurred, and these blurred boundaries have resulted in richly layered, complex interpretations of rhetorical discourse. Patterson's reading of Emerson's meditations on publicity seems too rigid, and unfair. Recent Emersonian scholarship, such as Len Gougeon's Virtue's Hero: Emerson, Antislavery, and Reform (Georgia, 1990) and David M. Robinson's Emerson and the Conduct of Life: Pragmatism and Ethical Purpose in the Later Work (Cambridge, 1993), has convincingly demonstrated that Emerson, throughout his life, pushed publicity beyond the hearth. And while she promises to embrace questions of social and political context (7), Patterson's prose frequently removes Emerson from the din of his century; tedious discussions of Locke and Hannah Arendt privilege philosophy over context. Emerson, in places, seems disembodied from his age. The nexus of race, rights, and politics is peppered with difficult interpretive problems. Patterson's richly textured contribution to these scholarly and public conversations demonstrates that students of public discourse would benefit immeasurably from re-evaluating Emerson's rhetorical legacy in light of the racialist discourses that marked nineteenth-century America. His contributions to contemporary social thought have significant, if perhaps troubling, implications for political obligation and community in the next millennium. This is a book with which readers will want to argue. Jeffrey B. Kurtz The Pennsylvania State University Witnesses to the Struggle: Imaging the 1930s California Labor Movement. By Anne Loftis. Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1998; pp. xii + 239. $29.95. Anne Loftis's latest work is a historical study of the depiction of labor conflicts in California during the 1930s, and operates rather effectively on an interdisciplinary border, with potential utility to scholars interested in the literature, history, rhetoric, media, and politics of the era. Witnesses to the Struggle claims that the artistic representations of the poverty and labor strife in the 1930s played a central role in public and political responses to the working class and migrant farmers. Looking back to the period of the Great Depression, Loftis writes that " [i] t is the artists who have kept alive the nation's collective memory of the turmoil that engulfed Book Reviews 357 California as well as the rest of the country at the time.... In the final analysis, it was the artists who gave history a human face"(192). For students researching labor issues during the 1930s and beyond, this text offers a thorough and insightful examination of the personal and social exigencies that produced particular discourses on the events in California. The book begins with a description of the changes in Californian farm labor in the early 1930s, when shifts in immigration combined with economic hardship to produce an enormous increase of migrant agricultural workers. The right of industrial laborers to organize and collectively bargain was just beginning to receive legal recognition with the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act, but farm workers were excluded by separately enacted legislation. Loftis sets the background for her narrative with the initial efforts of the Cannery and Agricultural Workers Industrial Union (CAWIU) to organize farm labor despite the lack of legal protection. In October 1933, the CAWIU launched a strike by cotton pickers that drew little media attention until violence appeared imminent. Federal and state officials stepped in to mediate the dispute, but the uproar had attracted the notice of social scientists Paul Taylor and Clark Kerr at the University of California, Berkeley. Taylor and Kerr were studying self-help cooperatives in the period before New Deal programs had been implemented, and used the events of the cotton pickers' strike as evidence of the need for such assistance. Loftis begins to paint the larger picture...
Read full abstract