![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
In 1909, at the height of the woman suffrage controversy and during the golden age of postcards, the Dunston-Weiler Lithograph Company of New York produced a twelve-card set of full-color lithographic cartoon postcards opposing woman suffrage. The postcard images reflect, and depart from, verbal arguments concerning woman suffrage prevalent during this period. They reflect arguments against suffrage that highlighted the coarsening effect the vote would have on women. The postcards also present an argument that was absent in the verbal discourse surrounding suffrage: that men (and the nation) would become feminized by woman suffrage. Accordingly, these postcards offer a productive location in which to explore how the icons of the Madonna and Uncle Sam, as well as non-iconic images of women, were deployed to reiterate the disciplinary norms of the ideographs of <woman> and <man>.
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at: (1) the Alta Conference on Argumentation, Alta, UT, July 2003, and appear in its proceedings; (2) the fall 2003 Current Research on Women forum at UNI; (3) the “Rhetoric Goes Public” conference, April 17, 2004, at Northwestern University in honor of G. Thomas Goodnight; and (4) the University of Wisconsin-Madison fall 2004 graduate colloquium. I want to thank all those attending these presentations, QJS editors Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and David Henry, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and extremely helpful suggestions. The generosity of colleagues and students during the process of writing this essay has reaffirmed my belief that scholarship really is a collective endeavor and reminded me why I so enjoy academia.
Notes
1. Susan Brown Nicholson, The Encyclopedia of Antique Postcards (Radnor, PA: Wallaca-Homestead Book Co., 1994), 196.
2. Valerie Monahan, An American Postcard Collector's Guide (Poole: Blandford Press, 1981), 84.
3. Roger A. Fischer, Tippacanoe and Trinkets Too: The Material Culture of American Presidential Campaigns, 1828–1984 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 148.
4. George Miller, forward to Political Postcards 1900–1980, A Price Guide, by Bernard L. Greenhouse (Syracuse: Postcard Press, 1984).
5. Frank Staff, The Picture Postcard and Its Origins (London: Lutterworth Press, 1966), 8.
6. British suffragists referred to “women's suffrage” while U.S. suffragists spoke of “woman suffrage.” Accordingly, when referring to British suffrage activities, I use the phrase “women's suffrage” and when referring to U.S. suffrage activities, I use the phrase “woman suffrage.”
7. Lisa Tickner, The Spectacle of Women: Imagery of the Suffrage Campaign 1907–1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 50.
8. Tickner, 50–1.
9. James Laver, foreword to The Picture Postcard and Its Origins by Frank Staff, 7.
10. Staff, 64.
11. Eleanor Flexner, Century of Struggle: The Woman's Rights Movement in the United States (New York: Atheneum, 1973), 248; and Sara Hunter Graham, “The Suffrage Renaissance: A New Image for a New Century, 1896–1910,” in One Woman, One Vote: Rediscovering the Woman Suffrage Movement, ed. Marjorie Spruill Wheeler (Troutdale, OR: NewSage Press, 1995), 159.
12. The visual power of the suffrage parade is best explained in Linda J. Lumsden, “Beauty and the Beasts: Significance of Press Coverage of the 1913 National Suffrage Parade,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77, no. 3 (Autumn 2000): 593–611. She argues: “The parade marked a milestone in the incorporation of American women into Society. Part of that incorporation involved the portrayal of women in media” (602).
13. This summary of postcard types comes from the author's personal collection, a review of postcards available on-line, examination of collections put up for auction, and consultations with suffrage postcard collectors. The differences between pro- and anti-suffrage postcards are not limited to their style and content. Their uses also differed: “Though most cards were heavily anti-suffrage, some were pro-suffrage. When the pro-suffrage cards are found today, they usually have not been postally used. Perhaps the social climate was such that these cards were hand exchanged or merely kept by the purchaser” (Nicholson, 196).
14. Tickner, 51–2.
15. Tickner, 162.
16. Although I have not yet found exact production numbers for the series, it does appear to be the most widely circulated set of suffrage images in the United States. At least, if survival rates are any indication, it was the most widely produced since postcards from this series are the most commonly available to contemporary postcard collectors.
17. The National American Woman Suffrage Association produced a series of motto and state postcards. I & M Ottenheimer of Baltimore, MD, and the Leet Bros. of Washington, DC, produced a number of real-photo images from suffrage parades. “Just by Way of a Change” was a series produced in Saxony but mailed in the United States. Walter Wellman produced the cartoonish “The Suffragette” series.
18. This is not the only instance of the Suffragette Madonna. In 1910, another postcard by that name was circulated, showing a man with halo feeding a girl doll a bottle (available at http://winningthevote.org/anti4-big.html). The Nash postcard company also circulated a similar image.
19. Michael C. McGee, “The 'Ideograph': A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, no. 1 (February 1980): 11.
20. McGee, 6.
21. McGee, 5.
22. Janis L. Edwards and Carol K. Winkler, “Representative Form and the Visual Ideograph: The Iwo Jima Image in Editorial Cartoons,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 83, no. 3 (August 1997): 289–310.
23. Edwards and Winkler, 289–90.
24. Lester C. Olson, “Benjamin Franklin's Representations of the British Colonies in America: A Study in Rhetorical Iconology,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73, no.1 (February 1987): 38, note 1.
25. David Morgan, Visual Piety: A History and Theory of Popular Religious Images (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 124.
26. Dana L. Cloud, “‘To Veil the Threat of Terror’: Afghan Women and the <Clash of Civilizations> in the Imagery of the U.S. War on Terrorism,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90, no. 3 (August 2004): 285–306.
27. E. Michele Ramsey, “Addressing Issues of Context in Historical Women's Public Address,” Women's Studies in Communication 27, no. 3 (Fall 2004): 352–76. Ramsey uses “woman” to refer to “discursively constructed representations” and “women” to denote the literal human beings (see Ramsey, 373, fn 3). Following other studies of ideographs, I use < > to designate when I am using the ideographic form of a word.
28. McGee, 15.
29. McGee, 6.
30. Ramsey, “Addressing,” 353. See also Celeste Michelle Condit, Decoding Abortion Rhetoric (Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1994); Celeste Michelle Condit and John Louis Lucaites, Crafting Equality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).
31. For examples of scholarship analyzing advocacy of woman suffrage, see Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, Man Cannot Speak for Her (New York: Praeger, 1989); Bonnie J. Dow, “Historical Narratives, Rhetorical Narratives, and Woman Suffrage Scholarship,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 2, no. 2 (Summer 1999): 321–40; Bonnie J. Dow, “The ‘Womanhood’ Rationale in the Woman Suffrage Rhetoric of Frances E. Willard,” Southern Communication Journal 56, no. 4 (Summer 1991): 298–307; Susan Schultz Huxman, “Perfecting the Rhetorical Vision of Woman's Rights: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Anna Howard Shaw, and Carrie Chapman Catt,” Women's Studies in Communication 23, no. 3 (Fall 2000): 307–36; Sara Hayden, “Negotiating Femininity and Power in the Early Twentieth Century West: Domestic Ideology and Feminine Style in Jeannette Rankin's Suffrage Rhetoric,” Communication Studies 50, no. 2 (Summer 1999): 83–102; Donna M. Kowal, “One Cause, Two Paths: Militant vs. Adjustive Strategies in the British and American Women's Suffrage Movements,” Communication Quarterly 48, no. 3 (Summer 2000): 240–55; Wil A. Linkugel, “The Woman Suffrage Argument of Anna Howard Shaw,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 49 (April 1963): 165–74; and Amy R. Slagell, “The Rhetorical Structure of Frances E. Willard's Campaign for Woman Suffrage, 1876–1896,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 4, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 1–23. For scholarship analyzing opposition to woman suffrage, see Elizabeth V. Burt, “The Ideology, Rhetoric, and Organizational Structure of a Countermovement Publication: ‘The Remonstrance’, 1890–1920,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 75, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 69–83; Martha Hagan, “The Antisuffragists’ Rhetorical Dilemma: Reconciling the Private and Public Spheres,” Communication Reports 5, no. 2 (Summer 1992): 73–81; and Kristy Maddux, “When Patriots Protest: The Anti-Suffrage Discursive Transformation of 1917,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 7, no. 3 (Fall 2004): 283–310.
32. For scholarship analyzing images of woman and women's rights, see Jennifer L. Borda, “The Woman Suffrage Parades of 1910–1913: Possibilities and Limitations of an Early Feminist Rhetorical Strategy,” Western Journal of Communication 66, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 25–52; Katherine Meyer, John Seidler, Timothy Curry, and Adrian Aveni, “Women in July Fourth Cartoons: A 100-Year Look,” Journal of Communication 30, no. 1 (Winter 1980); and E. Michele Ramsey, “Inventing Citizens During World War I: Suffrage Cartoons in The Woman Citizen,” Western Journal of Communication 64, no. 2 (Spring 2000): 113–47; and Ramsey, “Addressing.” For other disciplines’ studies of images, see Brian Harrison, Separate Spheres: The Opposition to Women's Suffrage in Britain (London: Croon Helm, 1978); Ian McDonald, Vindication! A Postcard History of the Women's Movement (London: Bellew Publishing, 1989); Alice Sheppard, Cartooning for Suffrage (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1994); and Tickner.
33. Cheryl Jorgensen-Earp, “The Lady, the Whore, and the Spinster: The Rhetorical Use of Victorian Images of Women,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 54, no. 1 (1990): 83.
34. Jorgensen-Earp, 84.
35. Tickner, 164.
36. Tickner, 151.
37. The label “antis” generally refers to any person opposed to suffrage. Remonstrants, however, were exclusively women opposed to woman suffrage.
38. Manuela Thurner, “‘Better Citizens Without the Ballot’: American Anti-suffrage Women and their Rationale During the Progressive Era,” Journal of Women's History 5, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 33.
39. Thomas Jablonsky, “Female Opposition: The Anti-suffrage Campaign,” in Votes for Women: The Struggle for Suffrage Revisited, ed. Jean H. Baker (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 123.
40. Maddux, 287.
41. Jane Jerome Camhi, Women Against Women: American Anti-suffragism, 1880–1920 (Brooklyn, NY: Carlson Publishing, 1994); J. Howard, “Our Own Worst Enemies: Women Opposed to Woman Suffrage,” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 9 (1982): 463–74; Billie Barnes Jensen, “‘In the Weird and Wooly West’: Anti-suffrage Women, Gender Issues, and Woman Suffrage in the West,” Journal of the West 32 (1993): 41–51; Mrs. A. T. Leatherbee, Why Should any Woman be an Anti-Suffragist?, pamphlet issued by the Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women, Room 615, Kensington Building, Boston, MA, n.d.; and Susan E. Marshall, Splintered Sisterhood: Gender and Class in the Campaign Against Woman Suffrage (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1997).
42. Opinions of Eminent Persons Against Woman Suffrage, pamphlet issued by the Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women, Room 615, Kensington Building, Boston, MA, October 1912.
43. Ramsey, “Inventing,” 118, 140.
44. Aileen Kraditor, The Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement, 1890–1920 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1965), 28.
45. Quoted in Mrs. B. Hazard, “New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage,” The Chautauquan (June 1910): 88.
46. Opinions of Eminent Persons, 6.
47. A similar postcard appeared in 1912. Produced by the C. Wolf company of New York, it is a black and white drawing of an attractive woman in a dress patterned after a police uniform. The caption of the postcard (sarcastically) reads, “Safely the males may walk on the street while such cops are patrolling the beat.”
48. Camhi, 53.
49. Camhi, 55.
50. Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (New York: Routledge, 1993), 10.
51. Butler, Bodies, 10.
52. For a discussion of the dialectical function of “conflicting representations of woman,” see Ramsey, “Addressing,” 361.
53. Glenna Matthews, The Rise of Public Woman: Woman's Power and Woman's Place in the United States, 1630–1970 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 3. Matthews opens her book with the story of the 1895 arrest of Lizzie Schauer, a young working class woman arrested when she asked for directions from two men. Because she was out at night, and unescorted, she was assumed to be a “public woman” or prostitute.
54. Lisa Maria Hogeland, “Feminism, Sex Scandals, and Historical Lessons,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 16 (March 1999): 98.
55. Kimberly Chrisman, “Unhoop the Fair Sex: The Campaign Against the Hoop Petticoat in Eighteenth-Century England,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 30, no. 1 (1996): 18.
56. Matthew Sweet, Inventing the Victorians (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2001).
57. Shelly Foote, “Challenging Gender Symbols,” in Men and Women: Dressing the Part, ed. Claudia Brush Kidwell and Valerie Steele (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), 148; see also Carol Mattingly, Appropriate[ing] Dress: Women's Rhetorical Style in Nineteenth-Century America (Carbondale: SIU Press, 2002).
58. Sarah A. Gordon, “‘Any Desired Length’: Negotiating Gender through Sports Clothing, 1870–1925,” in Beauty and Business: Commerce, Gender, and Culture in Modern America, ed. Philip Scranton (New York: Routledge, 2001), 27.
59. JoAnne Olian, ed., Everyday Fashions 1909–1920: As Pictured in Sears Catalogues (New York: Dover Publications, 1995), i.
60. Jorgensen-Earp, 93; and Ramsey, “Addressing,” 353.
61. Meyer, Seidler, Curry, and Aveni, 21.
62. Jorgensen-Earp, 88.
63. A plethora of postcards, other than those in the Dunston-Weiler set, employed the image of the home-bound and/or care-giving male. However, unlike the Dunston-Weiler set, the vast majority of these other images depicted men as incompetent caregivers. A circa 1910 American Colorgravure postcard (Series 138, Subject 2773) shows a man wheeling a baby buggy with a squalling infant inside, two circa 1910 Bamforth and Co. Publishers postcards (Nos. 1240 and 1048) show a man cleaning house (while caring for crying infants) proclaiming “my wife's joined the suffrage movement, (I've suffered ever since!)”, a circa 1911 postcard (698/24) shows the “results of the Suffrage victory” to be a man taking care of a crying infant while the woman leaves, and a 1910 C. Hobson postcard also shows a man caring for children (and a hissing cat) as his wife leaves. English postcards also carried a similar sentiment (see B. B. London series A17).
64. Jorgensen-Earp, 89.
65. Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own (New York: Harvest /HBJ, 1929, 1957), 35–36.
66. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990).
67. John M. Sloop, Disciplining Gender: Rhetorics of Sex Identity in Contemporary U.S. Culture (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004), 6.
68. Butler, Gender, 16.
69. Maymie R. Krythe, What So Proudly We Hail (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968), 49.
70. Alton Ketchum, Uncle Sam: The Man and the Legend (New York: Hill and Wang, 1959), 61.
71. Ketchum, 74, 80.
72. Ketchum, 79.
73. Gerald E. Czulewicz, Sr., The Foremost Guide to Uncle Sam Collectibles (Paducah, KY: Collector's Books, 1995), 35.
74. Ketchum, 86.
75. Thomas H. Bivins, “The Body Politic: The Changing Shape of Uncle Sam,” Journalism Quarterly 64, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 13–20.
76. Ketchum, 9.
77. Ketchum, vii.
78. Bivins, 15.
79. Bivins, 15.
80. Harvey Hill, “American Catholicism?: John England and ‘The Republic in Danger,’” Catholic Historical Review 89, no. 2 (April 2003): 240.
81. Colleen McDannell, Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 133.
82. A. James Reichley, “Faith in Politics,” Journal of Policy History 13, no. 1 (2001): 158, 240.
83. Harvey Hill, 240.
84. Reichley, 158.
85. Thomas J. Jablonsky, The Home, Heaven, and Mother Party: Female Anti-suffragists in the United States, 1868–1920 (Brooklyn, NY: Carlson Publishing, 1994), 66–7.
86. Jablonsky, The Home, 66.
87. Jablonsky, The Home, 67.
88. Jablonsky, The Home, 69.
89. Jablonsky, The Home, 45.
90. Jablonsky, The Home, 45.
91. David Morgan, Visual Piety: A History and Theory of Popular Religious Images (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).
92. Morgan, 60.
93. Eleanor Heartney, “Thinking Through the Body: Women Artists and the Catholic Imagination,” Hypatia 18, no. 4 (2003): 3–22.
94. McDannell, 61.
95. Christine L. Krueger, review of Women of Faith in Victorian Culture and Women's Theology in Nineteenth-Century Britain, Victorian Studies 43, no. 1 (2000): 179.
96. Protestants questioned the significance of Mary: “Mariology—the veneration of the Virgin Mary—is one of the points of doctrine that most clearly separates Protestants and Catholics. While Protestants tend to downplay Mary's role, seeing her simply as an exemplary woman, for Catholics she performs multiple functions. She is the embodiment of perfect motherhood …” (Heartney, 5). The differences over the role of Mary were not simply ones of degree. In fact, within Victorian England, the Virgin Mary was an extremely controversial figure, “a powerful presence who embodied what many Victorians considered to be the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. These included pagan idolatry, superstition and willful ignorance of the Bible, all of which were summed up in a single word: Mariolotry” (Carole Maire Engelhardt, “Victorian Masculinity and the Virgin Mary,” in Masculinity and Spirituality in Victorian Culture, ed. Andrew Bradstock, Susan Gill, Anne Hogan, and Sue Morgan [New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000], 44).
97. The history of the icon within Catholicism also resonates with some of the anti-suffrage arguments concerning illiteracy overtaking the polls. The visual itself was not without controversy within Catholicism. Ultimately, iconoclasts supported the utility of images in “decorative arts and devotional devices to stimulate piety” because the “uneducated, women, and children were particularly responsive to sacred images” and “illiterate Christians needed them to understand and express their faith” (McDannell, 9). Protestant reformers in the sixteenth century, however, tended to limit the use of images only to instruction, and prohibited their presence in the church, lest worshipers confuse sign and referent, as “[a]rt and objects tempted a weak humanity that fell too easily into idolatry” (McDannell, 10).
98. Andrew Bradstock, Sean Gill, Anne Hogan, and Sue Morgan, eds., Masculinity and Spirituality in Victorian Culture (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000), 2.
99. For discussions of muscular Christianity, see Donald E. Hall, ed., Muscular Christianity: Embodying the Victorian Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Tony Ladd and James A. Mathisen, Muscular Christianity: Evangelical Protestants and the Development of American Sport (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999); and Clifford Putney, Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880–1920 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003).
100. Butler, Bodies, 1.
101. Butler, Bodies, 10.
102. Ramsey, “Addressing,” 353.
103. For example, Michael A. DeSousa, “Symbolic Action and Pretended Insight: The Ayatollah Khomeini in U.S. Editorial Cartoons,” in Rhetorical Dimensions in Media: A Critical Casebook, ed. M. J. Medhurst and T. W. Benson (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1984, revised printing), 204–30; Michael A. DeSousa and Martin J. Medhurst, “The Editorial Cartoon as Visual Rhetoric: Rethinking Boss Tweed,” Journal of Visual Verbal Languaging 2 (Fall 1982): 43–52; Michael A. DeSousa and Martin J. Medhurst, “Political Cartoons and American Culture: Significant Symbols of Campaign 1980," Studies in Visual Communication 8, no. 1 (1982): 84–97; Janis L. Edwards, Political Cartoons in the 1988 Presidential Campaign: Image, Metaphor, and Narrative (New York: Garland Publishing, 1997); Janis L. Edwards and H. R. Chen, “The First Lady/First Wife in Editorial Cartoons: Rhetorical Visions Through Gendered Lens,” Women's Studies in Communication 23, no. 3 (Fall 2000): 367–91; Alette Hill, “The Carter Campaign in Retrospect: Decoding* the Cartoons,” Semiotica 23, nos. 3 and 4 (1978): 307–32; Martin J. Medhurst and Michael A. DeSousa, “Political Cartoons as Rhetorical Form: A Taxonomy of Graphic Discourse,” Communication Monographs 48, no. 3 (September 1981): 197–236; Matthew C. Morrison, “The Role of the Political Cartoonist in Image Making,” Central States Speech Journal (Winter 1969): 252–60; John F. Sena, “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Votes: Geraldine Ferraro and the Editorial Cartoonists,” Journal of American Culture 8 (1985): 2–12; and James D. Steakley, “Iconography of a Scandal: Political Cartoons and the Eulenberg Affair,” Studies in Visual Communication 9 (1983): 20–51.
104. Lisa Z. Sigel, “Filth in the Wrong People's Hands: Postcards and the Expansion of Pornography in Britain and the Atlantic World, 1880–1914,” Journal of Social History 33, no. 4 (2000): 859–85, available from Project Muse; and Yoke-Sum Wong, “Beyond (and Below) Incommensurability: The Aesthetics of the Postcard,” Common Knowledge 8, no. 2 (2002): 333–56.
105. Sigel, 860.
106. Kimberlé Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum (1989): 139–67; and Adrien Katherine Wing, ed., Critical Race Feminism: A Reader (New York: New York University Press, 1997).
107. Barbara Welter, Dimity Convictions: The American Woman in the Nineteenth Century (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1976).
108. Chandra Talpede Mohanty, Feminism Without Borders (Durham: Duke University Press, 2003), 55.
109. David Fleming, “Can Pictures be Arguments?” Argumentation and Advocacy 33, no.1 (Summer 1996): 11–22.
110. David S. Birdsell and Leo Groarke, eds., “Toward a Theory of Visual Argument,” Special Issues on Visual Argument, Argumentation and Advocacy 33, nos. 1-2 (Summer and Fall 1996): 1–10; Randall A. Lake and Barbara A. Pickering, “Argumentation, the Visual, and the Possibility of Refutation: An Exploration,” Argumentation 12 (February 1998): 79–93; and Catherine H. Palczewski, "Keynote Address: Argument in an Off Key,” in Communicative Reason and Communication Communities, ed. G. Thomas Goodnight et al. (Washington, DC: NCA, 2002), 1–23.
111. The insights of this paragraph owe much to conversations with G. Thomas Goodnight and his work with Kathryn M. Olson on the function of nondiscursive oppositional argument in controversy. See Kathryn M. Olson and G. Thomas Goodnight, “Entanglements of Consumption, Cruelty, Privacy, and Fashion: The Social Controversy over Fur,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 80, no. 3 (August 1994): 249–76.
112. DeSousa and Medhurst, “Political Cartoons,” 84. Emphasis mine.
113. Robert Hariman and John Louis Lucaites, “Dissent and Emotional Management in a Liberal-Democratic Society: The Kent State Iconic Photograph,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 31, no. 3 (Summer 2001): 5–31; “Performing Civic Identity: The Iconic Photograph of the Flag Raising on Iwo Jima,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 88, no. 4 (November 2002): 363–92; and “Public Identity and Collective Memory in U.S. Iconic Photography: The Image of ‘Accidental Napalm,’” Critical Studies in Media Communication 20, no. 1 (March 2003): 35–66.
114. Hariman and Lucaites, “Dissent,” 8.
115. Hariman and Lucaites, “Performing,” 364.
116. Jean H. Baker, ed., Votes for Women: The Struggle for Suffrage Revisited (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 6.
117. Jablonsky, “Female Opposition,”129.
118. Alette Hill, 308.
119. Edwards and Winkler, 290.
120. Cloud, 287.
121. Edwards and Winkler, 305.