Citation
Ideological rhetoric : systemic arguments on war and peace in high school American history textbooks

Material Information

Title:
Ideological rhetoric : systemic arguments on war and peace in high school American history textbooks
Creator:
Leake, Woodrow Wilson, 1944-
Copyright Date:
1973
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 160 leaves. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
High schools ( jstor )
History instruction ( jstor )
Political attitudes ( jstor )
Political ideologies ( jstor )
Rhetoric ( jstor )
Symbolist art ( jstor )
Textbooks ( jstor )
United States history ( jstor )
War ( jstor )
World wars ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Speech -- UF ( lcsh )
Rhetoric ( lcsh )
Speech thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
United States -- History -- Study and teaching (Secondary) ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 145-158.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available on World Wide Web
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022776500 ( alephbibnum )
14081076 ( oclc )
ADA8855 ( notis )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











IDECOL-:ICAL RHETORIC: SYSTEMIC ARGURLEITS Ol WAR AID PEACE
IN HIGH SCHOOL AMERICAN HISTORY TEXTBOOKS













By

Woodrow Wilson Leake, Jr.


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO Ti[ GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA III PARTIAL FULFILL'IENT
OF THE RE:QUIF'.EMEN'T-S FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORID;.
1973

































Copyright by
Woodrow W-ilson Leake, Jr.
1973

































For Susan
For her years of patience













ACKNOW'LE DG-l E ITS


Al-..ays, at the conclusion of a graduate career, there

is more assistance and guidance to be acknowledged than

there is space available for such a purpose. Such is my

predicament at this writing. I apologize in advance to

those mary people who are omitted from this necessarily

brief list.

I would be remiss in my acknowledgments were I not to

begin with two special notes of gratitude. First, I thank

Professor Merwyn A. Hayes, of Wake Forest University, whose

influence and friendship began to convince me that my

diverse academic interests could best be amalgamated in the

field of speech, specifically by studyiing rhetorical

theory, rhetorical criticism, and public address. Second,

I thank Processor Mlichael C. :;cGee, of Memphis State

Uni-.ersit.t. W'Jhile teaching at the University of Alabama,

Professor NcGee introduced me to the broad concept of

ideological rhetoric. His teaching and criticism strongly

influenced m; conceiving of this stud'.. The logistical

problems of commuting bet'.:een 'lemphis, Tennessee, and Gaines-

'ille, :-L rda2, finally. force- him to relinquish his role

as an :-.-- menoer of my co-T-ittee. His corntinuinc, long-

dis -.:- :-- icisi- has been --ery helpful during the writing

c: .-.- stu y..







-.....r : supervisory co;nittee--Professors Ronald H.

Car-e-.-r, .-'.n d E. Williams, G. Paul Moore, and Anthony J.

Cl-ar---. Ztr- University of Florida Department of Speech,

and Marilyn B. Zweig of .the University of Florida Department

of Philcsophy--.gave willingly of their time and critical

abilities. Professor Williams was especially helpful in

directing the early stages of the study. Professor Carpenter

was a creative and rigorous chairman of the committee. At a

time when so many accept and seem even to encourage academic

mediocrity as a norm, it '..as constantly encouraging and

sometimes painfully stimulating to work under a scholar who

demands academic excellence for himself and for his students.

Professor Carpenter demanded of me a constant questioning,

analytical, and productive attitude. Without his astute

criticism and friendly pressure, the study might .well have

gone astray.

Because of the need to consult numerous other sources

in the process of developing the bibliography for this study,

somewhat e::cessive demands were made on the staff of the

University of Florida libraries. Ray Jones, of the reference

department, w.as particularly helpful in identifying sources

which could be of help. Also, Sherman L. Butler, of the

inter-library loan department, w.as relentless in tracking

down and obtaining some rather obscure studies.

Since the study transcended tne traditional scope of

the field of speech, members of othe:- departments were called









- for assi_-.:-i.: beyonc- tha offered by my committee.

Professors :.-.-- :-!ahon of the Department of History, Kenneth

.Meg---1 o -he Department of Philosophy, and David Conradt of

the ELr_==_-nc of Political Science were all quite helpful

in direc-ing me to sources ,'ith which I was not familiar.

In addition, Professors Lyle McAlister of the Department of

History and Betty Ellis of the College of Education read and

offered useful criticism on parts of the study.

For their constant assistance and loving encouragement,

I am extremely grateful to both my families. And to my

wife, Susan, goes my most profound gratitude. She served as

proofreader and editor, as middle-cof-the-night sounding

board and readily available critic, as unpaid research

assistant and reiicf typist, and as crying toweL during the

inevitable dark periods. Most of all, she, above all others,

understands what it means for me to have completed this

degree and appreciates what I attempted to do in this study.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACUKil' 0LEDGM E[IT

LIST OF TABLES

ABSTRACT .

CHAPTER ONE:

CHPATER TWO:.

CHAPTER THREE:

CHAPTER FOUR:



CHAPTER FIVE:


S . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

IN TRODUCTIO . . . . . . .

IDEOLOGY . . . . . . . .

HISTORY: ITS IDEAL AND PRAG-MATIC ROLES

A DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMIC ARGUMENTS IN
SURVEYED AMlERICAH HISTORY TEXTBOOKS

ANALYSIS, EVALUATION, AND PROJECTIONS


BIBLIOGA-PHY ....

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .


"11


Page

iv

vii i


i;\

1

26








111


. . . 14

. . . 159















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

I. Distribution of Arguments Against Entering Wars 93

II-. Distribution of Arguments for Entering Wars 95

III. Percentage of Books Containing Each Argument 96

IV. Distribution of Categories . . . . .. 101

V. Percentage of Books Containing Each Category .103


. i 1. i








.---z--::" l=zr-ation Presented to the Graduate Council
S- ---r=ity' of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of
.-.5 -tre.-.ts for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


IDEOLC3 C.-L RHlETORIC: SYSTElIIC ARGUrMElTS ONi WAR AilD PEACE
1U HIGH SCHOOL AM.ERICA;! HISTORY TEXTBOOKS

By

Woodrow- Wilson Leake, Jr.

December, 1973


Chairman: Ronald H. Carpenter
Major Department: Speech

The situationally-unbound rhetoric of ideology and the

s'.mbolic movement of that rhetoric are the focuses of this

study. Ideology permeates the United States, just as it does

all societies. Furthermore, in order to help perpetuate

itself, ideology utilizes rhetoric to con.vev its positions to

the populace. The author identified the primary rhetorical

tool of ideology and designated it systemic argument. Sys-

temic argument was defined as an assertion of putative fact

which functions as a justification for actions) taken or

positions held on the part of the social structure. Such an

argument is addressed to the public at large and is intended

to instruct the populace as to .-'hiat action and/or attitude in

the situation being considered is most in keeoincg with the

articles of ideology.

In order to Leep the study tightly focused, the inves-

tigation .*.:s li.irited to the appearance in high sclo~ol American









.iaryv te:::-'::.-. o f-arguments for and against American

..-- .--: -- .; withdrawal from seven major wars in which the

L'.-.ir_ ?---s has been involved: the American Revolution,

the ,ar L 2l2, the IHe::ican-American War, the Spanish-

aAmerican War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War.

It was clearly established that such textbooks do play a

role in the perpetuation of ideology by presenting the ideo-

logical interpretation of United States history. Thus,

history tex:-books could be treated as rhetorical documents

for purposes of the study. A list was developed of the most

widely used high school American history textbooks from 1920

to 1969. Selected at random from that list were fifty text-

books, ten per decade, to be surveyed in identifying the

argumenLs.

The completed survey produced fourteen systemic argu-

ments f-tvoring A meriLcan entry- into wars, five arguments

opposing American entry, twTo arguments for American with-

draw.al from wo.rs (one of ;which was unique to the War of 1812),

and no arguments against wLithdrainLrg from w.ars. Subsequent

analysis of the rhetorical data produced the following re-

sults. (1.I The fourteen systemic arguments favoring American

entry, into wars constitute those articles of the mnerican

ideology "..-:.i.ch justify war. The-, were used in a high per-

centag : s-ur.veyed te:-.tbooks across time and across wars.

T'ie c.:-. 3 enl =--'. across wars ...as e-.'en more marked when







- -.--_-r- .s e- arguments were grouped into categories.

i .-. .--_---.i arguments tended to repeat parts of Presi-

denti w-.
rather c-an as patriotic rallying calls. (3) The arguments

opposing American entry into w..ars were not systemic arguments.

(4) The inconsistent and infrequent use of opposition argu-

ments, relative to the use of systemic arguments, supported

the observation of unwillingness on the part of textbook

authors to give equal treatment to opposition arguments.

(5) The tone of the authors indicated support for the

ideological interpretation of American entry into wars and

the already noted unwillingness to give equal treatment to

opposition arguments. (6) Authors omitted significant con-

tributory factors cited.by the definitive w.:ar histories and

misrepresented other factors, thus creating an incomplete and

ideologically slanted picture of reality. (7) Two kinds of

s.:o:molic movement were defined. Both were observed in the

surveyed rhetorical documents. Rectilinear movement occurs

'.*'hen there is a change of arguments or a change in the use of

a particular argument across time or across wars. Helical

movement occurs 'when there is recurrence of arguments across

time or across wars. Generally, there '.was more helical move-

ment of syscemic arguments and more rectilinear movement of

opposition arguments. Both ;move.mernt patterns provided subtle

support of the ideological position and negation of the impact

of oppas.itcn arguments.













CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION


I. The ieed to Transcend Situational Limitations

A. Situational Emphasis Is the Norm

B. Griffin Extended the Scope of Rhetorical
Studies

C. E::tending Mov-ement Theory Beyond Situational
Limitations

I. The Need to Study "Other" Rhetorical Forms

A. Investigating Ideological Rhetoric

B. History Textbooks as Rhetorical Documents

I. The Importance and Timeliness of Focusing on War and


Peace


A. The Topic Is Timely

B. The Topic Is Appropriate to the Proposed
Scholarly i n.'e t igation

IV. The methodologicall Appro-nch of the Study

A. Defining and E:-:piaining the Function of
Ideolo.]y

B. E::plaining History's Role in Perpetuating
Ideology

C. Identifying and Describing the Textbooks

D. Analysis and Evaluation of Systemic Arguments

E. Conc idi.ng the Stud-

V. The Contribution of this S-udy


I


II













CHAPTER ONIE

I NTPODUCTION


This chapter will identify and justify the need for

this study', discuss the theoretical foundations involved,

identify sources of investigation, and specify the method-

ology to be employed in carrying out the study. Specifi-

cally, this introduction will develop the following topics:

the need to transcend situational limitations in rhetorical

studies, the need to look at "other" rhetorical forms, the

importance and timeliness of focusing on war and peace, the

methodological approach to be used, and the contribution to

be made b' this study.

This stud'-. will focus on rhetoric which transcends

situational limitations. Such rhetoric may form the per-

suasive underpinnings for the time- and situationally-bound

rhetoric wh-ich is already the subject of so man' studies.

It is hoped that this study will supplement the work already

being done in the realm of rhetoric which is situationally-

unbound.



0.-.- ve-ry interesting example is the unpublished paper
entitle: 'The Idea of a M:acro-Rhetoric," by Michael C. McGee.
i:cee _.:-=_-sts that too much effort is spent in the field of
spee--. -c:7r-.:nication on studies of pa-ricular men, speeches,
see.-. s i-zz:- ons, and movements and that not enough effort










In cc---.-. -sage in zhe Jnited States, ideoloqv is a

-- -: '.- -:. In fact, however, it is a neutral term

..-.-. = : narm.es a collection of ideas, beliefs, and

values ..---.c a society uses to guide and to justify its

policies and actions. The society also attempts to per-

petuate its ideology. This dissertation is a study of the

rhetoric used for such perpetuation of ideology. Because

the concept of ideology is so central to this study, Chapter

T:..o will be devoted solely to defining and describing

ideolog'q.


The Need to Transcend Situational Limitations

During the winter and spring of 1970, the Speech

Communication Association sponsored the National Develop-

mental Project of Rhetoric. BLtter and Black explain the

purpose of that project's t'wo main conferences as being to

identify some problems that rhetoric is facing and might

have to face in the future and to make some recommendations

about ho'. to resolve these problems.



is de.voced to defining the relationship between "public
values" and men in society. He is developing the concept of
macro-rhetoric in an attempt to deal in part with the kind
of situationally-unbound rhetoric focused on by this stud'..
Although the prefix macro is not unique to rhetoric, LIcGee
Is using the term to stress his emphasis on public address
in its broadest possible sense of being the kind of rhetoric
'.lhich L caddr:essed to the public at large, is intimately
related :: the '.alue s'.stems of the society which gave it
birth, _.-. is identifiable in rhetorical documents such as
nr.e*.-:.. : pa~a:onlets, pollc-. statements, etc.









-.:. := :.-;ec's two major conferences, scholars from
5.-=- fields considered rhetoric's past and future,
ie-.-_ :i he problems in contemporary life which
r=-:ire applications of rhetorical concepts and methods,
.-.i -cmended lines'of research and educational pro-
cra-= needed to bring an effective rhetoric into rela-
ti-n. -o current and future needs.2

Members of the Comm-ittee on the Scope of Rhetoric and

the Place of Rhetorical Studies in Higher Education expressed

their desire that scholars be encouraged to pursue rhetorical

studies beyond the normal range of inveStitigation.

The conferees encourage that the phrase "rhetorical
studies" be understood to include any human transaction
in which symbols and/or systems of symbols influence
values, attitudes, beliefs, and actions; they encourage
individuals and groupsto conduct investigations and
publish findings dealing with many different kinds of
such transactions.3

It is in response to that reconunendation and others calling

for broadening the scope of rhetoric that this study is being

written.


Situational Emphasis Is the Norm

Whatever differences they' may have, most rhetorical

studies tend to share a situational orientation. This obser-

vation is not an indictment, but a statement of fact.



2Lloyd F. Bitzer and Edwin Black, eds., The Prospect
of Rhetoric iEngle'.-.ood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1971), p. v. When referred to in the body of this
study, these conferences will be called by their popular
name, "the Wingspread Conference."

Douglas Ehnirier et al. "Report of th- Committee on
the Scope of Rhetoric and the Place of Rhetorical Studies in
Higher E: -cation," in The Prospect of Rhetoric, ed. by
Lloyd F. Eitzer and Ed-.in Black (Englewood Cliffs, Ne' Jersey:
Prentice-:.11, Inc., 19711, pp. 214-215.





5



.---- r ---: s tend to focus on symbolic behavior within

.-.e :--.in-s of particular social context or as an event

or -_.n as par of a historical movement which tends to

estab-3.-. its own boundaries and make of itself a situation.

While the arguments for bounding rhetoric are widespread and

highly respectable in academic circles they are also in-

dicative of the fact that the field of speech-communication

has not yet explored fully symbolic behavior which is not

situationally-bound.

Emphasis on situationally-bound rhetoric has become the

norm in the field of speech-com.munication, and that is perhaps

as it ought to be. But, such emphasis tends to ignore the

seemingly obvious fact that men in society are influenced

by rhetoric '..hich tends to permeate their lives, to be con-

stant, and to influence their beliefs and behavior by subtly,

but also continuously, asserting the truth of seemingly fac-

tual statements. Thus, one's behavior, attitudes, and

beliefs may be changed not so much by being persuaded .:;thin

the confines of a situation as b. merely absorbing the claims

of a particular line of argument over a period of time,

without regard for situational limitations. In this sense,

the '.;er environment or social class in which one lives may

be rhetorical. It is rhetoric in this broader sense that

needs to be studied more than it has been, so that fuller

uncerstaninding might be gained of the %way situationall'.-unbound









r.eaoric is .usei .an' jud.gments might be made about its
4
.: --: : -r _~~.luence on chose excosed to it.

:-.- raon rhetorical critics and theorists have been

boun-d S- -zuations for so long is chat leading scholars in

the field of speech-communication have tended to emphasize

chat situations are the core of rhetorical studies. In their

classic treatise, Speech Criticism, for example, Thonssen

and Baird indicated chat the speech situation is the proper

object of study for all critics. They defined speech

situation as "a complex social relationship in which a

speaker attempts to secure a particular response from a group

of listeners," and they indicated that such a situation "is

sev.erel. controlled b- cime limitations."5 While chis

approach is tw:enty-fiv-e years old, it is unchanged in the

Thonssen, Baird, and Braden rev.-ise: edition which remains

speaker- and situation-oriented. Their approach continues

to influence scholars in the field of speech-communication.



A-s should be obvious, no rhetoric is entirely either
situationally-bound or situ.ationally.-unbound. Rather, there
is a continuum along w.iiich various instances and types of
rhetoric may be placed. Some will be more bound than others
and some will be more nearly unbound than others. For pur-
poses of this study, rhetoric 'which is primarily limited in
scope ..ill be called situationally:-bound rhetoric and that
rhetoric '..hich is primarily unbound by situation and.'or time
factors ".:ill be called situationally-unbound rhetoric.

5Le-r Thorisen and A. Craig: Baird, Speech Criticism
(Me.; Y :--:: The Ronald Press Company, 1943 3), pp. 6-7.

--: Thonssen, A. Craig :Baird, and Waldo W. Braden,
S?_-e- Cri-:-zism (2nd ed.; ile'-; Yorc: The Ronald Press
Cc::-=..., 1 7 pp. 7-3.









I-.-:.- c'-rre.-.:-_ ex-iting "new" approaches in the discipline

r.Zi -o r-ei-azae the perspective of Thonssen and Baird.

I-. -e :f -he'more widely read essays of recent years,

Bitzer asserts that "so controlling is the situation that

we should consider it the very ground of rhetorical activity,

whether that activity is primitive and productive of a simple

utterance or artistic and productive of the Gettysburg

Address." Thus, even some thinkers who are influencing

current trends of rhetorical scholarship are interested more

in limited than in situationally-unbound rhetoric.

The problem may have something to do with the fact that

many rhetorical scholars tend to function more as critics

than as theorists. The difference between a theorist and a

critic is adequately described by Brockriede's statement that

"the theorist tends to be interested in generalizations at

the highest level of abstraction he can achieve, whereas

participants and critics tend to be interested in making

decisions or judgmaenlts about one very particular and unique

act." Of co.-rse, there is a great need for rhetorical

critics. By functioning primarily as critics, howe%'er,

rhetorical scholars may cut themselves off from the possi-

bility of transcending that rhetoric which is situationally-

bound.

7.
F: Bitzer, "The Phetorical Situation," Philosophyi
a-n F, I i .n te r 1 n r ) ,

.-.-: Brockriede, "Dimensions of the Concept of
...=- ic," -terly Journal of Speech, LIV (Februa-r 1968),
-2









-=_.-.- _e:-.e caught up in specific, limited instances

3 r--=-.:r, .-.st scholars begin to praise specificity and

co:-.--: generalizations. Thus, it is possible to indict

rhetoric-l scholars who so limit themselves in much the same

tone used by Frye when he noted that "it is all very well

for Blake to say that to generalize is to be an idiot, but

when ,we find ourselves in the cultural situation of savages

who have words for ash and willow but no word for tree, we

wonder if there is not such a thing as being too deficient
9
in the capacity to generalize." [lost rhetorical scholars,

it would seem, have been interested in the asn and willow

of criticism. This study. will attempt to focus its atten-

tion from the perspective of the entire forest in which those

species grow.


Griffin Extended the Scope of Rhetorical Studies

While it is true that some scholars have extended the

scope of rhetorical studies, it is also true that they have

generally remained within the realm of situationally-bound

rhetoric. Griffin, for example, stressed the importance of

studying the rhetoric of historical movements. His idea is

full of possibilities for transcending situation in rhetori-

cal studies. The idea has not yet reached its potential,

however, in part because Griffin indicated that "to study a

rio'.ement is to study a progress, a rhetorical striving, a



:'r_-z-roo Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton:
Prin-ce:-- _'.- '.'.ersity Press, 1957), p. 13.









e:..-.:. _:- progress from stasis to stasis; for both

-h= r--i-_is .and 'the objectives of a movement are motionless.'

They vzi-. in the stasis of indecision, and they end in the

stasis of 'decision preserved in.'"0 The word progress and

the phrase "progress from stasis to stasis" present problems,

for Griffin wants to study the rhetoric within the confines

of an identifiable situation.

The student's task, according to Griffin, is to iso-

late a rhetorical movement.

The student's task is to isolate the rhetorical move-
ment within the matrix of the historical movement: the
rhetorical movement is the focus of his study. It is
to be isolated, analyzed, evaluated, and described,
so that he can say, for the particular historical move-
ment which he investigates: this was the pattern of
public discussion, the configuration of discourse, the
physiognomy of persuasion.11

Obviously, Griffin is interested in studying movements for

which there is a definite beginning and end which can be

described along with easily discernible periods within the

movement itself. Therein lies the problem. With the con-

cept he introduced when he began writing about and encourag-

ing movement studies, the studies as Griffin describes them

must, of necessity, be situation- and time-bound and must

continue in the vein of all studies that have gone before them.


10
Leland M. Griffin, "A Dramatistic Theory of the
Rhetoric of Movrements," in Cricical Responses to Kernneth
Bur-.e, e b3. by William Ho.-.:ard Rueckert (Minneapolis: Univer-
sity, of rMi.nn so a Press, 19691, ). 461.

G-iffin, "The Rhetoric of Historical Movements,"
Ou~,rter~i :-.r..al of Speech, :-::VIII (April, 1952), 135.









_::_ --n ing :_ -.-=--.-.-.t Theor. Beyond
1 7 -t ^.3 ations

-- .i .-n description, Griffin is interested in the

rhe ..-- :: historical movements. The "rhetorical move-

ments" he sees accompanying those periods of history are

identified by defining the patterns which speeches fall into

within a historical movement. It may be, however, that

within the realm of situationally-unbound rhetoric, there

exist purely "rhetorical" movements which are not linked to

historical or social mass movements, but are identifiable

primarily because the words, phrases, and arguments used to

discuss particular topics within a society may change as

the society refines and revises its rhetorical approach to

those topics.

Such movements may be helical or rectilinear in

nature. If the arguments tend to recur over a period of

time, the mo-.ement is helical; as the topics reappear,

the same basic arguments are revived to deal with them. If,

on the other hand, there tends to be no recurrence of argu-

ments, but a simple change of arguments across time, then

the movement is rectilinear. The changing arguments indicate

that the society producing those arguments has changed its

approach to the recurring topic. Rectilinear movement does

not necessaril: indicate that the society has improved, but

simply -:-. it has changed its rhetorical strategies concern-

in. a p.ar--:ular topic.









Because :.- : nedc be on accompanying social and his-

.- .. -.:--i-.. to aid in tr -cin3 patterns of movement in

r.-.r-:, apply Gr-iffin's tools to situationally-unbound

rhe-:or_-:: y be totally useless. It may be that those

changes :-wicn occur are within the rhetoric used by society

and that they are not a part of actions taken by various

political and/or social groups within that society. Finally,

since Griffin has already defined the term "rhetorical move-

ment" in another way, it will be better to refer to helical

and rectilinear patterns of movement as "symbolic movements."


The N[eed to Study "Other" Rhetorical Forms

Investigating Ideoloqical Rhetoric

To look beyond situationasll'.-bound rhetoric as a

legitimate object of study, it is necessary to look at forms

of rhetoric other than the usual ones considered by those

scholars primarily, or solely, interested in the narrow scope

of rhetorical studies. Although the appropriate defini-

tional matters will be taken up in Chapter Two, it is

necessary at this point to indicate that the situationally-

unbound rhetoric which will be considered by this study is

the rhetoric of ideology. As Drucker indicates, ideology is

the theoretical basis for a system's doing '.c-hatever it '.ants
12
or is goinm to do in any event. So, the relationship



--. :-.. DrL.u er, "Mar::'s Concept of Ideology," Philos-
o ._-, :-:.- : .= 1l, 1972) 154.









- :.:.een i : :- -nd r.-e-oric .coes e:-:isr. There is a need

fr :-. r--l:-:.--shio to be e:-plored from a rhetorical friame-

:.:. .= 1:.-. as that framework is an extension of the per-

spe-3_-- ~f situationally-unbound rhetoric and agrees with

Bryant's broad, encompassing view that "rhetoric is primarily

concerned with the relations of ideas to the thoughts, feel-

ings, moti-.'es, and beha-.'ior of men."3


History' Tex:tbooks as Rhetorical Documents

The "other" forms to be utilized as rhetorical docu-

ments are textbooks from American history courses, on the

high school level. This choice is an appropriate result of

the decision to stud- the relationship between rhetoric and

ideology. [rot onl' are high school American history text-

boo!:.s tools of education, but they also have rhetorical func-

tions w*liich deser-.-e further investigation and evaluation.

If ideology is to sur-.vive or be reinforced in a so-

ciety, it must be perpetuated. The time to teach an ide-

ology to a people is when they are "oung, not only because

that is when the" are most impressionable, but also because,

as Draves indicates, in this country at least, "it must be

remembe-ed that for the majority" of students, high school



13r.ald C. Bryant, "Rhetoric: its Function and Scope,"
in The .-:'vince of Rhetoric, ed. b-y Joseph Schwartz and
John .-. ?:.yenga (N!e.., York: The Ronald Press Company, 1965),
p. 22. . article originally appeared in the quarterlyy
Jo'-r:-.: of _cp ech, :X::IX: (December, 1953) 401--24.









S-.-.e n.d i ::.i education." Thus, high school

.-.er -r h_-szr textbooks can be used as the primary

rhe-.rL..- docum-ents of the study if it is understood that

theyL f-inzzion in part to perpetuate the ideology of a

society by telling the story of a nation.

By treating textbooks as rhetorical documents, the

study may provide much needed insight not only into rhetori-

cal aspects of American history textbooks, but also into the

use of systemic arguments by social systems to perpetuate

their own ideologies and popular mythologies. In addition,

by treating textbooks as rhetorical documents, this study

voices agreement with Simons' statement that "among the most

exciting trends in rhetoric today is the application of tools

and y.aristicks of rhetorical criticism to non-ob'.'ious forms

of persuasion, and, in particular, to the rhetoric of academic
,,15
discourse." Inr a similar '.ein. Ehninger and his colleagues

call for research in "the theory and practice of forms of

co;r.mun c:ation which hav-e not been in.-estigated as thoroughly

as public address." 1 B isolating textbooks as examples

con-reying situationally-unbound r-hetoric, it is possible to

carry out such research in this 3tud-'.


1Da-.id D. Dra'.es, "lU;ht's Wrong With the Teaching of
History in the High School?" 'The Social Scudies, LVI (-larch,
1965) 10 6.

.1Herbert U. Simons, "Persuasion in Social Conflict: A
Critin'e .f Pr::ev,-';ili.ng Conceptions and a Framework for Future
searc..." Speech o graphs, :::'IX (f[ovember, 1972), 240-2.'
1et al. p. 17
-...-.-L ge et al., p. 217.









If te::-b::~-s seem. i :-n unusual form of rhetoric, it

:.-.:i h rene-ered that situationally-unbound rhetoric

cs_. h- -.:-ke the form of speeches which ma' be fully inves-

ti3ga:=i- -y applying various tests of their effectiveness, by

subjecting them to neo-Aristotelian critical grids, or by

using other convenient devices such as Burke's dramatistic

pentad to help understand the speaker-audience-message rela-

tionship. Rather, situationally-unbound rhetoric is ongoing

and pervasive within a society and might best be given voice

by te:.:tbooks which are designed to teach a system of ideas to

a people across generations. While documents such as official

government policy statements also give voice to the

situ3tionally-unbound rhetoric of ideology, those documents

are more narrow in scope. They tend to be as situational as

speeches or debates. Te::tbooks, however, are themsleves

situationally-unbound and, therefore, reflective of the

situationally-unbound rhetoric they carry.


The Imporcance and Timeliness
of Focusing on War and Peace

Because there is such a mass of topics falling within

the realm of ideological rhetoric, it is necessary to limit

the study to a particular topic. The primary reason for

focusing on the situationally-unbound rhetoric of ideology

as it ar-es_ for and against entry into and withdrawal from

war is really quite simple. America has a tradition of

su--::-rng -.r involvement in wars by appealing to articles










.:.=rican =:ri:;n policy, especially as it relates to

=eria' s pc--ies toward war; Spanier documents the point.

.=ri-:-an depreciation of power and reluctance to
r=::--ize it as a factor in human affairs makes it
ps rnoiogically necessary to rationalize actions
[specifically, wars] in the international arena in
terms of ideological objectives and universal moral
principles. American power must be "righteous" power
used not for purposes of power politics and selfish
national advantage but for the peace and welfare of all
mankind. [One of the results of the rationalization is
a] public image of the United States as a noble and
unselfish crusader on behalf of moral principles.
17

Thus, the United States appeals to its ideology to ration-

alize its involvement in wars. Part of the goal of this

study is to determine whether the country also teaches those

rationalizations to its children through the high school

American history textbooks surveyed in this study. Such

teaching would facilitate the perpetuation of the ideology.

In addition to this clear appeal to the ideology when

rationalizing wars, it is also clear that there are other

reasons for focusing on wars in this study of ideological

rhetoric. War is a particularly timely topic right now,and

focusing on wars will facilitate studying the symbolic move-

ment of arguments about those wars. The following sections

develop these last two points.


The Top:c Is Timely

a,-1- is a particularly appropriate topic of study right

no, b--es-: or its timeliness. The United States has just


-'Jon "'. Spnier, -jerica.n Foreirgn Policy Since W-orld
:.- -I ;ew i":'-:: Fred~eric;' A. Praeger, Inc. 1960) pp. 85-
63.









.: E te n_'-=znesc war in her near two-hundred-vear-

c- :--: -. -.en as thinking is adjusted to the conclu-

si .. f ..e -;ar, there remains confusion about what caused

and ;-szified United States involvement in that war. It

ma' be--in fact, probably is--too early to examine the

arguments for war and peace which have surrounded the war

in Vietnam, but a study of traditional arguments for and

against war in our society may provide an understanding which

will be useful later, when the arguments for and against war

in Vietnam begin to filter down into high school American

history textbooks.

The current confusion is not likely to subside soon.

May indicates that in all likelihood "history teachers in

the 1990's may find this (war] no easier to explain than we

find it today." Perhaps studies -of the type here being

undertaken will help those teachers and their students under-

stand and deal with the ideological interpretations which

Twilll inevitably filter intd the books from which they teach

and learn. ['ot only has the war in Vietnam been a long one,

but it also has been a bitterly debated one which imposed

conditions of war with which even the might might military machine

of the United States was unable to cope. The confusion

caused by this particular war needs to be cleared up.

Perhaps this illumination can be accomplished by recognizing

the fact that the bodi of arguments about .4,ar in general is


r-..st R. May, "What Will Teachers Say ?..bout the
Vietnar. .:,-r?" T' Gainesville Sun, February 11, 1973, p. 1A.










s _lfi --.::. to isolate and study, within the morass of

c-:- -. -- 'e for and subject to investigation.

-- so seems to make sense to study the arguments for

and against war for purely pragmatic reasons. Primary among

these is the fact that the United States has been involved

in several major wars during her relatively short existence,

and those wars have been conveniently spaced at somewhat

regular intervals. Thus, there is a considerable amount of

material about war and peace which can be studied. Bonner

indicates just how many wars the United States has been

involved in:

Despite her long isolation from the affairs of Europe,
the historical record of the United States has not
been a strikingly pacific one. Since declaring her
independence from Great Britain in 1776, the United
States has been engaged in seven major-wars and such
lesser conflicts as Indian wars, an undeclared war
with France in 1798, and the recent "police action"
in Korea. 19

Although Bonner's statement needs updating to include the

just concluded war in Vietnam, the point to be made here is

that wars are a highly practical focus of study.


The Topic Is Appropriate to the Proposed
Scholarly Investigation

In addition to the timeliness and practicality of the

topic, it should also be noted that the topic of war pro-

vides an ideal test for a subthesis of the study. mentioned


19_.
-.-.'is :i. Bonner, ".Aerica's Wars and Their Causes:
.s Sear. T-.r-.::h the Eyes of Historians," The Social Sciences,
::L'VII; '-: .-2 195 ) 22.










rlier0, .e.. -.at tne sizuationally-unbound rhetoric of an

i:i:..- -'- .,el take the form of a symbolic mo-ement.

"-.-. .-- reeds of the class change quite radically,"

accord-:.: zo Drucker, "it will ha-.ve to change its theory

too."0 As a result of the fact that wars occur at fairly

regular intervals in the history of the United States,

focusing on war as a topic should provide a workable way to

test the movement thesis that the changing theory of an

ideology can be detected and traced through studying the

situationally-unbound rhetoric of that ideology.

Thus, the original decision to focus on war because

of society's use of ideology to rationalize involvement in

wars is supported by several other reasons. The timeliness

of the subject, the practicality of the subject, and the

ability of the topic to contribute to scholarly investigation

of symbolic movement all add to the value of this choice of

emphasis. As te:.:tbooks can serve well as the vehicle through

which the situationally-unbound rhetoric of ideology is

transmitted, so can w.ar serve as the topic of the rhetoric

which is so transmitted.


The [lethodological Aoproach of the Study

The first three sections of this chapter have concerned

themselves with justifying this dissertation as a legitimate

corncerr. fr rhetorical schclarship. In designing the study,



Drucker, p. 154.









n .=.3 z z- -.-'ry tc recognize zhe validity of Duhamel's

:3 r--... :.: ..-.. "rhetoric occupies a peculiar position

ar--.- -.=: arzs and that it cannot be adequately interpreted

apart fr=-n he ideological context in which it appears."21

In fact, this study goes beyond that recognition and is

designed as a study which will investigate the rhetoric of

the ideology itself.


Defining and Explaining the Function of Ideology

An underlying assumption of this study is that not only

is rhetoric grounded in its ideology, but also that it plays

a role in the attempt to perpetuate that ideology. The

overall purpose for this study may be summarized as (1) an

attempt to develop a theoretical conceptualization about the

way ideology is perpetuated through the use of systemic argu-

ments, (2) an analysis of high school American history

textbooks to determine how widespread the use of systemic

arguments is in those textbooks; and (3) an attempt to deter-

mine whether the systemic arguments on war and peace reflect

a symbolic movement which can be analyzed from a perspective

of situationally-unbound rhetoric.

Since an understanding of the concept of ideology is cen-

tral to the theoretical foundation of this entire study, Ch-ap-

ter T;o willl be devoted to a discussion of this concept from


?1
P. Albert Dunam.el, "Trie Function of Rhetoric as Effec-
ti':e E:-.r -ssion," in The Province of Rhetoric, ed. by Joseph
Sc.'ar-:r .:-. John A. F'.cenga (ie' York: The Ronald Press
Ccr: *D -:L :-': -,) o 36 .









.-.= -..i -r. s f its (1) definition and (2) function--

-.:--"-. ifinition of systemic argument, which is a

ts.-l :.-r_ :.-. -iich ideologies function rhetorically. Poli-

tical r:ha-ists will provide the bulk of the material about

ideolcg:. H. Mi. Drucker, Karl Mannheim, Miladin Zivotic,

and Abraharr Edel are among those who will be contributing to

the study and are illustrative of the theorists whose works

were sought out while the author was developing the material

in this area. The rhetorical function of ideology will be

abstracted from the writings of political theorists like

Amelie Rorty and M. Rejai and of rhetorical theorists and

critics like Richard Weaver, Herbert Simons, and Michael

Osborn. These short lists of names are not, of course, all-

inclusive but are meant to provide an indication of the

kinds of sources which will be used in this chapter.


E::plaining History's Role in Perpetuating Ideology

In Chapter Three, history's role as a storehouse and

con-veyor of systemic arguments on war and peace will be dis-

cussed. Here, then, will be a description of the differ-

ences in (1) what history is ideally and (2) .what it is in

practice. Included will be a discussion of the historian's

role in the ideal and in the practical functions of history.

These sections will depend for support primarily on his-

toriographers such as David Fischer and Ed.,-ard Carr. In

the final section of the chapter, those cr-oblems peculiar to









- -;-"r ::-: :::s will be emphasized. The supporting mate-

i-l f:r- -:.-3. tczion will be provided by rhetorical scholars

suec.- s =zer: Scott and Donald K. Smith; textbook analysts

such .s R:.' Billington, Jack Nelson, and Gene Roberts, Jr.;

and teachers of high school American history courses.


Identify'ing and Describing the Textbooks

Chapter Four will contain a description of the argu-

ments gleaned from surveyed high school American history

textbooks. The primary objective will be to describe the

data which result from the textbook survey. To facilitate

this description, the statements gathered from the text-

books will be grouped into systemic arguments favoring Ameri-

can entry into wars, arguments opposing American entry, into

wars, and whatever other groupings grow out of the survey.

The data will be organized in such a way that they can be

used easily in support of the analyses which will complete

the study.

Since it is obvious that not all high school American

history te:-tbooks can be read, this study will survey only

those books wnich have been identified by other scholars as

being the most popular and, thus, the must widely read dur-

ing the fifty--ear period covered by this study. Because

of the refusal of publishing houses to release sales figures,

these scholars have had to use other methods of determining

:h ich te::-boo':s l:a.e been the most widely used. Biilington,

fo. e:-:.l- L cc.pilcd his lis fcr the early 1960's by









:r-iir.ing re-:r s=,lied to hLm by the nation's leading

- -.- ri-ies :-. teaching ..erican history in secondary educa-

.-.. -.e list Billington developed and similar lists for

other _-.e -eriods have been combined to form the master list

for t'ris study. Books and doctoral dissertations in textbook

analysis have been the primary sources for building this list.

Lists were found which identify the most widely" used textbooks

as far back as the 1920's, thus enabling the study to include

an analysis of the books today's government leaders and older

voters would have been exposed to while in high school.

The materials to be gathered from the books.--Once gain-

ing access to these books which will be used as the rhetori-

cal documents of the study', the author will read the discus-

sions in those books of major wars to identify the following:

(1) all reasons listed by each text for American entry into

each war; (2) all reasons cited. by each text for withdrawing

from each war, and (3) all cited dissenting arguments against

entry into or withdrawal from each war. These statements

will be e:-:amined to determine how to group them and how to

describe those groupings.

Identifying and describing arguments.--Once the argu-

ments have been identified, their distribution across wars

and across time will be described. The concepts of helical

andi rec-ilinear movement will be useful in describing the


:a l-.llen Billington, The Historian's Contribution
t .-.. lo-.--.ri-an Hlisunderstanding (lew. York: Hobbs, Dorman
* .::.: ani, I- -. 1966.









__. ?.-:-_--=.ar mn.ovement may be noted in answers provided

-.--~-: s Tc -nese questions: (1) What changes take place

in .-.e reasons for different wars? (2) What differences may

be fou-nd in textbooks with significant time periods separat-

ing their publication dates? (3) What differences can be

noted in the use of systemic arguments in books published

during war periods .'%hen compared with those published during

peace time? Do those published during wars tend to be more

nationalistic?

Second, the concept of helical movement will be help-

ful in describing the answers to these questions: (1) To

what extent do reasons recur across periods of time separat-

ing wars? (2) To what extent do arguments recur across

periods of time separating publication of te::tbooks? (3) Are

any arguments used to explain entry into all wars?


Anal.'sis and Evaluation of Systemic Arguments

Chapter Five will provide an analysis and evaluation of

the arguments for and against American entry into wars.

This chapter will utilize data from the surveyed high school

American history te::tbooks and from the definitive works on

each war to answer such questions as (1) To what e:-tent is

the ideology a false reflection. of reality? and (2) To what

e:-:tent do Presidential war messages serve as sources of

systemic arguments?

Ser-i.-ia as a basis for analysis and evaluation will oe

answers r-r.-cidd by the te:xtb3ok survey to these ques ions:










'") To *..;hat e:-:--:, are sysce-ic arguments e::plained or

i-cor:ed? 7.) Do the patterns of movement detected in the

a:,.-,-s -r'.-ide sufficient data to describe the symbolic

mo-v=.r... .f ideology? (3) Wlhat is the role of systemic

arguments in simplifying the reasons cited by -definitive war

histories for entry into the wars? -(4) How widespread is the

use of systemic arguments in the rhetorical discourse of the

textbooks surveyed? (5) What generalizations can be drawn

concerning the correlation between a war's generating con-

troversy and its being explained in terms of systemic argu-

ments? (6) What is the tone of the arguments set forth by

the textbook authors?

The final section of Chapter Five will discuss the con-

clusions and implications of the study. It will make some

general projections about how the results of this study

might be used in future research studies and how the results

might be used by and useful to the various contributing

academic fields.


The Contribution of this Study


Each dissertation is expected to make an original con-

tribution to learning. Most contributions in rhetoric and

public address tend to be very specific because of the focus

on sit:r--l nall'-bound rhetoric. Focusing, as it does, on

sit'-1 -oni Lv-u-nbou.lnd rhetoric, however, this study proposes

c -.:e a -if~r-ent kind of contribution. The stud '' will









rr from different, yet overlapping, fields of learning.

?-: :olici:l theorists from philosophy, political science,

..... --iical sociology will contribute an understanding of

the meanlng and function of ideology. Historians will pro-

vide the definitions and descriptions of history and of

historians and will indicate what their roles in society are.

Textbook analysts will provide lists of the books to be

surveyed and will provide suggestions which will help iden-

tify ideology's role in those textbooks. Rhetorical

theorists and critics will provide the concepts necessary to

describe and evaluate the rhetorical aspects of materials

studied.

Since the contribution will grow out of the integration

of these diverse fields, this study will be interdisciplin-

ary in nature. Each of the fields contributing to the study

will also receive insights into itself gained from over-

lapping with other areas. Thus, the ultimate contribution

of this study will be in the areas of broadening the scope

of rhetorical studies and of encouraging further interdis-

ciplinary studies of rhetoric.













CHAPTER TWO

IDEOLOGY


I. Some Problems of Studying Ideology

II. Defining Ideology

A. It Has Its Origins in Class Theor.'

B. Ideology Is Pervasive

C. Ideology Is an "Official" Political Dictum

D. Ideology Is Generic

III. Ideology's Function

A. Ideology Reflects Society's Self-Image

B. Ideology Moves Society Rhetorically by [leans
of Systemic Arguments

C. Ideology Encourages Belief in Itself

IV. Suanary













CHAPTER TWO

IDEOLOGY


Some Problems of Studying Ideology


Essential to a study of ideological rhetoric is an

understanding of the concept of ideology. There are a

number of areas of learning one might turn to for such

understanding, for the concept is treated by scholars in

many different fields. For the purposes of a rhetorical

study, however, one is forced to turn one's attention out-

ward, since the persuasion theorists tend not to deal with

the concept of ideology. Emphasis is perhaps best placed or.

political cheorists from sociology and philosophy.

Political theorists in sociology are concerned with the

way men are mov'.d by each other and by society as a whole

within the conte:-:t of a social structure such as the focus of

this study., the United States. Political theorists in

philosophy tend to be more generic in their concerns, al-

though they, too, tend to focus on particular societies.

Those who are concerned with political and social philosophy

tend to ha'.-e much the sarme focus as political sociologists

and, thus, supplement undierstanJing of the concept of

i:lieolo.-v: leaned from that area. It should be noted that









ecific '..'ci---:e:s sch as Eel, n-berle, and Leff really

.: ':- "-_.: ro rany one discipline of academe but tend,

.- i, -:: claimed or utilized by all disciplines

inr---r-- in a broad theoretical understanding of concepts,

sucr. as -deology, which play a significant role in explain-

ing iman in society.

A specific problem encountered in dealing with ideology

is an inability to recognize that everyone in society is

ruled by and depends on ideology. Laymen seem to be unable

or unwilling to acknowledge t;-.eir ow.-n dependence on ideology

to govern their lives. The tendency is to believe one's own

approach to life is the "right" approach, wi.hile those in

opposition to this approach are being ruled by an ideological

.-ie.' of the '..'orld. Perhaps the only '.,.ay' to deal '.:ith an

ideology is to step bac.k for a while and, as Mannheim sug-

gests, "look at it 'from without.'" Since an ideology is

so much of the '.ay one sees the worldld ho'..ever, to accompLish

this task of vie..'ing ideology from '.without one must engage

in w.,hat Mannheiin described as "suspending, for a time, the

whole complex: of its assumptions, thus doing something other

than 'hat is prescribed in it at first glance."-

Adding to the difficulty of dealing .with ideology as

a concept is the fact that the '.:ord itself has highly



'-*''nnheim, From Karl Miannheim,. ed. hy P.urr H.
';l 'f .;-. _r-k: Oxford Univ--.:sity Press, 1971), p. 119.

"tbid.









.-.:: -- .-.-z l.ionr:s in this society. One tends to believe

:-:r.--e.----i --kesmen when they tell him that what he be-

liev- : s -rue and factual, while what his enemies say is

mere :--i:e gical nonsense. Thus, one problem of this study

is to recognize the validity of Heberle's statement thit

"in popular language, the term ideology is often used in a

derogatory sense, as if the political opponents were inten-

tionally dishonest in their proclamations of purposes, creeds,

and beliefs."3 Part of the task of escaping this pejorative

sense is to realize that "ideology has no such derogatory

connotation," again using Heberle's phraseology, and to

unload the term by providing it with a neutral definition.4

Drucker's statement is true that "until very recently

'ideology' was almost always used pejoratively. It was, as

the philosophers used to put it, a 'boo-word'. This is to

say that describing something as 'ideological' was a '..ay of

condemning it."5

The truth of Drucker's statement should serve as ad-

ditional incentive to define the term, as is the primary

function of this chapter. Once that task is accomplished,

the remainder of the chapter wi-ll be spent describing and



3Pudolph Heberle, Social .ovements: An Introduction
to Political Socioloqg (ew York: Appleton-Century-Cro ts,
1951) p. 28.

I bid.
5..
5.. Dru.:-er, "Mar::'s Concept of Ideology, Philoso-
hy, L-- april, 1 72) 157.










=.-: laniing :. e an'.. uCon of the concept of ideology

5ince zt-.os .-.-acteriscics also .-.ill be important to this




Defining Ideology

Edel appears to be correct in claiming that "objective

truth in social theory is unattainable."6 Perhaps a truth

is near at hand, however, when it becomes clear that most

theorists about ideology, whether their approaches are

specific or general, tend to hav.'e compatible definitions--

all of them reflecting a concern with ideas, beliefs, and

values which guide society.

For purposes of this study, ideology may be defined as

a system of beliefs, ideas, and.'or value judgments which

function to justify the operations of a social structure--

including its actions taken and positions held--and to

codify the popular political mycholo.g of that society. it

has its origins in class theory. It is pervasive. It is an

"official" political dictum. It is generic.


It Has Its Origins in Class Theorv

While it has been easy to keep in mind Drucker's state-

ment that "the concept of ideology as we no.. use it . .

stem[s] from Karl Mar:-:," it is also easy to lose sight of



S--:L- electionsos on Id_-ology," Pra:is (1967. p. 567.
Edl' : f'll assertion is th-?. "ideologies are thus fund nmen-
t-ll- irnco-:arable, objecti.-e truth in social theory is
-.---:sinable, erh3ps even altogether meaningless."









-. : .-.- '. ::r;-:-, as the concept's originator, developed

.:-.: -: : : I2deoldgy in conjunction with his developing

tr..eLrifs auz che way, classes interact and deal with each

other -.n he struggles which mark unstable social situations.

Drucker calls attention to the fact that each class must

have its guiding principles.

One of the needs of every class is a theory which will
orient it to its world and prescribe its future tasks.
Since the needs of the class change radically it will
have to change its theory too. Throughout its life
the theorists of the class will search assidously for
whatever factual or scientific basis for their preconcep-
tions they can find. When no such basis can honestly
be found, something which looks like one will be
patched up and put forward. Honest or not, a class
will exalt as "true" that theory which seems to provide
good reason for actions it wants to take in any case.8

It takes little imagination to realize that class can be

broadened to indicate a whole, basically homogeneous, so-

ciety, but the fact remains that understanding of the con-

cept of ideology grew out of a concern with classes. A

'brief focus on classes at this point will help indicate the

extent to '..hich ideology permeates a society.

Classes and other subgroups are microcosms of the

larger society and they e:
the debate about whether or not the United Sta-tes is a

classless society would be beyond the scope of this stud.'

and is irrelevant for its purposes. But it is clear that



7Dr'c-.er, p. 152
., p. 154.










.-_.,s.-. cl~--3s =s groups ,;iihin a larger society will assist

.-. e-r.-.--.; t-he pervasiveness of ideology within society.

5E e::--.--.- nhe fact that subideoloqies exist throughout

a -scL ez., it will be easier to understand the notion that

an overall ideology permeates the society as a whole. Fur-

thermore, by acknowledging the degree of allegiance each

group has to its own subideological underpinnings, it will

be easier to understand and appreciate the potential for an

entire society to be dominated and moved by its ideology.


Ideology Is Pervasive

To begin, then, it should be acknowledged that whether

one terms them classes or they even meet the technical defini-

tional requirements of classes, there are many distinct

groups in the country which can be identified. Religious

groups, ethnic groups, geographic groups, social groups,

etc., all e:.-ist in the country, and each has its own sub-

ideology. Each of these groups, in other words, has a

system of thought which governs the behavior of its members

when they are in contact with each other. There are at

least two supporting arguments for this line of analysis.

First, it should be noted that subideologies are in

essence part of the larger ideology and draw their substance

from the parent ideology. Lane, for example, indicates

that ideologies of groups "are [inevitably] torn from their










:.z e::t in a ar-b-er belief system, and share the structural
,,q
.-.- s-'L is :. properties of that system."

:--.:., it is clear that groups have alleg iance to the

pare..: :-oogoy. Obviously, subideologies overlap and, at

times, conflict. When they conflict, the prevailing ideology

tends to be that of the parent group. In most situations,

for e:-:ample, if there were to be a conflict between "the

American WJay" and 'the ideological stance of one of the smaller

groups, the overriding American ideology would be the pre-

vailing factor in making a decision. Allegiance would

follow; the same pattern as formation of the ideologies.

That is, since subideologies grow out of a broader ideology,

the primary allegiance would be first to the parent ideology

and second, to the subideology. Garstin indicates that

allegiance to an ideology is strong primarily because, no

matter ho-; much change takes place within an ideology,

"there always remains a hard core of beliefs which is con-

stant and unchanging."10

Furthermore, according to Garstin, the ideology itself

forbids deviation of belief. Here again, then, the ranking

order of the ideologies wouldl d determine the depth of com-

mitment ro each. Garstir e:.:plains that ideologies are



-: t E. Lane, Political ideology (New York: The
Fre 'e ?:Es Glencoe, 1962), p. 15.

L. H. rstin, Each Age Is a Dream (New York: Bouregy
; : In:.. 5 ) p. 79.










.. "-=red by an "L.-.:--ie n---ce [:-.. h] is usually revealed in a

.-.r-..ess : iccrirne which forbids deviation from the

=--.- ...Z' from rhe accepted principles and propositions

w:-=.-. ::.-.-:ute the ideologies, and in a fanatical belief
11
in their absolute rightness." Thus, even if a subideology

decided to oppose the pa-ent .ideology on a particular issue--

an unlikely situation--it .would be exposed to harsh, unre-

lenting pressure to "get back in line."


Ideology Is an "Official" Political Dictum

Ideology tends to be an "official" political dictum.

Even when it is not actually an official government pro-

nouncement, it has about it an official appearance. It

evokes political mythology to help maintain its po..er; it

evokes various propagandistic symbols to help in its e::pan-

sion efforts; and, tying all these matters together is the

fact that ideology tends to be stated. The starting point,

however, is that ideology is seen as being official.12

Adorno indicates that ideology is "a highly developed system



Ibid., p. 4.

1It should be acknowledged that political theorists
from Plato to Hobbes have argued that governmental leaders
have the right and responsibility to deceive the people of the
state w-.he those leaders deem that such deception would be
in the besc interests of the state. It is not a purpose of
this sz .i_ to argue the efficacy of such deception. Rather,
this s-_ simol, acknowledges the e::istence of such deception
of i,_i3.-y and sets out to :-:xamine and develop some theo-
retc.-a c:..repts which may be useful in examining the
r2-.-_ ric of iieolo7g which is used to deceive the populace
i s ra e.









13
: i-fiial e=rs."- Further, according to Simons, any

.- -s .-.i- occur within society "must necessarily be

c.... in the larger system's interests."4 Since con-

trcL .= _--:ng expressed, then, ideology always appears to

be ofi ial.

At this point, a difference between ideology and atti-

tude should be indicated for the benefit of those who might

consider attitude to be very similar to ideology. Attitudes

are not "official," but are personal. According to Ostron,

an attitude "exists in a personal and situational conte::t.''5

Ideo.logy', of course, appears to be official and tends to

transcend situational limita-cions. Further, a group of

people may share an attitude, but they are rarely expected

to do so as is the case w'.ith an ideology. All people within

a society are expected to learn and accept the ideology.

Ideologies evoke political r.yths in part because ,nyths

tend to reinforce beliefs '.hl:Ich the people may have and in

part because myths help simplify the rather co,.ple:< issues

with '.-'hich ideologies deal. Theorists who discuss the role



13
Theod,:r W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Bruns;wik, David J.
Le-;inson, and R. Ne'.vitt Sanford, The Authoritarian Person-
alit'.' (rew.. York: Harper anrd Brothers, 1952) p. 162.

Herbert W. Simons, "Persu.asion in Social Conflict:
A Critic. e of Prevailing Conceptions and a Frame'.-or;k for
Future I=_:- rch," Speech :Ionocraphs Y>::.I (No.'e.ber 1972)
223.

--.-o-_ :!. Ostrom, "T-e Emergence of Attitude Theor''y:
S .-- 5 Psycho logical :1 F u::dations of Attitudes, ed. b'
..-.-.-. Gr- e.:'; 1 Tir.-I:',th:- C. Brock, and Tho I.r a '.1. Ostrorn
: ork: .. --. i-c Press, 1968), p. 12.










:. :th vi:..-r. Lealog see-i to agree with Sorel that "a

-.-.-. -.r: e -refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical

.-:_ : -.- :::.-.ictions of a group. 16 Horowitz, for example,

wh--.n l-3ssing Sorel's theory, adds that "the myth is

stroke: tzhan a fact; it is a belief."7

There seems to be no doubt among these theorists that

political myth is closely aligned -.,ith ideology. Lasswell

and Kaolan, for e::ample, assert quite simply that ideology

"is the political myth functioning to preserve the social

sturcture," and that the political myth "consists of the

symbols evoked not only to explain but also to justify

specific power practices." 9 PReai goes further by indicat-

ing that ideology must simplify its primary messages if such

messages are to be comLmunicated successfully: "The myth in

ideology is socially and historically conditioned. It com-

municates a fairly complex. : message in simplified form, w-hich

is indeed a hallmark of all ideology. Successful communica-

tion of ideology and its myth(s) will not take place except




16Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence, trans. by
T. E. Huime (London: George Allen &. Un.;w n Ltd., 191.5), p. 33.

Ir7.-ing Louis Horow'.itz, Radicalism and the Revolt
Against Reason (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press, 1951), p. 135.
1..
.:-:_old D. Lasswell and -.braham Kaplan, Power and
Socie-_-: .; Framew'ork for Political Inquir: (iew Haven:
Yale '_- ,vesit. Press, 19l5 : .









..ruh si-i. Such simplification will be seen

S--- p--- primarily through the use of systemic argu-



-_: o. zhe long-ranc:e purpose of any ideology is to

e:-:pand -ts influence and power. Such expansion is encour-

aged and reinforced by.evoking symbols around which large

numbers of people can rally. The evoking of symbols, accord-

ing to Garstin, is primarily a propagandistic operation:

"Symbols, slogans, songs, parades, rallies, study groups and

socials. are all made use of in diffusing ideologies, as are

such techniques as name-calling, mud-slinging, and glitter-

ing generalities, to name a few other devices."

Finally, it should be noted that ideology is not simply

some vague collection of meaning which never is made public.

Quite the contrary, ideologY does indeed tend to be stated,

frequently and publicly. Heoerle documents the point. "One

rarely finds a well-organized, systematic presentation.

Ideologies are usi.ally formulated in proclamations, resolu-

tions, speeches, programs, platforms, pamphlets, essays, and
..22
newspaper articles."

Attitudes, on the other hand, are not openly expressed.

In fact, one can know an attitude only by inferring it from



.. -e]a. Decline of Ideology? (Chicago: Aldine-
Ather::-., 197L) p. 6.


'S
--Fudo_. -!tere Social .lo..eme:t. : An Introduction
Dl tical E o log (; e-.-.. Yor.:: ApnpIeton-Centurv-Crrfts,
i951) p. 25.









:- :--i .-.5 or front overt behavior. Cronkhite indicates

-.--- .ie o measure of 'attitudes' except 'overt

be.:::---.'" OOvert behavior, then, indicates attitudes,

an2 _c7-l'-des may be given voice through stated opinions,

but ar.ciudes themselves generally are not stated. Betting-

haus concludes the point by indicating that "it seems useful

to retain the notion of attitude as a conceptual bridge be-

tw...een an individual's psychological states and his overt

behavior. The collection and evaluation of opinion state-

ments provide the best estimate of attitude."


Ideology Is Generic

The further one pursues an investigation of ideology,

the clearer it becomes that ideology is a very general con-

cept which provides the ultimate justification for a

society's operations. In essence, ideology is the generic

justification for all the specific actions or stances a

society may wish to take. Aiken elaborates on zhe point by

stressing the generic nature of ideology.

Nio.,r political ideology is nothing but political dis-
course (as distinct from political science) on its
most general formative ici.el. It is, that is to say,
political discourse insofar as the latter addresses
itself, not just to specific, piecemeal reforms, but
to zhe guiding principles, practices, and aspirations


SG3 r. Crosnkhite, Persu.asion: Speech and Behavioral
Chance (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc. 1969),
p. 9.
P-9-
-r.- ?. Betinghaus, Persuasive Communicationi (,e
Yor'-: :1- .nahairt and Winston, Inc. 1968) p. 22.








5b' :'ic.-. 7::-_-_il-. or:_ -.nied societies absolutely,
.or e1s .. ercain typical situations, ought to be
.-er.-:. This being so, political ideologies inevi-
-b L-. --:de, among their leading articles, state-
-:.:s general principle or method and expressions
-: : attitude, orientation, and concern which, as
l..- nd, are so highly abstract as to appear to many
.-:. preoccupied with day-to-day problems of "practi-
al politics" virtually meaningless. Such statements
car of course habitually formulated in terms li!e
"general welfare," "common yood," "justice," "equality,"
democracyv," securityv," and the rest.25

As Aiken indicates, the generic nature of ideoloqv, makes it

difficult for many to deal with, but it is generic precisely

because it is the ultimate authority to which any societal

appeal is carried. It must be general and abstract enough

to handle any specific situation which ma. arise in the day-

to-day functions of explaining and justifying actions taken

or stances held on the part of the society as a whole.

An attitude, unlike an ideology, is grounded in the

psychological states of individuals. As such it is much

narrower than ideology. It applies to the situations en-

countered by individuals, and does not transcend situations

for whole nations. As was indicated earlier, attitudes may

be sh-irc- by large numbers of people but, while ideoloqges

are tied- to societies, attitudes are primaril.- relate. to

indi-iduals. As Bettinghaus indicates, "an att3.tude . .is

an individual's structure or organization of psychological

process=_e." t us, Ldeologies are generic, attitudes specific.


-:.-.r: D v Aiken, e "T':. 'e'.olt Aga nst Ideology, in
Th_ .: f i: le.-.i o Debate, ed., b- Chaim I. '.-axman (ne.
r..: -.n..: i :.-.agna ls, 1968; ". 251-252.

Betti.---aus, 21.










Ieologys's F2unction

.-. -.:-. -eoloy is a hiqhlv intangible concept, it

c3-s .-a-- = ertin identifiable functions within a society.

To :r-. e:-:rent that it fulfills those functions, it mani-

fests i:seif in ways that can be dealt with in a study such

as this one. ;n ideology serves at least three functions

within a society.. First, it tends to reflect the wishes and/

or theoretical underpinnings of a societal structure at

large. In this sense, it matters not whether the reflection

is rLealistic or accurate because, if me.n in society believe

in the ideology, they, will accept it and act in accordance

with it. Pejai indicates that "beliefs, in short, say noth-

ing about the truthfulness or falsity of a notion or an

attitude; they imply only a psychological state of accep-
27
tance." The ideology pro'.-ides a codification for thcse

beliefs.

Second, ideology. tends to help move society" to new

positions or to reinforce already held positions. This

second function tends to be performed through the use of

sys-tem.c arguments, a rhetorical tool which will be defined

when both functions are ex
ideology encourages the belief amriong members of society that

its articles are true.


Ideology Reflects Society's Self-Imaq-e

'The rflecting function of ideology is iniherently


'---.









-~.~:e -. ...:e- vilrtuaily all societies have a set of

.:-- f ,. _'zh chey support their own "right" approach to

e::is-.-.e, rnev must all be considered "ill" in the sense

than o system of beliefs can reflect reality with a high

degree of accuracy, especially during times when the reality

may be injurious to the well-being of that society, or to

its sense of well-being. The overall reflective function of

an ideology, then, is to maintain an image which reflects

the wishes of the society at large, whether or not that

reflection is accurate beyond the confines of the society.

Since an ideology is seen primarily as a set of ideas,

beliefs, and values which are accepted and acted upon by

society, it functions in part to reflect the .way a society

sees itself. But it should be pointed out that this reflec-

tion is not necessarily accurate. After all, the society

has an image of itself that may or may not be in keeping

with the reality of any. given situation. An ideology will

tend to reinforce those thinqrs which are believed, and acted

upon and ignore those things which are contrary to the be-

liefs of the society. An ideology, in short, will not con-

tradict itself, but will generally reflect conditions not

perhaps as they are, but as custodians of the ideology wish

them to be seen.



C .'.stdia ns of ideolcc; is not a pejorative labri,
as -.a :- Lnplied by sone. C-rstin defines the phrase as
rcferrl-._ : "a leadership V; o act as their [ideologis']
of ici :is:lrs. Their philosophers provide the
'ff1icia ,i- events :oncernin; ideological policy and these










Tr is, if:-r all, the z.:=todiarLs who, according to

-s-:in. see -c :t that "ideologies are protected from

ss- :s r._- zart] b the use of .. abstract statements

[w..c :, If skillfully worded, are not only, difficult to

analyze ouz are also subject to a multitude of interpreta-
9 Ci
tions."-' These abstract statements may be one reason why

ideologres tend to be viewed pejoratively, as w.as explained

earlier. Abstract statements which seem to obscure reality

may be seen by those holding an opposite -.view as referring

to what Edel described as viewss that were somehow bent out

of shape, distorted to seem brighter. than the reality they

expressed.30

If the way a society sees itself through an ideology

is that society's self- i:nmage, then virtually y all so-

cieties are reflected by ideologies which distort reality.

In fact, no society can stand off and: view itself directly.

Thus, no society can have an accurate self-image. A true

picture might perhaps be concei'.'able, but only in a society

either so unstructured as to be without ideology or in the

midst of such great social change or turmoil that it would

be impossible for the society to delude itself into ignoring

the harsh reality of the situation. Such conditions,


:3taterma-.2s are to be accepted by the supporters of the
ideolo s withoutou t question (p. -). Operationally, the
term r-e- rs to the official spokesmen for a society, be
the_ :.-e---..=nt leaders, party officers, or political
tn..:ris:s .-.w formulate the ideological positions.

Garst-., 4.

Edel, 1 565.









.. ;- -r- '- rare. Thus, virtually y all societies

".I r :fi---r reality in a distorted way."


Ide .l:D '.::ves Society Rhetorically
by .-le_.-.' f SystCmic Argumenns

Sysvemic argument needs to be defined. Despite fre-

quent negative reaction to the concept of ideology, that

reaction should be expected because, in part, of the

rhetorical and argumentative function of ideology. It has

already been shown that the use of abstraction leads to

misunderstanding. But it should also be noted that the '.ery

.act of espousing an ideology is inherently rhetorical.

Part of the concern at this point is to define the type of

rhetoric being used by ideology, so that the process of

peL-petuati.ng ideology can be better understood.

The rhetorical function of ideology is described best

in terms of syst..mic argument. Perhaps a definition of

systemic argument should be prefaced with Weaver's admoni-

tion "that the language of definition is inevitably the

language of qeneralitv, because only the generalizeable is

definable. Singulars and indi'.-iuals can be described but

not defined."1 Thus, until data have. been gleaned from the

tex:tbooks ..;hich '.ill provide such details, it '.;ill not be

possible to describe the specifics of systemic arguments.

But, an o'.er'iew definition of systemic argument can be


3 _
S--.ai Wea'.,ei2, The E-ihics of Phetoric (Chicago:
:-:.'ry -:-. r- Comnan,, 1953) 'p. 70.










e-ined in_ t.-.e? :r:.c=3 of usin.g that definition to describe

_ -_bi--:' ic_ :. ideology.

c^h --e an ideological system engages in explanation

of i-s =zi-.-s or its policies to its subjects or those out-

side it3 .;n societal jurisdiction, it is in a kind of

symbolic conflict with those people, because it is directing

argum-ents toward them. Since the situationaliy-unbound

rhetoric of ideology ends to be argumentative in nature, it

can bes: be defined as systemic argument: an assertion of

putative fact which functions as a justification for actions)

taken or positions held on the part of the social structure.

Such an argument is addressed to the public at large and is

intended to instruct the populace as to TJhat action and/or

attitude in the situation being considered is mrost in keeping

with the articles of ideology.

Within the framework of ideology, a systemic argument

is a specific philosophical justification for an action

taken or a conclusion drawn. Thus, ideology attempts to

fulfill its rhetorical function of justifying action to the

people by use of systemic arguments. It assumes the people

are generally in agreement and support actions being taken

and that, primarily, it needs to explain the action by relat-

ing tha- action rhetorically to those ideological articles

people -.l- to be true. The channel to use in the exr:lana-

tic.. s:.uld 'be readily av.ailabie if Simons is correct in

s-~-1:-.- hat .tiher ideological statements have long been









passed on by ei_-ca'zos. "-:- disseminationr of culturally

-;rro-ed values as 'fact' has been a historic function of

-a i--s, a means by which social order is legitimate and



S.-ui often, the social order needs this legitimation,

because the action being taken is of such a nature that it

must be related clearly to ideological beliefs if it is to

be assured of solid support on the part of the people. Such

would obviously be the case when such'action is highly con-

troversial and has engendered debate among various factions

of the populace. Even when debate or social dissent is not

likely, however, the action should always be related to

generally accepted ideological values to assure popular sup-

port of these actions. Rorty indicates that the reference

to ideology is essential.

If it is the very criteria for interest and good that
arc at issue, the argument must still proceed by
reference to some further conception of a human value.
This ideological point goes hand in hand with a seman-
tic one: no argument for change will be comprehensiv-e
unless it is phrased in terms that can be understood
as appealing to accepted canons of -alue."33

As part of understanding what a systemic argument is,

it is necessary to know something about its source or origin.

The systemic argument may originate in a -ariety of ways. A

systemic arguwme-nt may be a part of any written document which



-- :.ns, op. 241.

."'Amal O-.senberg Rorty "aturalism, Paradigms, and
If .cig_-," T.e Rev'iew of Nletop'.ysics, XXIV (June, 1971), 652.










:rm-s part o a arnersco.ne for the ideological system. In

--:- ase, :-- ar-gument 'ill very probably have originated

1-. w.ri-:-.s of one or more of the philosophers or

pc l-c-_-i r--orists whose thoughts formed the argumentative/

philosc,.--.cal support for the type of society set forth by

custodians of ideology.

On the other hand, a systemic argument may develop out

of a particular, narrow debate on a specific issue. Some

"ideal" combination of words may be invented in the heat of

debate which supports the ideological position so well that

it is quoted e::tensively by others, with the likely result

that soon the originator is lost sight of and only his words

remain. When encountering this type of instance, it is easy

to react in much the same way Griffin did when he discovered

the role played by unknown speakers in historical movements:

"We may come to a more acute appreciation of the signifi-

cance of the historically insignificant speaker, the minor

orator who, we may find, is often the true fountainhead of

the moving flood of ideas and words.'34 Some of the most

prevalent systemic arguments may have been originated by very

minor spokesmen for the ideology.

Thus, a systemic argument may become a commonplace as

its use I:.-reases. But the coMMLionplace nature of systemic

argumen-s a .s to their effectiveness, because they are not



"Lela-. :I. Griffin, "The Rnetoric of Historical Move-
.-. s, Q arzerlyv Journal of Speech, -:X'VIII (April, 1952),
111.









-=.-. r- -r:=--e. as blacan.t propaganda devices. The

= r_- =-_- -.a ~, also may be strong because of the argumen-

ta-::-e a--il made to the authority of the ideology as a

whcle. ..-.5 then, of course, the great power of presumption

rests u.lth the status quo.

The tie-in ideology has with rhetoric is perhaps best

illustrated by the fact that when used by ideology, rhetoric

maintains the essentially pragmatic function which was de-

scribed by florris as being one which deals with the "relation

of signs to their interpreters."35 Systemlc arguments, in

a sense, are the rhetorical middle men which serve to relate
36
the overriding ideology to the people in society. Sy',stemLc

arguments, of course, are used by the ideology custodians to

help in establishing and perpetuating the inherently inaccu-

rate picture of reality sought ar..d reflected by ideology.

In this sense, the collective purpose of systemic argu-

ments is similar to that ascribed by Simons to other system-

orientat ions: "however reasonable they may appear in



35Charles W. Morris, "Foundations of Theory of Signs,"
International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, I (July, 1933),
30.
36
in this sense, systemic arguments perform the same
basic function attributed by BEtzer to rhetoric as a whole.
He said that rhetoric "comes into existence for the sake of
something be ond itself; it functions ultimately to produce
action ol change in the world; in performs some task. In
short, rhetoric is a mode of altering reality (Lloyd F
Bir.z, "T-e Rhetorical Situation," Phi ioophy and Rhetoric,
I [1in'.r. i9 8] 3). Of courL-se, Bitzer is at this point
l:;so aie-rl.-g tne meaning of rhetoric somewhat. There are
-:-.es .*..=.-. _r-.e-oric reflects reality quite accurately. Sys-
te..ic -:: .---.: on the other hand, alv.':a s alter reality since
= -. -: --. is an inherent psrt of the ideologies they
7'q L









-r--. p --rc-ice they ha-.-e constituted indiscriminate

:.-._ fz- -..e preservation of the existing systems and

r -.. p-riileged persons who would wield power thinn

the y'stemic arguments are no different. They, too,

are used by the ideology custodians to help preserve the

system. The custodians seek to convince the populace, or

reinforce their already held belief, th.t the ideological

interpretation of reality is in fact the reflection of

reality they should accept as accurate.

This rhetorical function of ideology should dispel the

more idealistic view of rhetoric's function given voice by

Bry'.ant- "Rhetoric recognizes the strength of the fictions

men live by, as well as those they li-.e under; and it aims

to fortify the one and explode the other. "'. He seems to

be correct in saying that rhetoric "is concerned with

-values,"' but he fails to acknowledge the -.alidity of the

charge made by Frye that "rhetorical value-judgments are

closely related to social values and are usually cleared

through a customshouse of moral metaphors: sincerity,

subtlety, simplicity, and the like."'40 While Fr.'ye's own


SiLmons, p. 229.

Donald C. Bryant, "Phetoric: Its Function and Scope,"
in Tfhe Provicnce of Phetoric, ed. by Joseph Sch'.;artz and
John A. F',cenga ew o-k:: T're Donald Press Company, 1965),
p. 2 This article original, appeared in the Quarterl.'
JoTurn l fI Speech, :;:I:: (December', 1953) 401-42?4.



--- 'r-o Frye, nat.:my of Criticism (Princeton:
ri.c.- -. -.-.-ersrt Press, 1957 p. 21
-- P









-e= .r ..h s D:-:aking, his point that rhetoric goes hand

.-. :.--. '-:i-. C .- ric social values is well taken.

.- i::-, far from helping men in society to explode

the .y-:.- of their ideology, the rhetorical function of

ideology :s designed to help perpetuate those myths and

reinforce belief in them on the part of the populace. Sys-

temic arguments are argument tiv.e because the societal system

is involved in a struggle with the consciousness of its

members and must use whatever dev.rices are most effective to

persuaLsi've advantage in convincing its members to maintain

the inherently distorted picture of reality reflected by

ideology. Because the ideology custodians see their role

as an argumentative one, they tend to use systemic argu-

ments in much the same way Simons says coercive : persuasion

is used by government systems.

Cosrci'.'e persuasion applies to any situation in which
at least one pa--ty sees hLmself in genuine conflict
with another, has some co rciv.e power over the other,
and finds it e::pedient to establish, persuasively,
any or all of th2 following: (1) his relative
capacity to use coercive force, (2) his relative
willingness to use coercive force, (3) the relative
legitimacy of his coercive force, (4) the relative
desirability of his objectivess.1

It is primarily the last two of ttiese persuasive objec-

tives which are the aims of an ideology when it employs

systemic arguments. Tne custodians of ideology, feel that

tne public should be w.-ill.ing to allow society to convince

th-m thi:-. official actions are correct and desirable.










-.-.er, := .dians feel, it must continually' be the

-.-:r.---. = = .e-r and right to inform the populace of this

desi_-:_--- ., or the incomplete picture painted by the

ideol::=,- may begin to clash with reality as a result of open

debate. Thus, not all information is released so that the

public can scrutinize the conditions of reality. Only sys-

temic arguments about the nature of reality and the legiti-

macv of the actions taken by the powers to reflect that

reality are allowed to be debated. That information which

tends to reflect a reality opposed to the ideological picture

of reality is withheld from the general public by the cus-
42
todians of ideology.42


Ideology Encourages Belief in Itself

In order to understand the pow.:er ideologies have over

men in all societies, it should be recognized that men tend

to ac-t according to their beliefs. If something is be-

lieved to be true for a man, then for that man it is true--

and, ;what is more important, he will act as though it is true.

Thus, when one realizes that someone is defending as true

a position k-nown to be indefensible, it is easy to rational-

ize the conflict by recognizing that the other person



4One of the lessons currently being learned from the
so-called Pencagon Papers case is that government withholds
information from the public not only when revelation of such
informa:icn might endanger national security--in '.-'hich case
it should -.e '.ithheld--but also when revelation of such
inform..--__. -.ight paint a picture of reality quite different
fr-c- the --Isription being presented by the custodians of
the ic:- :=.










is -ervly -..im of his ideology--or perhaps the person

:.-, :::.- :-.:e position is indefensible is merely a '.ictim

cf .-.- :-. '_ieology in refusing to recognize the validity

of the c-:er position. Speaking pejoratively about this

kind of relativism as an approach to history, Ortega sum-

marized the position by noting that "the truth, then, does

not e:-:ist: there are only truths 'relative' to the frame of

mind of the person considering the matter."43 Such explana-

tion applies to those who accept, without question, the

articles of an ideology as "true."

It is convenient to paraphrase Ortega by noting that

the ideas, beliefs, and values which make up an ideology can

be seen as D collection of "truths" reflective of the frame

of mind of the entire society or subgroup. The important

thinc to realize, as Garstin indicated, is that for the

people within that group, no matter its size, the ideology

is true and w.-ill not generally be disputed. Each person

within such a structure may' well be under the influence of

competing ideologies, as '...as illustrated in the section on

the pervasiveness of ideology, but .within a functioning

framew..ork these competing ideologies will be ranked in a

priority alignment such that ideologicall jurisdictions" are

clearly understood by members of the societ'.. Thus, for an

.r'.~- ., -.e merican Ideals forn the foundation of his



Jos- -:-t:eqa y G tssett, Thi2 .'lod.rn Theme, trans. by
s Cleugh :e'.' Yorlk: Hah per & Po.., 1961), p. 29.

Garstir., cp. 3, 4, 4,-', 79.









- dcing -r':-.: in Lif.:-. Further, it is safe to assert

.. -.1.....L .- =_1 Amrericans are trained to believe in the

-_.r_.-. -I- =_ as part of their growing and educational

pr.:=s. -:cht virtually everyone is aware at some level

of con-.s:usness of the ideological jurisdictions which

overlap throughout the society.

The effectiveness of the ideology is protected against

the char-e of inconsistency by the fact that the ideology is

reflect= in a rhetorical movement of a symbolic nature.

This movement can be identified and understood more clearly

after examining the systemic arguments which are used to

perpetuate the ideology. At this point, however, it seems

logical to recognize the validity of Garstin's observation

that "ideological content is not static once it is formu-

lated." 46 Further, such recognition indicates that, while

the changes in ideology might be perceived by sone members

of society, those members would accept the changes unques-

tioningly because of their very strong belief that the

ideolcgv continues to gro.; as it discovers more facts about

the conditions of reality in the world.

Ntot only do men expect thei- ideology to change and

look forward to it, but they also would have difficulty


1 .roughout this study, A.merican will (1) refer to a
resider-: 'of he United States .ho, though not necessarily" a
citi._e. .-.?.s :een a resident of the country. for a long enough
period :i -i.e to acquire as his the parent ideology that of
t-7.e .t-._e: _?tes and (2) be used as the adjectival form of
S:.- .._ed ta-es. America, likewise, will refer throughout
-- -3 the _:-ized States.

"- Garst--, n. 79.









'.-.l engin: :i-- of .': changes that do take place

.- o="-: :r_-rsely because of their belief in that

_:::ii. -ai specifies the point when he says that

"i i--:--. s.-.uid be viewed as consisting primarily of be-

liefs c:.4 only secondarily of ideas. The basic distinction

is that ideas are subject to scientific operation (such as

testing; and verification), whereas beliefs are not."47


Summar

The primary function of this chapter was to define the

concept of ideology for purposes of this study. In order

to accomplish that task, however, it was necessary also to

discuss the various problems involved in the study of

ideology, differentiate between ideology and attitude, and

describe the function of ideological rhetoric. Since sys-

temic argument is such a vital part of the function of

ideology, it was necessary to define systemic argument as

part of the description of the function of ideology. Now

that these various tasks have been accomplished and ideology

has been adequately defined, it is possible to mo'.'e on to

the role of history as it applies to this study.


47eja
-jai, P 2P













CHAPTER THREE

-.ISTORY: ITS IDEAL AND PPAGMIATIC ROLES


I. Iceally, What Is History?

A. Answers About the Past

B. Fair Pepresentation of the Past?

II. Practically, What Is History?

A. Imperfections in Historical Stances

B. History Helps to Perpetuate Ideology

III. ParCicular Severe Limitations on History Tex.tbooks

A. Unwary Ignorance on the Part of Authors

B. Inertia Caused by Over-Poliance on
Secondary Sources

C. The Impact of Pressure Groups on Textbook
Writing and Selection

IV.. SLummary












CHAPTER THREE

HISTORY: ITS IDEAL AND PRAGMATIC ROLES


In Chapter One, it was indicated that the rhetorical

documents for this study would be high school American

history textbooks. While the use of such documents was

justified, no attempt has yet been made to indicate just

what relationship exists between history and ideology.

For purposes of this study, clarification of that

relationship requires at least three steps. First, history's

ideal fulfillment of its own goals should be described so

that an understanding can be attained of the kinds of goals

historians traditionally set for themselves. Second, it

should be acknowledged that history, like most other human

endeavors, rarely achieves its ideal goals. Thus, an

examination should be made of what happens to history when

it falls short of its goals. Third, since history text-

books specifically will be the rhetorical documents utilized

in this study, an examination should be made of the very

special problems inherent in writing history textbooks.

It is in examining the textbooks that a full understanding

of the r-'l played by those books in the perpetuation of

ic-e:*:'_ ...~-I b.a gained.










I:eall., Wihat Is History?

r_-i ices one stop to ask himself the question,

-- .:os-cryv?" Yet, he goes about talking about ;what

hisr:--y -_lIls him or what he can learn from history as

though :.-.e j'new e:-:actly the answer to his own unasked ques-

tion. He seems to feel history is simply what took place

in the past. Usually, he fails to realize that history is

not what took place in the past, but a record of those events.

Without the record, the events themselves would have no way

of being known or understood by men Living in contemporary

society. Of course, the record does not compile itself.

It is put together as a result of scholarly research carried

out by a person interested in finding out what happened in

the past and in determining the relev.,ance of those events to

contemporary society. The scholar and his methods determine

,what kind of a record will be produced.


Answers tAbout the Past

A historian asks questions and seeks answers about the

pas.. He is a scholar who has been trained to delve into

events of the past, to learn all that he can about those

events, and to put that knowledge in some order which will

nake the past meaningful as a foundation for the present and

the future. Fischer describes this investigative function

quite simply when he defines a historian as "someone anyone)

who asks :.. onen-ended question about past events and









-.ns.Jrs it -.. e=eeced .ac-Ss 'which are arranged in rhe

: r : a. .:-:. i.-.atory paradigm." The basic tool used by

-ill .-- -.-, it would seen, is the process of question-



-I :,urse, these questions cannot be asked in a vacuum.

They mis. have some structure, some organizing framework,

if they are to be able to fulfill their function adequately.

Answers '.ill be meaningless if there is no organizing frame-

work ou: of which the questions are asked. Again, Fischer

supplies the e:.:planation which puts the matter of questions

in perspective.

A moment's reflection should suffice to establish the
simple proposition that every historian, ..illy-nill,
must begin his research ..lth a question. Questions
are the engines of intellect, the cerebral machines
which conv-ert energy to motion and curiosity to con-
trolled inquiry. There can be no thinking without
questioning--no purposeful study of the past, nor any
serious planning for the future. Moreover, there can
be no questioning in a sophisticated sense without
hypothesiznir.;,, and no systematic testing of hypotheses
'..ithout the constri-ction of hypothetical models which
can be put to the test.2

Jn spite of the apparent validity of Fischer's state-

ment, however, it should be noted that ideally tne historian

should re'er impose his own structure on the answers to his

questions. Ideally, the hypotheses he uses to frame his

questlcr-. will themselves grow out of other questions, so

th-it he .1ill .never be guilty of imposing his point of v.ie.-



-.:.-i -.. -I ir .-. i. 7 .

-Ibid. 3.










. :h -,s -:rr s=m:s to acree with this statement when

.- 1.- -ates ~ -- there are "questions which the historian

--: :. *-is vocation incessantly to ask," but he also

wr.s .- ':he historian who accepts answers in advance to

these cestions goes to work .'ith his eves blindfolded, anrd

renounces his vocation.4 While there must be structure,

there must also be a limit on the degree of control the his-

torian himself may e::ercise o-.-er that structure.


Fair Representation of the Past?

Answers to historians' questions will inevitably pro-

vide a wealth of historical facts so vast as to demand that

the historian select from among them. And beyond these facts,

there must always be a myriad others of which the historian

is not even aware. The problem is compounded when one

realizes that those facts of which he does have knowledge

range from empirically verifiable phenomena to subjective

value judgments. The historian must decide which facts to

select from within this spectrum. Carr acknowledges the

acrobatic function the historian must perform: "Somew.here

between these two poles--the north pole of valueless facts



I' must, of course, be acknowledged that no such
ideally -.-ritten history, exists; nor will it ever exist.
[lan car.-t- look back into the past without the inherent
necessi ... imposing himself on the past. Thus, whenever
on-e 1':;3 ~ the past, he w..11, of necessity, look at the
o:ni t...ou-: .'is ow..n weak, based eves. An inherent part
of -=-.-.: -1i. -..2 is the inabil it: to escape oneself.

Ed'..ard :-allett Carr, ;fna. t Is historyy? ([iew. York:
.-.l i A. .'.n :f. 1964) p. 103.









-.n thhe soc. ;: or -:alue judgments still struggling to

-nsfr-m --h-. lves into facts--lies the realm of his-

:-- -:_-... The historian . is balanced between

f:__ -.- i.-._erpretation, between fact and value. He cannot
1, 5
separl- -: :hem.

He cannot separate them, but to make any sense out of

the facts available to him the historian must be highly

selectiv;e. He must glean the material relevant to his pur-

pose of understanding the past from all of the data available.

And he must discard the rest as superfluous.

In the ideal fulfillment of his function, the historian

must be accurate as well as selective. He must adopt a kind

of detached selection attitude if he is going to be fair to

history. Again, Carr provides the support by noting that

"the serious historian is the one who recognizes the his-

torically conditioned character of all values, not the one

who claims for his ow..n values an objectivity beyond history."

Only by letting history impose order can the historian be

honest in fulfilling his function.

The kind of accuracy demanded of a historian might be

praised in many scholarly pursuits, but it is merely e::-

pected of the historian. It i a part of his function.

In thin.i.-.c of t!-is requirement, Carr commented: "I am

reminda _: H'-iousman's rei.r. t'r.t 'accuracy is a duty, not

a -ir-. To Lraise a historian foc his accuracy is like



Ibid., 5-. 175-176. 6Ibid., pp. 108-109.





60




--raising an r:z-.i-e:c fr usin:-c.'ell-seasoned timber or

_-rey .-i:- :i concrete in his building. It is a necessary
,7
::.ii--z -f is work, but not his essential function."


Practically, What Is History?

It is one thing to acknowledge the ideal fulfillment of

the historian's function, but it is another matter entire"

to find that ideal function applied in the 'works of his-

torians. Just as questions the historian asks are not asked

in a vacuum, neither is the historian himself functioning in

a vacuum. He is caught in a framework himself which may be

more binding on him than is the framework of the hypotheses

he uses as a guide to asking his questions. History, then,

in its practical application, is the result of the efforts of

a human being who may consciously or unconsciously impose his

ow;n beliefs or ideology on the past in order to impose an

interpretation on the past which may not be accurate.


Imperfections in Historical Stances

It should be acknowledged that a historian is bcth more

and less than a scholar who asks questions. He is, above

all, a human being who is subject to the same pressures,

values, and beliefs that any other human being is influenced

by. He approaches history out of a particular societal back-

ground z3.-. framework which influence his work. Simply stated,

t"-he -.i-orln cannot escape being what he is. No matter how


TIbid., z. S.









h.rd he tries r be objective, he, too, is influenced by

societal vales of which he may not even be aware. Carr

s:rzLifies -he point by noting that the historian is him-

sel -a- -f history.

-." historian, then, is an individual human being.
Like other individuals, he is also a social phe-
nomenon, both the product and the conscious or uncon-
scious spokesman of the society to which he belongs;
it is [in] this capacity that he approaches the facts
of the historical past . .The historian is part of
history. The point in the procession at which he
finds himself determines his angle of vision over
the past.8

It would seem, then, that even scholarly historians are

strongly influenced by their surroundings.

As human beings existing in a societal environment,

historians can no more escape being influenced by that en-

vironment than can any other human being. It is inevitable

that the social environment will reflect itself in the his-

torian's work.

It is, then, both natural and totally understandable

that the historians should be "guilty" of falling victim to

and reflecting their own biases. Carr stated that it is

obvious "that you cannot fully understand or appreciate the

./ock of the historian unless you have first grasped the

standpoint from .hiich he himself approached it; second, that

th:at str..2ooint is itself rooted in a social and historical

back r.:- .." When read inc -istory, it should be remembered

r':-._ _: r. s:rian w.;as opetrctiwc out of a paLtic.ilar



IIbid., 2. 42- "Ibid., p. 43.










i -_:: .- _lke h.-e reader, -;as also once a beginning

:---= ... -.cloy', but he has gone beyond that beginning

-. -:=-.-.-. ros of his career studying many of the ideology's

in.tri _-, learning how they fit together to wea-.'e a

patccr- that deserves to be shown to other students :who

follow- afcer him.

Even recognizing his own susceptibility to his en'viron-

ment may not keep the historian from falling victim to it.

Dance stressed the difficulty by emphasizing how hard it may

be for himself and other historians "to think ourselves out

of the milieu in which .we have been reared, to force our-

sel'.'es into points of view which are strange to oursel-ves."0

Dance cioes on to indicate that historians become "hidebound

by the cultural traditions which we inherit, and by the tra-

ditions of learning which we acquire in our educational

en'v ironmenrt."

Part of the result of historians' reflecting their

biases is that w.hate,.'er they label as facts which they" ha-.-e

selected for transmission through their work may not be,

strictly speaking, factual at all. The reason for this

apparent contradiction lies in the multiple uses of the word

fact. E::planation is due. W.ihile discussing ideology in

Chapter Two, the way nen act according to their beliefs w.as


n10
'E. -:rd HerLert Dance, History the B.trayer (London:
HuTchi:r. :-. Co., Ltd., 1960) p. -5.
1 -









i-:sr- :- -.as i.-Ldicac-ed that if a man believe. s something

--: -e 1, .ll act as if it is true. Thus, that piece

of __ o.111 become for him a "fact," whether it is in

rea"l:-. rue or not, and whether it can be empirically veri-

fied ;:i n:. As a parallel to this notion, it might be

pointed out that ideologies depend for perpetuation on entire

systems of such "facts." All systemic arguments are facts

of this type, and systemic arguments make up a large part of

the content of history. These facts have meaning primarily

in relation to each other and to the system of thought

which gives them birth. Since historians' biases are beliefs,

it is easy for them to label as facts things which they

believe to be true.


History Helps Perpetuate Ideology

Part of the practical role of history, especially as it

manifests itself in history te:-tbooks, is to assist in per-

petuating the ideology of the society. Part of this role

entails an attempt to help people in society accept and act

on their beliefs as facts. If the individual believes in the

system, then he is very closely related to these facts and

..ill act as though they are true. One function of history is

to assist the parent ideology in turning systemic arguments

into the kinds of beliefs by which men run their lives and to

'.nrich m~r:-. p::-e.al when they need help in making a decision.

If t i? f::: succeeds, histcr'1 will be percei'eed as being










r-e b',- its r .i=ers and ..ill ha-.'e succeeded in fulfilling

-- ieolocz:: .: role.

:: .~. be noted that it is not necessaril-' the inten-

ti:.. ..iz oarians or of rY.riters of history tex-:tbooks that

their .r;.:s be used for perpetuating ideology. Rather, that

is seen as one of the justifications, explicit or implicit,

for stu~1ying history. Billington, for example, points out

that "bhon educators in the United States and a majority of

the people view instruction in the nation's history as a

practical pragmatic means of protecting and preserving the
12
American way of life." He reinforces his assertion by

noting that "today, as in the 1830's, the purpose of American

education is to instill loyalty to country into the nation's

youth and to educate future citizens into the wise use of

the franchise." 1 lWhile Billington's comments apply to

education as a whole, Dra-.es speaks directly to the reason

for studying history: "One of the justifications for the

study of history is that it transmits from generation to

generation the cultu-re of a given societ."14

This approach has a greater impact than simply turning

loose so-called opinion leaders to work on the people in



1?.3 .Allen Billirng ton, Tha Historians' Contribution
to An.le -.-Unerican M1isunderstanding .ile. York: Hobbs, Dorman
. Co.-c .-. Inc.., 1966) p. 27.



-'Da.id I. Dra-.es, ";hat's .irong With the Teaching of
Hist in th.- igh School?' The Social Studies, L''I (March,
-. 55) 105.









-::: a massive persuasion campaign. This way, edu-

:-:--_ .-: fir -_he custodians of ideology by teaching the

i-e:_:7- young people so that they will grow up believing

the .~. -o be true, thus being more likely to support it

and Lo assist in the perpetuation effort which will be

directed toward their children. There would seem to be no

more efficient or better way to perpetuate a myth than to

teach it as truth to the students required to learn the

story of their country and its system of government.


Particular Severe Limitations on History Textbooks

Ideally, high school history should serve, in Lauwerys'

words, to "give all pupils sufficient knowledge of the past

to enable them to understand the present."5 The knowledge

of the past attained ifnhigh school history classes, however,

is not always geared to provide the students with an accurate

picture of the past. In part, this fact is due to the nature

of the history textbooks, which are the main source of learn-

ing history.

High school students are not as fortunate as scholars

who utilize definitive histories and have access to the

finest historical scholarship available. The history which

is taught to high school students is not written by highly

scholarly, writersrs by-and-large, nor is it taught by the

best of historical scholars. Thus, the ability to maintain


i-
"- Lu*-,.erys, HistLor,' Te.:tbooks and International
t:-. _r -_ (Pa Sis: LUI;E3SCO. 5 p. 71.









:se. sane hizh i=Eree :f -:c:,ll-ence demanded by history

:-.-.irs ine- oly begins to slip.


'-.-- :::n.ce on the Part of Authors

7: ;--prisingly, one reason for the "ignorance" attri-

bated ze:-:tbook writers is actually a function of the

medium with which they deal. Their works are not lengthy,

schola:1i, definitive documents about particular aspects of

history. On the contrary', a te::tbook for American history

covers the entire span of the nation's history. This breadth

of coverage necessitates a more rigorous selection process

than would be necessary in a treatment of a part of the

nation's history. The extreme selectivity necessarily im-

poses a certain lack of coverage or competence on the text-

book. Pelating the problem of selection to the treatment

of specific groups within a society, Dance says that "his-

tory textbooks are necessarily short, and the shorter they

are, the more they restrict the scope of the enquiry.

Selection has to be made quite ruthlessly, and this inevi-

tably entails inadequacy in the treatment of many human

groups." l6

Of course, the main reason for the textbook writer's

unconscious bias is the ..ery humanity which h he and all his-

1-orians share, as discussed in the section on the practical

definiz- of history. To be human is to have biases of



Dance, H-isory With-ut Bias? (London: The Council
S -ri tian nc Je.'.:s, 195,4- o. 49.









.-.-h one is .:. aware. if that human being happens to

---te te::t.::.-k, then his biases will inevitably find their

-- i-t t-:-_ textbook. It is not really the fault of the

wr--r, :-.:r is it an "error" which he can correct, unless

his biases are pointed out to him by a critic who has his

ear. Billington points out that, in spite of attempts which

have been under way for some time to eliminate bias in text-

books, "nationalistic bias is as persistent in today's

schoolbooks as in those used a generation ago. More impor-

tant, this bias is potentially more dangerous, because it is

less easy to detect. Usually it appears to stem not from

any deliberate or conscious prejudice on the part of the

author, but from the unconscious self."17

Even though the biased statements present in textbooks

are there without the conscious knowledge of the textbook

authors, their impact is felc nonetheless by students learn-

ing their nation's story from such te::tbooks. Lauwer.ys

assumes that all authors engaged in writing textbooks would

eliminate all biased statements from their textbooks if they

could. In spite of this possibly na'-.-e preface, however,

he has to admit that all authors are biased.

All authors holJ opinions they are not aware of hold-
inc, and all, or nearly all, are biased and prejudiced
.*;i:..out knowing it. Thns has effects on tne te:-:tbooks
S.*v .-rite and, conseq..uen 1y on the opinions and
s:- .--e of the children .,'.o use them. Tne result is
--.- -.se te:-t ooks ser-.' ends n .wiich their authors
..':.- .. r P di-ite and de:lore 13


i7 18
i i.-. n, p. 2. Lauwerys, p. 31.





68




Th2se f---es, c-re, include the ideological orien-

-Bion :..:ic- --.e authors have absorbed and come to believe

---::. li. :-_- .r people in the society. Thus, in spite of

th- ...r . some would readily believe that history te:-:t-

boo- a.re totally objectiv'.e, the truth of the matter is

that these texts are riddled with bias emanating, in part,

from the unwary ignorance on the part of the authors.


Inertia Caused by Over-Reliance
on Seco-.:ar;' Sources

While an author's ourn unwary ignorance may cause serious

problems regarding the filtering of biases into the class-

room, there are also some methodological problems which add

to the limitations of history te:-:tbooks. Basically, these

methodological problems take two forms.

Although some well-known history scholars write te::t-

books, for the most part a writer of history textbooks is

primarily that and not a history scholar in his o;n right.

Therefore, he depends for much of his material on hsitory

scholars and other textbook wrriters, thereby utilizing secon-

dary sources rather than primary sources as the foundation

of Ills work. Lauw:erys indicates that "far too often, this

compilation is the result chiefly of consultation of other

te:: tboo: s Thus, ancient errors are handed on, and contacz

with fIrs:-h.and up-to-date research grows ever more tenu-

cs."- L -.er''s also e:-:p-e3-es agreement vWith the fact



19.
Ibid. -. 21.









-.'ar althu,:zh -he texboo.k writerer "may be a scholar as .w.ell

. he is .-.c functioning primarily as such when he
20
-- :: ook.

r-. ly because textbook writers are not their own

sch:-ai--, -t is possible for new research findings to take

quite a long time to filter down to the levels from which

te:-:tbook w-riters do their job of compiling. Thus, even if

the te::T-ook author has in mind to present a fair and com-

plete Dicture of his country's history, he is limited by

the quality of the scholarship in secondary sources which he

uses as his research materials. Billington indicates that

the "latest scholarly findings have to filter down to the

te:-tbook level slowly, usually appearing first in general

monographs, then in the.larger histories, and finally in

textbooks. This process requires years so that texts are

sometimes a generation behind in reflecting current his-
,,21
torical views."

It can, of course, be argued that the blame for the

time-lag should not be laid at the feet of the textbook

author. Dance occupies this position when he indicates

that the textbook author may not be entirely to blame for

the timTe-laq.

It -.ay take anything from years to generations for
t.- scoveries of research to percolate into the
S.:. looks. And for this the te:x:tbook writers are
.-.-- lame. Articles on research are legion; they



Ibicb p. 27. 21 illington, p. 5.





70



=L'. :- ll hiDstory frcm before Adam till after
"-_ 5:, ..no te::tbook writer can keep pace with a
-..-.i- f them. For another thin most specialist
published in journals which few textbook
.--_s r n be expected to see--and in any case, many
.-- : pice of research is followed by another, con-
-r- :C'y piece of research in some equally inac-
c:SsLble publication.22

Dance's pa..nt is '..ell taken, but it seems to miss the mark

entirel'. If the writer of textbooks were genuinely inter-

ested in filling his world w..ith respectable scholarly find-

ings, he could utilize journals more in researching his book.

It would be more difficult for him to compile his material

out of journals, but it would result in much better history:

than is the case with using other textbooks and history

books as the main sources of information. Billion ton seems

far nearer an accurate depiction of the situation when he

labels such la:-. scholarship on the part of textbook authors

as "bias by inertia" and says that the term "means the failure

of textbook writers to keep abreast of current historical

scholarhsip, and their consequent readiness to perpetuate

on their pages outw.orn legends that usually exhibit nation-

alistic bias.23

The fact that historians and history te:.:tbook authors

are human and subject to all the flaws of human character

has been mentioned several times. It should not come as a

surprise, then, to disco.-er that being part of a human



S: History the EBetrayer, p. 23.

- - -.zton, p. 5.









:--_-.-._- .-.is scneching to do with the poor scholarship which

-.-.s----= -o he perpetuation of ideology in the rhetorical

c--::-r-= f :igh school American history textbooks. The

wr-ir .:j ex:-:tbooks is hampered not only by his own scholarly

limi-:c ons, but also by the inertia of the very society he

is attempting to teach. Since he is himself a part of that

human society and is likely to be unable to write from a

totally unbiased position, it might be easily understood that

he lets himself get trapped by his own inertia and that of

the society he writes about. It is so understandable, in

fact, that Dance again offers an excuse for the authors'

la:-:ity by taking the attitude that that is simply the way

things are.

We are so accustomed to thinking along well-worn lines
that we rarely make the intellectual effort needed to
strike out along lines of our own. Generations of
teachers teach what they learned when they were young;
generations of scholars learn what they will teach to
others; and therefore the history taught in schools
and universities lags far behind the new world for
which it is supposed to prepare its citizens.24

In spite of the understandable nature of the situation,

however, the blame should be borne by the authors. It is

gratifying, then, to note that Billington's language indi-

cates that his assessment of the situation places a bit more

blame on the authors than did Dance. Billington says that

"cormpoun~in.g this crime [of allowing a time-lag] is the

tendenrc :f aill humans to thi*in alcng well-w'orn lines rather



-. istor.' the Bete ra er, p. .*7.










:.an endure -.h- 1.-.: -11_c- : r-,Lent needed to grasp new

__=s. His .ri al discor-ions are passed on from genera-

---i -- g:.-.-zaion, from teacher to pupil, from textbook

al- .-:r :D :-.z ook author at all educational levels."'5


Thz 1:-.-.- of Pressure Groups on
Textbc-: .'.riting and Selection

he 'l-her history textbook authors want to write biased

accounts Df history or take any action to pre-ent that bias

is not ra-ily at issue here.' More important, perhaps, is

the fact that there are groups which e:-;ercise inordinate

influence on the markets for which these authors '.-:rite.

Furthermore, these pressure groups seem to want the kind of

bias which shows up in our textbooks. :lany of these groups

would echo West'.;ood's statement that "the primary aim of a

course in American history in secondary school should be the

teaching of the freedoms which, in sum, distinguish America:

teaching what they are, whence they came, how they evolved,

how they have been attacked, defended, and qualified, and,

finally, something of how they may be challenged in the

future."26

One would hope, implicitly, that this statement reflects

the views of only a small reactionary minority of Americans,

so that iz could be Jiscounted as the work of extremists.

Such h-.:, ho.;ever, is little more than a pipe dream. In



Bi l i.. t-n, pp. 5-6.

26Howard :. West'.-ood, "A La.man's View of High School
--erican Hiscr--..," The Social Studies, :LVI (January, 1955), 3.









f5c, 3Billi-_ ::.-...s .-rea:z been quoted as indicating that

= j-oriy _f ..e people -:ie,..; instruction in the nation's

.--:r:. is ; -actical, pracnatic means of protecting and
27
_--.-.-.- -:'.=3 American way of life." Thus, the opinion

peri- :=.--roughoit the country that the primary purpose of

teac:.-..- history is to pass on the ideology to the young

genera-z.-n. That opinion tends to manifest itself in the

form of pressuree brought to bear by national pressure groups

on the writing, publication, and selection of te:-:tbooks.

Whatever else may be said of groups which attempt te:.:t-

book censorship, it may be said that they represent a vivid

manifestation of the function of ideology discussed in

Chapter Two. It '.as e:-:plained at that time that ideology

reflects the wishes of a society, whether or not those wishes

picture reality as it actually is. Ideology reflects reality

as the custodians of the ideology thinly it should be, not

necessarily as it actually is. The same basic observation

can be made about those arouos which attempt censorship of

te:-:tbooks. On the '.hole, these groups believe themselves to

be defenders of the ideology and feel it is their respon-

sibilit' to force their views on a society which they be-

liev'.e has gone la:-: and is no longer concerned about protect-

in ana. erpetuating the .A erican Ideals.

.-l: according to Ielson and Roberts, pressure groups

s:r_.:-;= .i::.::- warning and frc the particular object of


7)7
Billin.:=:,n, p. 27.









23
.-r attac:- --z es-pod as a_;z:kl as possible. 2 Oan a

.-. -.51 scme. -, course, this fact results in forcing

:----_--. 2 = '.*..le to make a decision about the direction

i- .-_-.- -::-bo!Oks co take. Hlelson and Roberts elaborate

on -'-.s ccint.

'..-.ever the differences in dress or the nature of
their .-iorries, would-be te::tbool: censors share the
sa.-.- conv'.ictions: that their '.!ieJws arce the correct
onss. that the child will be sub-.erted if he hears
the Opposing philosophy. Always, the censors ignore
-. a fct that no textbooJk can e-.er be perfect, and
t--- textbooks will always reflect the changing
krc i-!edge and the changing interpretations of succes-
si-ve generations. Society, as a result, must decide
'.!-etlher it w..ants its t-e:tbooks to be shaped by pressure
groups or by scholars seeking to supply the most
accurate information available. Too often, society
has yielded to the pressure groups.29

As has already been stated in the preceding section, all

pressure groups think: their w'ay is the only wa'y 'whicn is

right for the counntry.3 This fact implies, obviously, that

such groups tend to be of the type generally referred to as

right wing or super patriotic groups. By and large, this

generalization is accurate. For example, groups actively

taking part in censorship activities include the Daughters

of che American Rev.olution, the Sons of the American Re.:olu-

tion, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars,



=:; elson and Gene Roberts, Jr., The Censors and
the Sc- : s (Boston: Little, Bro..;n and Company, 1931 p. 3.

__' 24 .

"oc_.-re:.ation of the specific censorship activities
:- -:: ps l'-=led in this section as pressure groups is
-.-i :s- le in ':elson anId R.ber:s.









.e various ::.-.i.z C -i i .ns c-r.cils, and such e:.:tremist

: -__ s as .'---er-: 's Future, Inc., and the John Birch



-:. :.= er hand, however, from time to time groups

wh_.-: . .-.ighly stable in most situations and which tend

to be oy moderately conservative get involved because

they feel that they are themselves being threatened or

cheated something they find in the te::tbooks. For

e:.ample. :he Florida State Chamber of Commerce once forced

a publis-.d geography- textbook to be changed by the pub-

lishers because it contained more pictures of California

than of Florida. Bad for the tourist business, they felt.

Nelson and Roberts provide another interesting e:.ample:

"FTC [Federal Trade Commissionl investigators learned that

the rational Electric Light Association, the American Gas

Association, the Amrerican Railway Association and many of

their member corporations had attempted--and often succeeded--

in placing the utilities' o',;n interpretation of history
1
before the nation's children."

Among the primary targets of pressure groups engaged

in censo-rship activities at both local and state levels are

the selection agencies whose responsibilities include choos-

ing te:-:;.ooks for all the schools in their jurisdiction.

Ge7ra-_-l attacks on selection agencies demand one of two

t.i.-.--=: --.- e in the make-up of the agency' itself or a



S lelso-. -.d Roberts, c.. 31.










:-.-ane in a -:::.oK seec- oCr.. n the first instance

.-.e -ar-.d u y takes the form of groups' demanding that

::-.:-.--- -.-cies admit la people to their membership.

T7-.= =_-T -:Jn being made by the pressure groups in this

in-1-.:s s that sufficient pressure can be brought to bear

on the appointing officers) to force into membership lay

people ...-o will support positions of the group. Baxter inidi-

cates _._= "recently, textbook1 critics have demanded more

particLr-:a:ion by lay people iil the selection of textbooks.

It is nat clear whether the demands are based on the assump-

tion that laymen are better qualified than educators to

select textbooks, or on the assumption that adoption agencies

have not been diligent in their duties.32

The second instance is just as conuTon as the first.

The intent, in this case, is usually to get a book changed,

done away with, or selected, depending on the desires of

the pressure group. Pressure groups have been so successful

in rallying _support that their campaigns to get books

abolished, changed, or selected keep selection agencies quite

worrieded Helson and Roberts cite a lot unusual result of

this kind of pressure: "In a candid moment in 1960, a

deputy< superintendent of the school system in the District

of Ci-.-l:ia revealed his forr-ula for a-'oiding contro'ers"



S ..es z .. ard Bax::ter, Selection and Censorship of
?-.::-:- Ss:- Te:-.tbooki s i.A CD= :rion :ive Stu.-' Ph.D. disser-
.- Urni-=rit' of Soitnerr: Mlississippi 1964) 37.









.'er te:.:tboo:ks. -.e -..is simplicity itself. 'We try

: -.<5e sure- _..= the books we select are not objectionable

-: n .-.. '- Billington acknowledges the validity of

t.- s -:Z=--..1.: and points out that "local pressure groups,

of--.- :r5 nationalistic than the authors or users of text-

books, =re in a position to bring pressure on school boards

and adcpz ng commissions to select texts mirroring their own

point of .iew."34

These examples seem to reflect a natural condition of

this society: that the more powerful individuals and groups

become, =he more they reflect and emphasize the rectitude

of ideology. It is but a short step beyond that stance to

insist that all people in the society should be taught the

ideology the w'ay the powerful groups or individuals think

it should be taught.

Te:-:tbook publishers come in for a great deal of pres-

sure directly from pressure groups. Sometimes, demands

made are for changes in a particular book to make it conform

to a particular set of criteria. Other times, demands are

for suspending publication of a book the pressure group finds

particularly offensive. This kind of pressure is nothing

new for publishing houses. The first concentrated pressure

they e:-::_riernced came after the Civil War, when the North

and t:.e 5:_-th each demanded te:-:tbooks specifically designed




I;.elso-. ='. Roberts, p. 17. "Billingcon, p. 28.










-o present a c.-.-s d .e c he Ci'.il War and its sur-

_::-nii.-:r issues. elson and Roberts indicate that pub-

l_--.'rs "'e. publishing regional textbooks, one version

:-. --::-:.- and another for the torth, and, as a result,
35
fcecd -.-m ninds of students for more than two generations."

.e so man'.' years of dealing with, and giving in to,

pressures, publishers seem to have become comfortable in

the role They' play. in furnishing textbooks. They remain

cautious and do not produce any highly controversial books

because, as Helson and Roberts point out, they are "well

aware that an onslaught of criticism against a text by a

rightwing or minority group can touch off a chain reaction

among te::tbook selection corumittees and cause sales to drop

.ff in many areas."' Publisners' concern has become so

pointed that, according to :ielson and Roberts, the Amrerican

Te::tbook Publishers Institute [now the Association of

L;merican Publishers] issued a policy directive urging that

"publishers 'must try to avoid statements that might prove

offensive to economic, religious, racial or social groups

or any civic, fraternal, patriotic or philanthropic societies

in the ..*jhole United States.'"'3 Obviously, the publishers

have their hands full trying to avoid offending any of that

multipli c-y of groups.



--'ielszn ad Roberts, p. 26. FIbid., p. 179.

Ibid., : 181.









Alrhoiuc.. -=c':s n ..,a-ishers and selection committees

-: great ial =f damage and cause textbooks to be lost or

.. i.: L. --.ard, mildly stimulating treatments of their

s_-I -= r.:---r, pressure groups' impacts can be seen most

cl-r-_ *..-.e-. they take on an individual author. When such

attacks -'ke place, according to Nelson and Roberts, they

tend tc '-e directed against the "philosophy of the authors."38

The mos- striking example H'elson and Roberts provide of such

attacks :Dncerns the pre-World War II campaign against

"a mild -mannered Columbia University . education pro-

fessor, Dr. Harold Rugg." Dr. Rugg had borrowed money to

finance his dream of a series of social science textbooks

to be used in elementary and high schools and had worked on

the series for over a decade before having his first volume

published. His works "won immediate acclaim from educa-

tors, and schools throughout the nation began adopting

them. 40

At the height of his success, Rugg's books were being

used by almost half of the school systems in the country

and w.Jere topping 289,000 volumes per year in sales. Then

the bottom fell out, because pressure groups decided that

Dr. Rugg :..'as a bit too "pink" to allow him to have any

influe-=: on the children of this country. In less than

six :.=rs3, ?'gc 's sales fell .mcre than 90 percent.



Ib 39 40
ibi... 6. ., 34. Ibid., p. 35.









The att--==:.3 :-.-.i-:iduals e-,pasize, perhaps better

-.. an oc..c-r e::amole, cne commitment of pressure groups

--: ic- :.. ese groups are w..illing to go to any lengths

ni S= ,: prevent a book's being used which the groups

d-_-i.- ..ot in keeping with the ideology of this society,

at iesz not in keeping with their interpretation of that

ideoloc .


S urun a r v

Al-.ough this has been a rather detailed chapter, its

purpose has been quite simple. The chapter has explained

the ideal and the practical manifestations of history as an

intellectual discipline. The chapter has noted that in the

ideal state of history, historians answer questions about

the past by selecting facts which present as accurate a pic-

ture of the past as possible. In discussing more practical

aspeccs of history, it was noted that historians are them-

selves human beings who reflect their own biases and their

own positions in history. It was noted that, in this very

practical state, history helps in the perpetuation of

ideology, especially as It is written in history textbooks

for use in high school American history courses.

a=.-i.-qg drawn a distinction between the ideal and prac-

tical ..:-t ions of historians, several severe limitations

or .: --.' te:-:tbooks were discussed. It was indicated that

a:.-.: of -~::books opaL-ate oc: of an unwary ignorance,

...-. is im. sd on them ir. :ar- b- the medium in which









--.e.- -r= =.-. o in. arz by. their ow-n unconscious biases. In

ii-, _- ..-3s indicated that the practice of relying too

-.z -- :.? .-.:ary sources results in slowing the process

of -.~--..- -he latest scholarship into the minds of school

chi'.ir... Finally, the impact of pressure groups was dis-

cus;ed, with emphasis on the fact that pressure is aimed not

only at textbook authors, but also at selection committees

in the various states and at te>:tbook publishers. With this

background in mind, the survey of the high school American

history te:.:tbooks, as rhetorical discourse, can begin.















CHAPTER FOUR


A DESCRIPTIO;l OF SYSTEMIC ARGUMENTS IN
SURVEYED AZ-.IERICAL' HISTORY TEXTBOOKS


I. Identifying the Most Widely Used Te:tbooks, 1920-1969

II. Wars Used in the Study

III. Describing the Data

A. Arguments

B. Ill ustrating the Distribution of Arguments

C. Categories

D. lMovement in the Arguments













CHAPTER FOUR

A DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMIC ARGUMENTS IN
SURVEYED AMIERICAN HISTORY TEXTBOOKS


Identifying the [ost Widely
Used Textbooks, 1920-1969


Various sources were used to gather information needed

to identify the most widely used high school American history

textbooks for the period 1920-1969. Throughout the history

of American education, studies of textbooks have been car-

ried out for many different purposes. Some of these studies

have been authorized by committees of organization inter-

ested in some aspect of education, while others have been

written by individual scholars interested in specific text-

book content as it relates to educational problems. All of

the studies have at least two things in common: (1) their

authors have a strong desire to be able to generalize from

the results of the studies and have,therefore, tended to use

the most widely used textbooks for their analyses; and

(2) all the studies have tended to be limited in the range

of time covered due, in large part, it seems, to the great

difficulty of obtaiinin information regarding the e::tent of

use ot te::books prior to the time contemporary with the

studies t-=ir.: '..'ritten.










-=- -..-.is scudy w.as designed to cover a specific

-t_-.- ---- :f ---fty years, it became necessary to utilize

S--- -=-- studies limited to shorter spans of time to

bl._-i __= of high school Jnmerican history textbooks which

were ..e .ost widel-, used between the years 1920 and 1969.

The use of these other studies for that purpose was dictated

by the adamant unwillingness on the part of the publishers or

the indust-ry-wide publishing association to divulge informa-

tion which would help in building the list needed.1

A total of seventeen studies of high school textbooks

was used to build the list of most widely used textbooks to




One of the most disappointing encounters was with a
high-ranking official of the Association of American Pub-
lishers. This organization is the industry-wide association
which keeps track of the growth of the industry, provides
publishing houses with a variety of information requested
by them, and provides whatever other services that may be
requested from within the industry. According to the particu-
lar individual contacted, the Association has on hand, or can
obtain, any circulation information one might need for
scholarly purposes. The Association will not release the
information, ho'.:e"er, because it is "classified" by industry
officials.
Since such information could be released to scholars
without revealing specific sales figures, some pressure
should be brought to bear on the industry to bring about
release of this information. There are many' legitimate te:-:t-
book studies which need to be carried out, but which cannot
even be attempted without an inordinate amount of unnecessary,
non-academic "busy work" on the part of the scholar. The
publishing industry is, perhaps, understandably protective
about specific sales figures. But, the industry has taken
an e::tre-.e and petty defensive stance on these matters. It
;nould bE relatively simple and non-threatening matter to
Dpr 1.-.1 r-leDase generalized lists of the "most :.idel,
'u-_-." : : in various fields .::d for different time periods.
-:-- -_ ::.rs wil join in an effort to make such lists









2
udc :.r-.ecrc a documents in this study. Of the

S .-.. 5.-. .s used, t'..;elve ..;ere doctoral dissertations

-= _---2 ,L. -.-rious aspects of the content or organization

o: :.1 :. col .Amnerican history textbooks. The remaining



-S~ecifically, the following seventeen sources were
used to build the list of textbooks to be used as rhetorical
documents in this study: James Edward Ba::ter, Selection and
Censorhipo of Public School Te.-:tbooks (A Descriptive Study)
Ph.D. dissertation (Unrversit,. of Southern -lississippi,
1964); Ray Allen Billington, The Historians' Contribution to
.Ang lo-Ame r i can Misunderstanding (New York: Hobbs, Dorman &
Company, Inc., 1966); The Canada-United States Committee on
Education, A Study of Nlational History Textbooks Used in the
Schools of Canada and the United States (Canada: The American
Council on Education, 1947); Marie Elizabeth Carpenter,
The Treatment of the Iegro in American History School Text-
books (.l'enasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Company,
1941); June Roediger Chapin, Differentiation of Content in
United Staces History' 'ex:tboo:s, Ed.D. dissertation (Stanford
University, 1963); John Wagner Hanson, An Inquiry into the
Role of Histocy Textbooks in Improling Understanding of Human
Actions, Ph.D. dissertation (Univ-ersity of Illinois, 1953) ;
Leon Hellerman, An Analysis of President Polk's Mexican
Policy in Selected ;American HI!stor,' Te:xtbooks for Secondar-,-
School, Ed.D. dissertacion (ilew York University, 1972) ;
Robert Addison Meredith, The Treatment of United States-
Me::ican Relations in Secondac-y United States Histor,' Text-
books Published Since 1956, Ed.D. dissertation (lew York
Universityy, 1968) Helen N. MeLritt, Certain Social 'lo-e-
ments as Reflected in United States History, Textbooks, Ph.D.
dissertation (Niew York University, 1952) ; Andrew Pelser,
An Analysis of the Treatment Given to Selected Aspects of
Populism and the Populist Part; in uAmerican History High
School Textbooks, Ed.D. dissertation (ilew York University,
1971); Bessie Louise Pierce, Civic Attitudes in uAmerican
School Textbooks (Chicago: Tne Univ.ersity of Chicago Press,
1930); Pierce, Public Opinion and the Teaching of History in
the United States (fie.w York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926) ; Pobert H.
Ratc iffe, A Critica1 Analysis of the Treatment Given Reore-
sentativ.e Social Science Ideas in Leadinq Ele-.'enth Grade
American History' Te:-:tbooks, Ph.D. dissertation (tlorth.;escern
Uni-er: .. 1970) ; Masamitsu Tam-.sn.-ro, An Analysis of
Sel.ec r-i ::-.acts of United Scates-Japan Relations from 1905
oto = -j?. in Hirjh Schoiol History Te::tbooks of Doth
_~ ._ . d-i-J ssertation (ie. York University, 1972); Ed.D.










.e -i-ie .. -ere books w..hich tended to deal with somewhat

:r:i-r s-ers of te:.:tbooks. Although very few of tne

3-i--= _r--.ed textbooks drawn from more than a si-:-:-ear

p*r_-:. --.e studies did overlap sufficiently to provide a

co. .= Ii.'e list of the entire period being treated by

this studc.

The final list gathered in this manner contained a

total of one hundred eighteen books spread ov.'er the five

decades being focused on in this study. In order to pro'.ide

e-qunl representation to each of the five decades, a decision

was made to decrease the total number of books to fifty and

to distribute that number equally among the five decades.

Then, to produce this final list, ten books were selected

at random from the list of most widely used American history

textbooks for each of the five decades." The fifty books

thus chosen constitute the rhetorical documents for this

study and are labeled as such in the bibliography.



Clarence Benjamin Wadleigh, Jr., Questions in American History
Textbooks as Contributors to Development of Thinking Skills,
Ed.D. dissertation (Stanford Uni.versity, 1969); and Katrina
Yielding, An Evaluation of Selected Secondary School Text-
books in the United States History, Based on an Analysis of
the treatmentt Given the Topic: Go-.ernment In-.ol-.ement in
the Economy, Ed.D. dissertation (Auburn University, 1967).

In actuality, thirteen books per decade were selected
at random. The only feasible '.-ay. to obtain the books was to
oder theM.. through the inter-library loan system. It was
fearL. t'-at not all of the books could be easily located, or
at all _: ---a case of some te:-:tbooks long out of print. As
prote:-. _:-. t inst coming up short, therefore, thirteen books
--: -:--e .ere ordered, with the intention of using the first
---. -_- -:- e *w;ni-ch were obtained.









.-;rs LUse in the Study

I- its erl-y two hundred years of existence, the United

S-s ..as ;-in involved in many wars. Some of them were

:-:.. --.ercan colonists even before they had gained

the-r :-i_-endence. Some of the wars were relatively minor

affairs -.volving the colonists and Indian tribes, while

others -.ere global in scope. Generally, however, nine wars

are ccr-siered to have been the major wars in which the

United states has been involved. Listed chronologically,

they are: the LAmerican Revolution, the War of 1812, the

Mexican-.--Terican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American

War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the war

in Vietnam.

Of the nine ma]or wars, only seven are treated by this

study. The Civil War is omitted because of its unique

status of being an "in house" struggle. Although some for-

eign powers were involved in helping one or the other of the

two sides, it was, strictly, speaking, not an international

struggle. Furthermore, it was felt that arguments used for

and against this war .'.would be unique to it.

The Vietnam War also '..was omitted from consideration in

this stud'. That .:;ar has been completed since this study

was b-.., 2ithough there is still considerable trouble in-

';ol';i:: ---.pzts to enforce 'he ceasefire. In addition, the

;'ar -.zs : no:r :-..cl 3d during e- ; five decades of the study.

--.s, althou:'. te beg inni;; of the war is mentioned in some





88




af the te:-:th:c k dra;n fre. :-.a late 1960's, the conclusion

-f zr.e war i :.-:ered in none of the te:-:tbooks surveyed.

.-.llY, .=s felt that there has not been enough time

---- -h-e ze--_efire to permit placing the Vietnam War in its

pr:--:r tersoecci've.


Describing the Data

Ar gq ':i-. :s

i- ,as indicated in Chapter One that the tex:tbooks would

be sur.eyevd to glean from them: (1) all reasons listed by

each text-book for America's entry into each var, (2) all

reasons cited b-y each te::t for withdrawing from each war, and

(3) all cited dissenting arguments against entry into or

withdrawal from each war. Once gathered, these arguments

totaled well over two thousand individual statements. The

final area projected for study--arguments against withdrawal--

did not materialize in the textbooks, although there was

mention of opposition to specific aspects of .-arious trea-

ties. Arguments for and against treaties, however, were not

treated in this study.

For purposes of this study, the statements drawn from

the te:-xtooks generated twenty-one individual arguments.

Only fi.-e of hose arguments were opposed to entering w:,ars.



-r purposess of this study, all of the individual syn-
tl.-_s of ~:.' statements generated by sur-.-eying the textbooks
.,:* be caldi arguments. I is fully recognized that these
.r7--.ents ar-. technically speaking, categories in themselves,
:- he term -e-regory will be reserv-d for groups of argu-
. r.:s which h are similar to each other.









Fourteen syste-.-:: ar::u.s .ee identified in the area of

reasons for e.-.-ering war. Only two arguments for withdrawing

_rr- *.rs ;.*.-re identified,and one of them was unique to the

--.r -f 132. There were, as has been noted, no arguments

agai-.3 wi-.hdrawing from wars.

Following is an illustration of the way statements from

the te::-books were grouped together to form the synthesized

arguments. The four statements used in the illustration

were dr.=-n at random from the many statements encompassed by

the iar;ument, "The enemy encouraged other peoples against

America." The sample statements are from four different

textbooks and deal with two different wars: "The British

also encouraged the Indian chief Tecumseh, who welded to-

gether the Indians of the Northwest under British protection

and gave signs of restlessness presaging a revolt"; "The

arms the defeated tribesmen left behind obviously had been

received from the British. The Americans drew the logical

conclusion that the English were up to their old tricks:

plotting with the Indians against the frontiersmen"; "It was

announced that Germany was planning to join with Japan and

Me::ico in an attack upon our country, and that in the event

of success lex:ico, as a reward for her assistance, was to

recei.'e -ne states of Arizona, INew Mexico, and Te::as"; and

"There .'ere German spies plotcing against and even destroying

;._--.r-ar. I.:dstries, while otner German agents schemed to

i.-:.-:L.e us 17. war with Nexico."




Full Text

PAGE 1

IDEOLOGICAL RHETORIC: SYSTEMIC ARGUMENTS ON WAR AND PEACE IN HIGH SCHOOL ATdERICAN HISTORY TEXTBOOKS By Woodrow Wilson Leake, Jr. A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO TliS GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE RFQUIPJEIMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1973

PAGE 2

Copyright by Woodrow Wilson Leake, Jr. 1973

PAGE 3

For Susan For her years of patience

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Always, at the conclusion of a graduate career, there is more assistance and guidance to be acknowledged than there is space available for such a purpose. Such is my predicament at this writing. I apologize in advance to those many people who are omitted from this necessarily brief list, I v/ould be remiss in my acknowledgments were I not to begin with two special notes of gratitude. First, I thank Professor Merwyn A. Hayes, of Wake Forest University, whose influence and friendship began to convince me that my diverse academic interests could best be amalgamated in the field of speech, specifically by studying rhetorical theory, rhetorical criticism, and public address. Second, I thank Processor Michael C. McGee, of Memphis State University. While teaching at the University of Alabama, Professor McGee introduced me to the broad concept of ideological rhetoric. His teaching and criticism strongly influenced my conceiving of this study. The logistical problems of comm.uting between Memphis, Tennessee, and Gainesville, Florida, finally forced him to relinquish his role as an =c:-^ve member of my comrr.ittee. His continuing, longdistar.^e, criiticism has been very helpful during the writing of -ha study. iv

PAGE 5

Merr.cers :-f ~y supervisory coramittee--Prof essors Ronald H. Carper. zer, Donald E. Williams, G. Paul Moore, and Anthony J. Cl-ark of the University of Florida Department of Speech, and Marilyn B. Zweig of the University of Florida Department of Philosophy — gave willingly of their time and critical abilities. Professor Williams v/as especially helpful in directing the early stages of the study. Professor Carpenter was a creative and rigorous chairman of the committee. At a tifiie when so many accept and seem even to encourage academic mediocrity as a norm, it was constantly encouraging and sometimes painfully stimulating to work under a scholar who demands academic excellence for himself and for his students. Professor Carpenter demanded of m.e a constant questioning, analytical, and productive attitude. Without his astute criticism and friendly pressure, the study might well have gone astray. Because of the need to consult numerous other sources in the process of developing the bibliography for this study, somewhat excessive demands v/ere made on the staff of the University of Florida libraries. Ray Jones, of the reference department, was particularly helpful in identifying sources v/hich could be of help. Also, Sherman L. Butlar, of the inter-library loan department, v/as relentless in tracking dovvn and obtaining some rather obscure studies. Since the study transcended the traditional scope of the field of speech, members of other departments were called

PAGE 6

2n for assis-ar.re beyond, that offered by my committee. Professors Jcr.n Mahon of the Department of History, Kenneth Meg^ll :.f -he Department of Philosophy, and David Conradt of the Decirr—ent of Political Science were all quite helpful in direcring me to sources -with which I was not familiar. In addition, Professors Lyle McAlister of the Department of History and Betty Elli-s of the College of Education read and offered useful criticism on parts of the study. For their constant assistance and loving encouragement, I am extremely grateful to both my families. And to my wife, Susan, goes my most profound gratitude. She served as proofreader and editor, as m.iddle-of-the-night sounding board and readily available critic, as unpaid research assistant and relief typist, and as crying towel during the inevitable dark periods. Most of all, she, above all others, understands what it means for me to have completed this degree and appreciates what I attempted to do in this study. VI

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES viii ABSTRACT ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 CHPATER TWO:. IDEOLOGY 26 CHAPTER THREE: HISTORY: ITS IDEAL AND PPJ^GMATIC ROLES 54 CHAPTER FOUR: A DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMIC ARGUMENTS IN SURVEYED AMERICAN HISTORY TEXTBOOKS . 8 2 CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS, EVALUATION, AND PROJECTIONS 111 BIBLIOGRAPHY ' 14 5 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 159 vxi

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Distribution of Arguments Against Entering Wars 93 II-. Distribution of Arguments for Entering Wars . . 95 III. Percentage of Books Containing Each Argument . . 96 IV. Distribution of Categories 101 V. Percentage of Books Containing Each Category . . 103 viix

PAGE 9

.-^s-r3.zr zz dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council T.f -l". e V-iversity of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of tr,e ?-e_-u-re.T.emis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy IDEOLOGICAL RHETORIC: SYSTEMIC ARGUMENTS ON WAR AND PEACE II-J HIGH SCHOOL AMERICAN HISTORY TEXTBOOKS By Woodrow Wilson Leake, Jr. December, 197 3 Chairman: Ronald H. Carpenter Major Department: Speech The situationally-unbound rhetoric of ideology and the symbolic movement of that rhetoric are the focuses of this study. Ideology permeates the United States, just as it does all societies. Furthermore, in order to help perpetuate itself, ideology utilizes rhetoric to convey its positions to the populace. The author identified the primary rhetorical tool of ideology and designated it systemic argument . Systemic argument v/as defined as an assertion of putative fact which functions as a justification for action (s) taken or positions held on the part of the social structure. Such an argument is addressed to the public at large and is intended to instruct the populace as to v/hat action and/or attitude in the situation being considered is most in keeping with the articles of ideology . In order to keep the study tightly focused, the investigation v/as limited to the appearance in high school American IX

PAGE 10

history textic-ks ofarguments for and against American =r.-r-Lt.zz ^r-z withdrawal from seven major wars in v/hich the U~L-e± S-3.ze3 has been involved: the American Revolution, the U'ar rf 1312, the Mexican-American War, the SpanishAmerican War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. It was clearly established that such textbooks do play a role in the perpetuation of ideology by presenting the ideological interpretation of United States history. Thus, history textbooks could be treated as rhetorical docum.ents for purposes of the study. A list was developed of the most widely used high school /American history textbooks from 1920 to 1969. Selected at random from that list were fifty textbooks, ten per decade, to be surveyed in identifying the arguments. The completed survey produced fourteen systemic arguments favoring American entry into wars, five arguments opposing American entry, two arguments for American withdrawal from wars (one of which was unique to the War of 1812) , and no arguments against v/ithdrawing from wars. Subsequent analysis of the rhetorical data produced the following results. (1) The fourteen systemic arguments favoring American entry into wars constitute those articles of the American ideology v/hich justify war. They were used in a high percentage c-f surveyed textbooks across time and across wars. The co'sis-ency across wars was even more marked v/hen X

PAGE 11

sirr.ilar sy3~er.^3 arguments were grouped into categories. (Z; Zr.e syscemi^ arguments tended to repeat parts of Presidential var messages as factual explanations of the wars rather than as patriotic rallying calls. (3) The arguments opposing American entry into wars were not systemic arguments. •(4) -The inconsistent and infrequent use of opposition argu'. ments, relative to the use of systemic arguments, supported the observation of unwillingness on the part of textbook atithors to give equal treatment to opposition arguments. (5) The tone of the authors indicated support for the ideological interpretation of American entry into vzars and the already noted unwillingness to give equal treatment to opposition arguments. (6) Authors omitted significant contributory factor-s cited, by the definitive war histories and misrepresented other factors, thus creating an incomplete and ideologically slanted picture of reality. (7) Two kinds of symbolic movement were defined. Both were observed in the surveyed rhetorical documents. Rectilinear m.ovement occurs when there is a change of arguments or a change in the use of a particular argument across time or across wars. Helical movement occurs when there is recurrence of arguments across time or across wars. Generally, there was more helical movement of systemic arguments and more rectilinear movement of opposition ar'guments. Both movem.ent patterns provided subtle support of the ideological position and negation of the impact of opposition arguments. XI

PAGE 12

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION I. The Need to Transcend Situational Limitations A. Situational Emphasis Is the Norm B. Griffin Extended the Scope of Rhetorical Studies C. Extending Movement Theory Beyond Situational Limitations II. The Need to Study "Other" Rhetorical Forms A. Investigating Ideological Rhetoric B. History Textbooks as Rhetorical Documents III. The Importance and Timeliness of Focusing on War and Peace A. The Topic Is Timely B. The Topic Is Appropriate to the Proposed Scholarly Investigation IV. The Methodological Approach of the Study A. Defining and Explaining the Function of Ideology B. Explaining History's Role in Perpetuating Ideology C. Identifying and Describing the Textbooks D. Analysis and Evaluation of Systemic Arguments E. Concluding the Study V. The Contribution of this Study

PAGE 13

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION This chapter will identify and justify the need for this study, discuss the theorebical foundations involved, identify sources of investigation, and specify the methodology to be employed in carrying out the study. Specifically, this introduction will develop the following topics: the need to transcend situational limitations in rhetorical studies, the need to look at "other" rhetorical forms, the importance and timeliness of focusing on war and peace, the methodological approach to be used, and the contribution to be made by this study. This study will focus on rhetoric which transcends situational limitations. Such rhetoric may form the persuasive underpinnings for the timeand situationally-bound rhetoric which is already the subject of so many studies It is hoped that this study will supplement the work already being done in the realm of rhetoric which is situationallyunbound. Or.e very interesting example is the unpublished paper entitle:: The Idea of a Macro-Rhetoric," by Michael C. McGee. McGee suggests that too much effort is spent in the field of speec-'.-ccr-.unication on studies of particular men, speeches, speerh situations, and movements and that not enough effort

PAGE 14

In coru".3r. usage in the United States, ideology is a re'ora-ive -£m. In fact, however, it is a neutral term whi-n si.T.ply names a collection, of ideas, beliefs, and values v.-:LCh a society uses to guide and to justify its policies and actions. The society also attempts to perpetuate its ideology. This dissertation is a study of the rhetoric used for such perpetuation of ideology. Because the concept of ideology is so central to this study. Chapter Two will be devoted solely to defining and describing ideology. The Need to Transcend Situational Limitations During the winter and spring of 1970, the Speech Communication Association sponsored the National Developmental Project of Rhetoric. Bitzer and Black explain the purpose of that project's two main conferences as being to identify some problems that rhetoric is facing and might have to face in the future and to make some recommendations about how to resolve these problems. is devoted to defining the relationship between "public values" and men in society. He is developing the concept of macro-rhetoric in an attempt to deal in part with the kind of situationally-unbound rhetoric focused on by this study. Although the prefix macro is not unique to rhetoric, McGee is using the term to stress his emphasis on public address in its broadest possible sense of being the kind of rhetoric which is addressed to the public at large, is intimately related -3 the value systems of the society which gave it birth, ar.d is identifiable in rhetorical documents such as nev;sp3.per3 , pamphlets, policy statements, etc.

PAGE 15

A~ rl'.e Jrrject's two major conferences, scholars from several fields considered rhetoric's past and future, :.ler.-afLec rhe problems in contemporary life v/hich require applications of rhetorical concepts and methods, and recommended lines 'of research and educational programs needed to bring an effective rhetoric into relation -co current and future needs . 2 Members of the Committee on the Scope of Rhetoric and the Place of Rhetorical Studies in Higher Education expressed their desire that scholars be encouraged to pursue rhetorical studies beyond the normal range of investigation. The conferees encourage that the phrase "rhetorical studies" be understood to include any human transaction in which s^'-mbols and/or systems of symbols influence values, attitudes, beliefs, and actions; they encourage individuals and groups. to conduct investigations and publish findings dealing with many different kinds of such transactions . 3 It is in response to that recommendation and others calling for broadening the scope of rhetoric that this study is being written. Situational Emphasis Is the Norm Whatever differences they may have, most rhetorical studies tend to share a situational orientation. This observation is not an indictment, but a statement of fact. 2 Lloyd F. Bitzer and Edwin Black, eds.. The Prospect of Rhetoric (Englewood Cliffs, Mew Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971) , p. V. When referred to in the body of this study, these conferences will be called by their popular name, "the Wingspread Conference." 3 Douglas Ehninger et al . , "Report of the Commxttee on the Scope of Rhetoric and the Place of Rhetorical Studies in Higher Education," in The Prospect of Rhetoric , ed . by Lloyd F. Eitzer and Edwin Black (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-:-;ell, Inc., 1971), pp. 214-215.

PAGE 16

?.-.eeric 5.1 s-uiies tend to focus on s;^Tnbolic behavior within the :zr.z^-=s of a particular social context or as an event or e"w"en as part of a historical movement which tends to establish its own boundaries and make of itself a situationWhile the arguments for bounding rhetoric are widespread and highly respectable in academic circles they are also indicative of the fact that the field of speech-communication has not yet explored fully symbolic behavior v>7hich is not situationally-bound . Emphasis on situationally-bound rhetoric has become the norm in the field of speech-communication, and that, is perhaps as it ought to be. But, such emphasis tends to ignore the seemingly obvious fact that men in society are influenced by rhetoric which tends. to permeate their lives, to be constant, and to influence their beliefs and behavior by subtly, but also continuously, asserting the truth of seemingly factual statements. Thus, one's behavior, attitudes, and beliefs may be changed not so much by being persuaded within the confines of a situation as by merely absorbing the claims of a particular line of argument over a period of time, v/ithout regard for situational limitations. In this sense, the very environment or social class in which one lives may be rhetorical. It is rhetoric in this broader sense that needs to be studied more than it has been, so that fuller understanding might be gained of the way situationally-unbound

PAGE 17

rr.etoric is used and judgments might be mada about its 4 tc-en-iai fcr :.nrluence on those exposea to it. Z~= reason rhetorical critics and theorists have been bound -z sacuations for so long is that leading scholars in the field of speech-communication have tended to emphasize that situations are the core of rhetorical studies. In their classic treatise. Speech Criticism , for example, Thonssen and Baird indicated that the speech situation is the proper object of study for all critics. They defined speech situation as "a complex social relationship in which a speaker attempts to secure a particular response from a group of listeners," and they indicated that such a situation "is 5 severely controlled by time limitations." VJhile this approach is twenty-five years old, it is unchanged in the Thonssen, Baird, and Braden revised edition which remains speakerand situation-oriented. Their approach continues to influence scholars in the field of speech-communication. As should be obvious, no rhetoric is entirely either situationally-bound or situationally-unbound . Rather, there is a continuum along v;iich various instances and types of rhetoric may be placed. Some will be more bound than others and some will be more nearly unbound than others. For purposes of this study, rhetoric which is primarily limited in scope will be called situationally-bound rhetoric and that rhetoric which is primarily unbound by situation and/or time factors will be called situationally-unbound rhetoric. L?5-er Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, Speech Criticism (Nev; Yor;-:: The Ronald Press Company, 1948), pp. 6-7, '^les-er Thonssen, A. Craig Baird, and Waldo W. Braden, Soeeca Criizicism (2nd ed . ; New York: The Ronald Press Cc-3ar.y, 197:} , pp. 7-8.

PAGE 18

Zven currently exciting "new" approaches in the discipline rer.f. -o rei-erare the perspective of Thonssen and Baird. In o-e rf -he more v/idely read essays of recent years, Bitzer asserts that "so controlling is the situation that we should consider it the very ground of rhetorical activity, whether that activity is primitive and productive of a simple utterance or artistic and productive of the Gettysburg 7 Address." Thus, even some thinkers who are influencing current trends of rhetorical scholarship are interested more in limited than in situationally-unbound rhetoric The problem may have something to do with the fact that many rhetorical scholars tend to function more as critics than as theorists. The difference between a theorist and a critic is adequately described by Brockriede's statement that "the theorist tends to be interested in generalizations at the highest level of abstraction he can achieve, whereas participants and critics tend to be interested in making decisions or judgments about one very particular and unique 3 act." Of course, there is a great need for rhetorical critics. By functioning primarily as critics, however, rhetorical scholars may cut themselves off from the possibility of transcending that rhetoric v/hich is situationallybound . 7 L-oyi F. Bitzer, "The Rhetorical Situation," Philosophy and Rhe-oric , I (Winter, 1963), 4. 'Wayne Z. Brockriede, "Dimensions of the Concept of Rhe-cric," Quarterly Journal of Speech , LIV (February, 1958), 1 9

PAGE 19

Havinr reccna caught up in specific, limited instances of rr.e-zr^c, rr.ost scholars begin to praise specificity and conderjpgeneralizations. Thus, it is possible to indict rhetorical scholars who so limit themselves in much the same tone used by Frye when he noted that "it is all very well for Blake to say that to generalize is to be an idiot, but when we find ourselves in the cultural situation of savages v7ho have words for ash and willow but no word for tree, we wonder if there is not such a thing as being too deficient 9 in the capacity to generalize." Most rhetorical scholars, it would seem, have been interested in the ash and willow of criticism. This study will attempt to focus its attention from the perspective of the entire forest in which those species grow. Griffin Extended the Scope of Rhetorical Studies While it is true that some scholars have extended the scope of rhetorical studies, it is also true that they have generally remained within the realm of situationally-bound rhetoric. Griffin, for example, stressed the importance of studying the rhetoric of historical movements. His idea is full of possibilities for transcending situation in rhetorical studies. The idea has not yet reached its potential, however, in part because Griffin indicated that "to study a m.ovement is to study a progress, a rhetorical striving, a 9 Nor-T-rop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton: Princet-r. Vniversity Press, 1957) , p. 13.

PAGE 20

cercr.ir.r. Iis a progress from stasis to stasis; for both whe ZZ--JL-.S and 'the objectives of a movement are motionless.' They begin in the stasis of indecision, and they end in the stasis of 'decision preserved in.'" The word progress and the phrase "progress from stasis to stasis" present problems, for Griffin wants to study the rhetoric within the confines of an identifiable situation. The student's task, according to Griffin, is to isolate a rhetorical movement. The student's task is to isolate the rhetorical movement v/ithin the matrix of the historical movement: the rhetorical movement is the focus of his study. It is to be isolated, analyzed, evaluated, and described, so that he can say, for the particular historical movement which he investigates: this was the pattern of public discussion, the configuration of discourse, the physiognomy of persuasion. H Obviously, Griffin is interested in studying movements for which there is a definite beginning and end which can be described along v;ith easily discernible periods within the movement itself. Therein lies the problem. With the concept he introduced v/hen he began writing about and encouraging movement studies, the studies as Griffin describes them must, of necessity, be situationand time-bound and must continue in the vein of all studies that have gone before them, Leland M. Griffin, "A Dramatistic Theory of the Rhetoric of Movements," in Critical Responses to Kenneth Burke , ed . by William Hov/ard Rueckert (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969), p. 461. 11 Grirfxn, "The Rhetoric of Historical Movements," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXVIII (April, 1952) , 135.

PAGE 21

10 -:-:-endir.g y.o-re~e-t Theory Beyond £ i---5.zior.al l:-r.^-ations 2y hi.3 c-.vT. description, Griffin is interested in the rhe-crio cf historical movements. The "rhetorical movements" he sees accompanying those periods of history are identified by defining the patterns which speeches fall into within a historical movement. It may be, however, that v/ithin the realm of situationally-unbound rhetoric, there exist purely "rhetorical" movements which are not linked to historical or social mass movements, but are identifiable primarily because the words, phrases, and arguments used to discuss particular topics v/ithin a society may change as the society refines and revises its rhetorical approach to those topics. Such movements may be helical or rectilinear in nature. If the arguments tend to recur over a period of time, the movement is helical; as the topics reappear, the same basic argum.ents are revived to deal v/ith them. If, on the other hand, there tends to be no recurrence of arguments, but a simple change of arguments across time, then the movement is rectilinear. The changing arguments indicate that the society producing those arguments has changed its approach to the recurring topic. Rectilinear movement does not necessarily indicate that the society has improved, but simply -'r. = t it has changed its rhetorical strategies concerning a C3ir-irular tooic.

PAGE 22

11 Because thar^ need be no accompanying social and hisrcrical raove-er.to aid in tracing patterns of movement in rr.ercric, -o apply Gr-if-fin's tools to situationally-unbound rhetoric ~ay be totally useless. It may be that those :!-'changes which occur are within the rhetoric used by society and that they are not a part of actions taken by various political and/or social groups within that society. Finally, since Griffin has already defined the term "rhetorical movement" in another way, it will be better to refer to helical rw-::i and rectilinear patterns of movement as "symbolic movements." The Need to Study "Other" Rhetorical Forms Investigating Ideological Rhetoric To look beyond situationally-bound rhetoric as a legitimate object of study, it is necessary to look at forms of rhetoric other than the usual ones considered by those scholars primarily, or solely, interested in the narrow scope of rhetorical studies. Although the appropriate definitional matters will be taken up in Chapter Two, it is necessary at this point to indicate that the situationallyunbound rhetoric which will be considered by this study is the rhetoric of ideology. As Drucker indicates, ideology is the theoretical basis for a system's doing whatever it wants 12 or is going to do in any event. So, the relationship ~~H. M. Drucker, "Mar:c's Concept of Ideology," Philos ophy .. ::L VI I Ac r i 1 , 197 2), 154.

PAGE 23

12 bet'-vaen ideolcrv and rhetoric does exist. There is a need fcr zr.3.z. rela-z-or.ship to be explored from a rhetorical framewcr.-Jr 3.3 Lz-g as that framework is an extension of the persp-3Z^--ra zz situationally-unbound rhetoric and agrees v/ith Bryant's broad, encompassing view that "rhetoric is primarily concerned with the relations of ideas to the thoughts, feelings, motives, and behavior of men." History Textbooks as Rhetorical Documents The "other" forms to be utilized as rhetorical documents are textbooks from American history courses, on the high school level. This choice is an appropriate result of the decision to study the relationship between rhetoric and ideology. Not only are high school American history textbooks tools of education, but they also have rhetorical functions which deserve further investigation and evaluation. If ideology is to survive or be reinforced in a society, it must be perpetuated. The time to teach an ideology to a people is v/hen they are young, not only because that is when they are most impressionable, but also because, as Draves indicates, in this country at least, "it must be remembered that for the majority of students, high school Donald C. Bryant, "Rhetoric: Its Function and Scope," in The Province of Rhetoric , ed . by Joseph Schwartz and John A. 7-ycenga (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1955) , p. 22. This article originally appeared in the Quarterly Jo.:r-.-. = l of Soeech, XXXIX (December, 1953) , 401-424.

PAGE 24

13 14 :l5 zJ-.= er.a cz zrrr.al education." Thus, high school .-_-.eric5.r. r.^szory textbooks can be used as the primary rhe~z~'-ca.l docanients of the study if it is understood that they funczion in part to perpetuate the ideology of a society by telling the story of a nation. By treating textbooks as rhetorical documents, the study may provide much needed insight not only into rhetoriceil aspects of American history textbooks, but also into the use of systemic arguments by social systems to perpetuate their own ideologies and popular mythologies. In addition, by treating textbooks as rhetorical documents, this study voices agreement with Simons' statement that "among the most exciting trends in rhetoric today is the application of tools and yardsticks of rhetorical criticism to non-obvious forms of persuasion, and, in particular, to the rhetoric of academic discourse." In a similar vein,. Ehninger and his colleagues call for research in "the theory and practice of forms of coiTJTiunlcation which have, not been investigated as thoroughly as public address." ° By isolating textbooks as examples conveying situationally-unbound rhetoric, it is possible to carry out such research in this study. David D. Draves, "What's Wrong With the Teaching of History in the High School?" The Social Studies , LVI (March, 1965) , 105. Herbert W. Simons, "Persuasion in Social Conflict: A Critique of Prevailing Conceptions and a Framework for Future Research," Speech Monographs , XXXIX (November, 1972), 240-241 rr.n::.nger ev. al . , p. 21/.

PAGE 25

14 If te:-:-zzc'.-z3 seeni like an unusual form of rhetoric, it sr.Z-ild be re-enbered that situationally-unbound rhetoric c.z^s ~ztake the form of speeches which may be fully investiga-cec: -y applying various tests of their effectiveness, by subjecting them to neo-Aristotelian critical grids, or by using other convenient devices such as Burke's dramatistic pentad to help understand the speaker-audience-message relationship. Rather, situationally-unbound rhetoric is ongoing and pervasive within a society and might best be given voice by textbooks which are designed to teach a system of ideas to a people across generations. While documents such as official government policy statements also give voice to the situationally-unbound rhetoric of ideology, those documents are more narrow in scope. They tend to be as situational as speeches or debates. Textbooks, however, are themsleves situationally-unbound and, therefore, reflective of the situationally-unbound rhetoric they carry. The Importance and Timeliness of Focusing on War and Peace Because there is such a mass of topics falling within the realm of ideological rhetoric, it is necessary to limit the study to a particular topic. The primary reason for focusing on the situationally-unbound rhetoric of ideology as it argues for and against entry into and withdrawal from war is really quite simple. America has a tradition of suppcr-ing her involvement in wars by appealing to articles

PAGE 26

15 rf Ar.erican fcreign policy, especially as it relates to .-jT-erica's pcl-cies toward war; Spanier documents the point. American depreciation of power and reluctance to rercgnize it as a factor in human affairs makes it psyrhologically necessary to rationalize actions [specifically, wars] in the international arena in terms of ideological objectives and universal moral principles. American power must be "righteous" power used not for purposes of power politics and selfish national advantage but for the peace and welfare of all mankind. [One of the results of the rationalization is a] public image of the United States as a noble and unselfish crusader on behalf of moral principles. .17 Thus, the United States appeals to its ideology to rationalize its involvement in wars. Part of the goal of this study is to determine whether the country also teaches those rationalizations to its children through the high school American history textbooks surveyed in this study. Such teaching would facilitate the perpetuation of the ideology. In addition to this clear appeal to the ideology when rationalizing wars, it is also clear that there are other reasons for focusing on wars in this study of ideological rhetoric. War is a particularly timely topic right now, and focusing on wars will facilitate studying the symbolic movement of arguments about those wars. The following sections develop these last two points. The Topic Is Timely War i.3 a particularly appropriate topic of study right now because of its timeliness. The United States has just 'John '.
PAGE 27

16 zcr.zl'-zed the longest war in her near two-hundred-yearclf. h^s'cry. Zven as thinking is adjusted to the conclusicr. ~z zr.e war, there remains confusion about what caused and ju3-:::.fied United States involvement in that war. It may be--in fact, probably is — too early to examine the arguments for war and peace which have surrounded the war in Vietnam, but a study of traditional arguments for and against v/ar in our society may provide an understanding which will be useful later, when the arguments for and against war in Vietnam begin to filter down into high school American history textbooks. The current confusion is not likely to subside soon. May indicates that in all likelihood "history teachers in the 1990 's may find this [war] .no easier to explain than we 1 o find it today."" Perhaps studies 'of the type here being undertaken will help those teachers and their students understand and deal with the ideological interpretations which will inevitably filter into the books from v;hich they teach and learn. Not only has the war in Vietnam been a long one, but it also has been a bitterly debated one which imposed conditions of war with which even the mighty military machine of the United States was unable to cope. The confusion caused by this particular war needs to be cleared up. Perhaps this illumination can be accomplished by recognizing the fact that the body of argijai^.ents about v/ar in general is 1^ ^Zrr.est R. iMay, "What Will Teachers Say About the Vienna::. :2r?" The Gainesville Sun, February 11, 1973, p. IIA.

PAGE 28

17 srerifier.cugh. eo isolate and study within the morass of topics 3".-a:.lable for and subject to investigation. Ialso seems to make sense to study the arguments for and against v/ar for purely pragmatic reasons. Primary among these is the fact that the United States has been involved in several major wars during her relatively short existence, and those wars have been conveniently spaced at somewhat regular intervals. Thus, there is a considerable amount of material about war and peace which can be studied. Bonner indicates just how many wars the United States has been involved in: Despite her long isolation from the affairs of Europe, the historical record of the United States has not been a strikingly pacific one. Since declaring her • independence from Great Britain in 1776, the United States has been engaged in seven major 'wars and such lesser conflicts as Indian wars, an undeclared war with France in 1798, and the recent "police action" in Korea. 19 Although Bonner's statement needs updating to include the just concluded war in Vietnam, the point to be made here is that wars are a highly practical focus of study. The Topic Is Appropriate to the Proposed Scholarly Investigation In addition to the timeliness and practicality of the topic, it should also be noted that the topic of war provides an ideal test for a subthesis of the study mentioned 19 Thoiaas N. Bonner, "America's Wars and Their Causes: As Seen Through the Eyes of Historians," The Social Sciences , XLVII (January, 1956), 22.

PAGE 29

earlier, i.e.-hat the situationally-unbound rhetoric of an iieil~ry -ay -.veil take the form of a symbolic movement. "5i.r.z~ -he needs of the class change quite radically," accord:.r.z 1:0 Drucker, "it will have to change its theory too."^ A3 a result of the fact that wars occur at fairly regular intervals in the history of the United States, focusing on war as a topic should provide a workable way to test the movement thesis that the changing theory of an ideology can be detected and traced through studying the situationally-unbound rhetoric of that ideology. Thus, the original decision to focus on war because of society's use of ideology to rationalize involvement in wars is supported by several other reasons. The timeliness of the subject, the practicality of the subject, and the ability of the topic to contribute to scholarly invest'igation of sym.bolic movement all add to the value of this choice of emphasis. As textbooks can serve well as the vehicle through which the situationally-unbound rhetoric of ideology is transmitted, so can war serve as the topic of the rhetoric v;hich is so transmitted. The Methodological Approach of the Study The first three sections of this chapter have concerned themselves with justifying this dissertation as a legitimate concerr. for rhetorical scholarship. In designing the study. Drucker, p. 154

PAGE 30

19 i-.-.•as r.ece3S3L"_to recognize the validity of Duhamel's c'zBazr-.-=.-:.z~ -'r.a."rhetoric occupies a peculiar position ainor.r the ar^s and that it cannot be adequately interpreted 21 apart zrom the ideological context in which it appears." In fact, this study goes beyond that recognition and is designed as a study which will investigate the rhetoric of the ideology itself. Defining and Explaining the Function of Ideology An underlying assumption of this study is that not only is rhetoric grounded in its ideology, but also that it plays a role in the attempt to perpetuate that ideology. The overall purpose for this study may be summarized as (1) an attempt to develop a theoretical conceptualization about the way ideology is perpetuated through the use of systemic arguments, (2) an analysis of high school American history textbooks to determine how widespread the use of systemic arguments is in those textbooks; and (3) an attempt to determine whether the systemic arguments on war and peace reflect a symbolic movement which can be analyzed from a perspective of situationally-unbound rhetoric. Since an understanding of the concept of ideology is central to the theoretical foundation of this entire study. Chapter Two will be devoted to a discussion of this concept from 21 P. Albert Duhamel, "The Function of Rhetoric as Effective Expression," in The Province of Rhetoric , ed . by Joseph Schwartz ar.d John A. Rycenga (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 13 55), p. 36.

PAGE 31

20 rhe 5-ar.fpc:-r-T.s z-f. its (1) definition and (2) function-L-zL-±L-^ 3. definition of systemic argument, which is a tool -r-rcurh which ideologies function rhetorically. Political theorists will provide the bulk of the material about ideology. H. M. Drucker, Karl Mannheim, Miladin Zivotic, and Abraham Edel are among those who will be contributing to the study and are illustrative of the theorists whose works were sought out while the author was developing the material in this area. The rhetorical function of ideology will be abstracted from the writings of political theorists like Amelie Rorty and M. Rejai and of rhetorical theorists and critics like Richard Weaver, Herbert Simons, and Michael Osborn. These short lists of naimes are not, of course, allinclusive but are meant to provide an indication of the kinds of sources which v/ill be used in this chapter. Explaining History's Role in Perpetuating Ideology In Chapter Three, history's role as a storehouse and conveyor of systemic arguments on war and peace will be discussed. Here, then, will be a description of the differences in (1) what history is ideally and (2) what it is in practice. Included will be a discussion of the historian's role in the ideal and in the practical functions of history. These sections will depend for support primarily on historiographers such as David Fischer and Edv/ard Carr. In the final section of the chapter, those problems peculiar to

PAGE 32

21 I'ls-cry ze::~~zz.<.s will be emphasized. The supporting material frr -hi3 section will be provided by rhetorical scholars sucr. 3.5 Pobert Scott and Donald K. Smith; textbook analysts such as r-ay Billington, Jack Nelson, and Gene Roberts, Jr . ; and teachers of high school American history courses. Identifying and Describing the Textbooks Chapter Four will contain a description of the arguments gleaned from surveyed high school American history textbooks. The primary objective will be to describe the data which result from the textbook survey. To facilitate this description, the statements gathered from the textbooks will be grouped into systemic arguments favoring American entry into v\?ars, arguments opposing American entry into wars, and whatever other groupings grow out of the survey. The data will be organized in such a way that they can be used easily in support of the analyses which will complete the study. Since it is obvious that not all high school American history textboolcs can be read, this study will survey only those books which have been identified by other scholars as being the most popular and, thus, the must widely read during the fifty-year period covered by this study. Because of the refusal of publishing houses to release sales figures, these scholars have had to use other methods of determining which textbooks have been the most widely used. Billington, for exarr.ple, compiled his list for the early 1960*3 by

PAGE 33

22 co.T.bir.ing reports supplied to hiiu by the nation's leading Lu-hsrities ir. reaching American history in secondary educa^Lrr..~~ rhe list Billington developed and similar lists for other rijr.e periods have been combined to form the master list for this study. Books and doctoral dissertations in textbook analysis have been the primary sources for building this list. Lists were found which identify the most widely used textbooks as far back as the 1920 's, thus enabling the study to include an analysis of the books today's government leaders and older voters would have been exposed to while in high school. The materials to be gathered from the books . — Once gaining access to these books which will be used as the rhetorical documents of the study, the author v;ill read the discussions in those books of major wars to identify the following: (1) all reasons listed by each text for American entry into each war; (2) all reasons citedby each text for withdrawing from each war; and (3) all cited dissenting arguments against entry into or withdrawal from each war. These statements wxll be examined to determine how to group them and how to describe those groupings. Identifying and describing arguments . --Once the arguments have been identified, their distribution across wars and across time v/ill be described. The concepts of helical and rec-jLlinear movement will be useful in describing the ~~Ray Allen Billington, The Historian's Contribution tp Ar-glo-American Misunderstanding (New York: Hobbs , Dorman & C3.T:Cany, Ir.c.) , 1966.

PAGE 34

23 da-a. ?.ectil:.r.ear movement may be noted in answers provided fay -j-.e ±3.-3. -co chese questions: (1) What changes take place in tha reasons for different wars? (2) What differences may be found in textbooks with significant time periods separating their publication dates? (3) What differences can be noted in the use of systemic arguments in books published during war periods when compared with those published during peace time? Do those published during wars tend to be more nationalistic? Second, the concept of helical movement will be helpful in describing the answers to these questions: (1) To what extent do reasons recur across periods of time separating wars? (2) To what extent do arguments recur across periods of time separating publication of textbooks? (3) Are any arguments used to explain entry into all wars? Analysis and Evaluation of Systemic Arguments Chapter Five will provide an analysis and evaluation of the arguments for and against American entry into wars. This chapter will utilize data from the surveyed high school American history textbooks and from the definitive vrarks on each war to answer such questions as (1) To what extent is the ideology a false reflection of reality? and (2) To what extent do Presidential war messages serve as sources of systemic arguments? Serving as a basis for analysis and evaluation will be answers provided by the textbook survey to these questions:

PAGE 35

24 '!) To what exre-are systeiTiic arguments explained or s-_pcorted? (2; Do the patterns of movement detected in the ar--Jzie"Z3 provide sufficient data to describe the symbolic morer-e-'=f ideology? (3) VJhat is the role of systemic arguments in simplifying the reasons cited by definitive war : histories for entry into the v;ars? (4) How v/idespread is the use of systemic arguments in the rhetorical discourse of the textbooks surveyed? (5) What generalizations can be drawn :'! "concerning the correlation between a war's generating controversy and its being explained in terras of systemic arguments? (6) What is the tone of the arguments set forth by the textbook authors? The final section of Chapter Five will discuss the conclusions and implications of the study. It will make some general projections about how the results of this study might be used in future research studies and how the results might be used by and useful to the various contributing academic fields. The Contribution of this Study Each dissertation is expected to make an original contribution to learning. Most contributions in rhetoric and public address tend to be very specific because of the focus on situationally-bound rhetoric. Focusing, as it does, on situa-ionally-unbound rhetoric, however, this study proposes to -ake a different kind of contribution. The study will

PAGE 36

25 iraw from different, yet overlapping, fields of learning. rr.e colitic3.1 theorists from philosophy, political science, ar.d -cL-~'-Z3.1 sociology v/ill contribute an understanding of the r.ear.^r.g and function of ideology. Historians will provide the definitions and descriptions of history and of historians and will indicate what their roles in society are, Textbook analysts will provide lists of the books to be surveyed and will provide suggestions which will help identify ideology's role in those textbooks. Rhetorical theorists and critics will provide the concepts necessary to describe and evaluate the rhetorical aspects of materials studied. Since the contribution will grow out of the integration of these diverse fields, this study will be interdisciplinary in nature. Each of the fields contributing to the study will also receive insights into itself gained from overlapping with other areas. Thus, the ultimate contribution of this study will be in the areas of broadening the scope of rhetorical studies and of encouraging further interdisciplinary studies of rhetoric.

PAGE 37

CHAPTER TWO IDEOLOGY I. Some Problems of Studying Ideology II. Defining Ideology A. It Has Its Origins in Class Theory B. Ideology Is Pervasive C. Ideology Is an "Official" Political Dictum D. Ideology Is Generic III. Ideology's Function A. Ideology Reflects Society's Self-Image B. Ideology Moves Society Rhetorically by Means of Systemic Arguments C. Ideology Encourages Belief in Itself IV. Summary

PAGE 38

CHAPTER TWO IDEOLOGY Some Problems of Studying Ideology Essential to a study of ideological rhetoric is an understanding of the concept of ideology. There are a number of areas of learning one might turn to for such understanding, for the concept is treated by scholars in many different fields. For the purposes of a rhetorical study, however, one is forced to turn one's attention outward, since the persuasion theorists tend not to deal with the concept of ideology. Emphasis is perhaps best placed on political theorists from sociology and philosophy. Political theorists in sociology are concerned with the way men are moved by each other and by society as a whole within the context of a social structure such as the focus of this study, the United States. Political theorists in philosophy tend to be more generic in their concerns, although they, too, tend to focus on particular societies. Those who are concerned with political and social philosophy tend to have much the same focus as political sociologists and, thus, supplement understanding of the concept of ideology gleaned from that area. It should be noted that 27

PAGE 39

28 soecific writers s'ach. as Edel, Heberle, and Leff really Ir r.c~ "belcr.g ' -o any one discipline of academe but tend, i-s-er.d, ~~ be claimed or utilized by all disciplines int=r^i-ei. :.n a broad theoretical understanding of concepts, such as ideology, which play a significant role in explaining man in society. A specific problem encountered in dealing with ideology is an inability to recognize that everyone in society is ruled by and depends on ideology. Laymen seem to be unable or unwilling to acknowledge their own dependence on ideology to govern their lives. The tendency is to believe one's own approach to life is the "right" approach, while those in opposition to this approach are being ruled by an ideological view of the v/orld. Perhaps the only way to deal with an ideology is to step back for a while and, as Mannheim suggests, "look at it 'from without.'" Since an ideology is so much of the way one sees the v/orld, however-, to accomplish this task of viewing ideology from without one must engage in V7hat Mannheiln described as "suspending, for a time, the whole complex of its assumptions, thus doing something other 9 than what is prescribed in it at first glance."" Adding to the difficulty of dealing with ideology as a concept is the fact that the v/ord itself has highly Karl Mannheim, From Karl Mannhei m, ed . by Kurt H. Wolff .:-ew York: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 119 -I ^Ibid.

PAGE 40

29 r.ica-ive czr.-z-a.z2.0rLS in this society. One tends to believe gcverr^.er-z=_ spokesmen when they tell him that what he belie'v"e= is true and factual, while what his enemies say is mere iaaological nonsense. Thus, one problem of this study is to recognize the validity of Heberle's statement that "in popular language, the term ideology is often used in a derogatory sense, as if the political opponents were intentionally dishonest in their proclamations of purposes, creeds, and beliefs." Part of the task of escaping this pejorative sense is to realize that " ideology has no such derogatory connotation," again using Heberle's phraseology, and to 4 unload the term by providing it with' a neutral definition. Drucker's statement is true that "until very recently 'ideology' v/as almost always used pejoratively. It was, as the philosophers used to put it, a 'boo-word'. This is to say that describing something as ' ideological ' was a way of condemning it." The truth of Drucker's statement should serve as additional incentive to define the term, as is the primary function of this chapter. Once that task is accomplished, the remainder of the chapter v/ill be spent describing and 3 Rudolph Heberle, Social Movements: An Introduction to Political Sociology (New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts, 1951) , p. 28. ^ Ibid . H. ?:. Drucker, "Marx's Concept of Ideology," Philoso phy, XLVII (April, 1972), 157.

PAGE 41

30 explaining tr.e scope, and function of the concept of ideology = :-nce those rn5.racteristics also will be important to this 5--::±y as a ./r.ole.. Defining Ideology Edel appears to be correct in claiming that "objective truth in social theory is unattainable." Perhaps a truth is near at hand, however, when it becomes clear that most theorists about ideology, whether their approaches are specific or general, tend to have compatible def initions-all of them reflecting a concern with ideas, beliefs, and values which guide society. For purposes of this study, ideology may be defined as a system of beliefs, ideas, and/or value judgments which function to justify the operations of a social structure-including its actions taken and positions held--and to codify the popular political mythology of that society. It has its origins in class theory. It is pervasive. It is an "official" political dictum. It is generic. It Has Its Origins in Class Theory While it has been easy to keep in mind Drucker ' s statement that "the concept of ideology as we now use it . . . stem[s] from Karl Marx," it is also easy to lose sight of "Zdel, "Reflections on Ideology," Praxis (1967), p. 567, Edel'= full assertion is that "ideologies are thus fundamentally incomparable, objective truth in social theory is ur.a--ainable , perhaps even altogether meaningless."

PAGE 42

31 cr.5 z-z'i z.r.2.Marx*, as ths concept's originator, developed -'~.= ~c~~ecz zf ideology in conjunction with his developing theories about: the way classes interact and deal with each 7 other m -he struggles which mark unstable social situations. Drucker calls attention to the fact that each class must have its guiding principles. One of the needs of every class is a theory which will orient it to its world and prescribe its future tasks. Since the needs of the flass change radically it will have to change its theory too. Throughout its life the theorists of the class will search assidously for whatever factual or scientific basis for their preconceptions they can find. When no such basis can honestly be found, something which looks like one will be patched up and put forv;ard. Honest or not, a class will exalt as "true" that theory which seems to provide good reason for actions it wants to take in any case. 8 It takes little imagination to realize that class can be broadened to indicate a whole, basically homogeneous, society, but the fact remains that understanding of the concept of ideology grew out of a concern with classes. A 'brief focus on classes at this point will help indicate the extent to which ideology permeates a society. Classes and other subgroups are microcosms of the larger society and they exist in all societies. Entering the debate about whether or not the United States is a classless society would be beyond the scope of this study and is irrelevant for its purposes. But it is clear that 7 Drucker, p. 152 iai-. , p. 1d4 .

PAGE 43

32 v^e".vir.g classes as groups within a larger society will assist ir. z = zBrz:.z.~:.-z the pervasiveness of ideology \;ithin society. By e::ar.ir.i.ng the fact that subideologies exist throughout •a -society, it will be easier to understand the notion that an overall ideology permeates the society as a whole. Furthermore, by acknowledging the degree of allegiance each group has to its own subideological underpinnings, it will be easier to understand and appreciate the potential for an entire society to be dominated and moved by its ideology. Ideology Is Pervasive To begin, then, it should be acknowledged that whether one terms them classes or they even meet the technical definitional requirements of classes, there are many distinct groups in the country which can be identified. Religious groups, ethnic groups, geographic groups, social groups, etc., all exist in the country, and each has its own subideology. Each of these groups, in other words, has a system of thought which governs the behavior of its members when they are in contact with each other. There are at least two supporting arguments for this line of analysis. First, it should be noted that subideologies are in essence part of the larger ideology and draw their substance from the parent ideology. Lane, for example, indicates that ideologies of groups "are [inevitably] torn from their

PAGE 44

33 ::c;r.text in a brtader belief system, and share the structural 9 ar.a stylist::^ properties of that system." Seccnl, it is clear that groups have allegiance to the parer.lieoiogy. Obviously, subideologies overlap and, at times, conflict. When they conflict, the prevailing ideology tends to be that of the parent group. In most situations, for example, if there were to be a conflict between "the American Way" and the ideological stance of one of the smallei groups, the overriding American ideology would be the prevailing factor in making a decision. Allegiance would follow the same pattern as formation of the ideologies. That is, since subideologies grow out of a broader ideology, the primary allegiance would be first to the parent ideology and second, to the subideology. Garstin indicates that allegiance to an ideology is strong primarily because, no matter how much change takes place within an ideology, "there always remains a hard core of beliefs which is constant and unchanging . " Furthermore, according to Garstin, the ideology itself forbids deviation of belief. Here again, then, the ranking order of the ideologies would determine the depth of commitment to each. Garstin explains that ideologies are 9 Robert E. Lane, Political ideology (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), p. 15. ~'L. H. 3arstin, Each Age Is a Dream (New York: Bouregy & Curl, Inc., 1954), p. 79.'

PAGE 45

34 -arked by ar. " ir.-oleranca [which] is usually revealed in a -arrc.-.v~es3 ::f doctrine which forbids deviation from the '-^r--" lir.e ; ' -from the accepted principles and propositions whir.= -=-L-ute the ideologies, and in a fanatical belief in therr absolute rightness." Thus, even if a subideology decided to oppose the parent .ideology on a particular issue — an unlikely situation — it v;ould be exposed to harsh, unrelenting pressure to "get back in line." Ideology Is an "Official" Political Dictum Ideology tends to be an "official" political dictum. Even when it is not actually an official government pronouncement, it has about it an official appearance. It evokes political mythology to help maintain its power; it evokes various propagandistic syn^bols to help in its expansion efforts; and, tying all these matters together is the fact that ideology tends to be stated. The starting point, c^. . . 12 however, is that ideology is seen as being official. Adorno indicates that ideology is "a highly developed system "''"'"Ibid., p. 4. "'"^It should be acknowledged that political theorists from Plato to Hobbes have argued that governmental leaders have the right and responsibility to deceive the people of the state when those leaders deem that such deception would be in the best interests of the state. It is not a purpose of this study to argue the efficacy of such deception. Rather, this s-uiy simply acknowledges the existence of such deception of ideology and sets out to examine and develop some theoretical concepts v/hich may be useful in examining the rhe-cric of ideology which is used to deceive the populace cf a state.

PAGE 46

35 13 rr or ticial ce_:.er3," Further, according to Simons, any rcr.flic-s -
PAGE 47

36 Ti.yth within ^jieoiogy seera to agree with Sorel that "a :h rar.noie refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical :h -he zcnvictions of a group." Horo;vitz , for example. when d:.s -_33 xng Sorel ' s theory, adds that "the myth is 17 stronger rhan a fact; it is a belief." There seems to be no doubt among these theorists that political myth is closely aligned with ideology. Lasswell and Kaplan, for example, assert quite simply that ideology "is the political myth functioning to preserve the social 18 sturcture," and that the political myth "consists of the symbols evoked not only to explain but also to justify 19 specific power practices." Rejai goes further by indicating that ideology must simplify its primary messages if such messages are to be communicated successfully: "The myth in ideology is socially and historically conditioned. It communicates a fairly complex message in simplified form, which is indeed a hallmark of all ideology. Successful communication of ideology and its myth(s) will not take place except 1 fi Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence , trans, by T. E. Hulme (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1915), p. 33 17 Irving Louis Horowitz, Radicalism and the Revol t Against Reason (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1951) , p. 135. 18 Karold D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan, Poxver and Societ'_.: A Framework fo r P olitical Inquiry (New Haven: Yala University Press, 195"0) .

PAGE 48

37 z.irough sir^ol^f iration. " ~ Such siir;plif ication will be seen zr t^'.ie place primarily through the use of systemic argu?=.rof the long-ranga purpose of any ideology is to expand its influence and powsr. Such expansion is encouraged and reinforced by« evoking symbol^ around which large numbers of people can rally. The evoking of symbols, according to Garstin, is primarily a propagandistic operation: "Symbols, slogans, songs, parades, rallies, study groups and socials are all made use of in diffusing idecrlogies, as are such techniques as name-calling, mud-slinging, and glitter21 xng generalities, to name a few other devices." Finally, it should be noted that ideology is not simply some vague collection of meaning which never is made public. Quite the contrary, ideology does indeed tend to be stated, frequently and publicly. Heberle documents the point. "One rarely finds a well-organized, systematic presentation. Ideologies are usually formulated in proclamations, resolutions, speeches, programs, platforms, pamphlets, essays, and 22 newspaper articles." Attitudes, on the other hand, are not openly expressed. In fact, one can know an attitude only by inferring it from 20 M. Rejai, Decline of Ideology ? (Chicago: AldineAthertcn, 1971) , p. 6. ^-Gars-m, p. 5. """Rudolz rieberle. Social Movements: An Introduction to Political rociology {New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts , 1951) , p. 25.

PAGE 49

38 £-a-ed cpir.icr.s or fron overt behavior. Cronkhite indicates zr.iu"' --e JT-Eve -q measure of 'attitudes' except 'overt be"'a'.'icr . ' " "" Overt behavior, then, xndxcates eittitudes, and a-T:t:.-ude3 may be given voice through stated opinions, but attitudes themselves generally are not stated. Bettinghaus concludes the point by indicating that "it seems useful to retain the notion of attitude as a conceptual bridge between an individual's psychological states and his overt behavior. The collection and evaluation of opinion state24 ments provide the best estimate of attitude." Ideology Is Generic The further one pursues an investigation of ideology, the clearer it becomes that ideology is a very general concept which provides the ultimate justification for a society's operations. In essence, ideology is the generic justification for all the specific actions or stances a society may wish to take. Aiken elaborates on the point by stressing the generic nature of ideology. Now political ideology is nothing but political discourse (as distinct from political science) on its most general formative le\^el. It is, that is to say, political discourse insofar as the latter addressed itself, not just to specific, piecemeal reforms, but to the guiding principles, practices, and aspirations 23 Gary Cronkhite, Persuasion: Speech and Behavioral Changgi (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc. 1969) , p. 9. 2'i_ ^r'-"in ?. Bettinghaus, Persuasive Communication (New York: y.zl-, Rinshart and Winston, Inc., 1968), p. 22.

PAGE 50

39 by which pcliticaliy organized societies absolutely, or else ir. certain typical situations, ought to be go-verned. This being so, political ideologies inevitably include, among their leading articles, state~er.zs zz general principle or method and expressions zz za.szc attitude, orientation, and concern which, as ---ey s-and, are so highly abstract as to appear to many -ir.is preoccupied with day-to-day problems of "practical politics" virtually meaningless. Such statements are of course habitually formulated in terms like "general welfare," "common good," "justice," "equality," "democracy," "security," and the rest. 25 As Aiken indicates, the generic nature of ideology makes it difficult for many to deal with, but it is generic precisely because it is the ultimate authority to which any societal appeal is carried. It must be general and abstract enough to handle any specific situation which may arise in the dayto-day functions of explaining and justifying actions taken or stances held on the part of the society as a whole. An attitude, unlike an ideology, is grounded in the psychological states of individuals. As such it is much narrower than ideology. It applies to the situations encountered by individuals, and does not transcend situations for whole nations. As was indicated earlier, attitudes may be shared by large numbers of people but, while ideologies are tied to societies, attitudes are primarily related to individuals. As Bettinghaus indicates, "an attitude . . '. is an individual's structure or organization of psychological processes." Thus, ideologies are generic, attitudes specific ?5 r.er.ry Davxd Aiken, "The Revolt Against Ideology," in The Zr.d of Ideology Debate , ed., by Chaim. I. Waxman (New York: ?un;< s Wagnalls, 1968) , pp. 251-252. " Bettinghaus, p. 21.

PAGE 51

40 Ideology's Function .--l-r-~urr: ideology is a highly intangible concept, it does .".eve certain identifiable functions within a society. To the exrent that it fulfills those functions, it manifests itself in v/ays that can be dealt with in a study such as this one. An ideology serves at least three functions within a society. First, it tendsto reflect the wishes and/ or theoretical underpinnings of a societal structure at large. In this sense, it matters not whether the reflection is realistic or accurate because, if rc.-n. in society believe in the ideology, they will accept it and act in accordance with it. Rejai indicates that "beliefs, in short, say nothing about the truthfulness or falsity of a notion or an attitude; they imply only a psychological state of accep27 • . . . tance . " The xdeology provxdes a codxfication for those beliefs . Second, ideology tends to help move society to new positions or to reinforce already held positions. This second function tends to be performed through the use of sy s tern. ic arguments, a rhetorical tool which will be defined when both functions are examined in this section. Third, ideology encourages the belief among members of society that its articles are true. Ideology Reflects Society's Self -Image The reflecting function of ideology is inherently " ?.5-ai, o. 3.

PAGE 52

41 ir.accura.-e. Sir.ce virtually all societies have a set of beliefs by vnich they support their own "right" approach to exis-5r.ce, they must all be considered "ill" in the sense thac no system of beliefs can reflect reality with a high degree of accuracy, especially during times when the reality may be injurious to the well-being of that society, or to its sense of well-being. The overall reflective function of an ideology, then, is to maintain an image v/hich reflects the wishes of the society at large, whether or not that reflection is accurate beyond the confines of the society. Since an ideology is seen primarily as a set of ideas, beliefs, and values which are accepted and acted upon by society, it functions in part to reflect the way a society sees itself. But it should be pointed out that this reflection is not necessarily accurate. After all, the society has an image of itself that may or may not be in keeping with the reality of any given situation. An ideology will tend to reinforce those things v/hich are believed, and acted upon and ignore those things which are contrary to the beliefs of the society. .An ideology, in short, v;ill not contradict itself, but will generally reflect conditions not perhaps as they are, but as custodians of the ideology v/ish 28 them to be seen. 23 Custodians of ideology is not a pejorative label, as m.ay be implied by some. Garstin defines the phrase as referrir.r ro "a leadership w-ho act as their [ideologies'] official c -.ilosophers . Their philosophers provide the official srater^.ents concerning ideological policy and these

PAGE 53

42 It is, if~3r ail, the custodians who, according to 3ars-in, see -o it that "ideologies are protected from as = 2.ul~3 ' ir. part] by the use of . . . abstract statements [wh:LC-"_ , ^f skillfully worded, are not only difficult to analyze bun are also subject to a multitude of interpreta20 tions." " These abstract statements may be one reason why ideologies tend to be viewed pejoratively, as was explained earlier. Abstract statements which seem to obscure reality may be seen by those holding an opposite view as referring to what Edel described as "views that were somehow bent out of shape, distorted to seem brighter, than the reality they T ,,30 expressed. If the way a society sees itself through an ideology is that society's self-image, then virtually all societies are reflected by ideologies v/hich distort reality. In fact, no society can stand off and view itself directly. Thus, no society can have an accurate self-im.age. A true picture might perhaps be conceivable, but only in a society either so unstructured as to be v/ithout ideology or in the midst of such great social change or turmoil that it would be impossible for the society to delude itself into ignoring the harsh reality of the situation. Such conditions. statements are to be accepted by the supporters of the ideologies without question " (p. 4). Operationally, the term refers to the official spokesmen for a society, be they gcverr-r.ent leaders, party officers, or political theorists vho formulate the ideological positions. 29 Garstm, p. 4. ^'^Edel, c. 565.

PAGE 54

43 re "ery rare. Thus, virtually all societies "v:.ll reflerreality in a distorted way." Ideolccry Moves Society Rhetorically by Mear.s of Systemic Arguments Systemic argument needs to be defined. Despite frequent negative reaction to the concept of ideology, that reaction should be expected because, in part, of the rhetorical and argumentative function of ideology. It has already been shown that the use of abstraction leads to misunderstanding. But it should also be noted that the very act of espousing an ideology is inherently rhetorical. Part of the concern at this point is to define the type of rhetoric being used by ideology, so that the process of perpetuating ideology can be better understood. The rhetorical function of ideology is described best in terms of systemic argument. Perhaps a definition of systemic argument should be prefaced with Weaver's admonition "that the language of definition is inevitably the language of generality, because only the generalizeable is definable. Singulars and individuals can be described but 31 not defined." Thus, until data have been gleaned from the textbooks which will provide such details, it will not be possible to describe the specifics of systemic arguments. But, an overview definition of systemic argument can be 31 R2.chard Weaver, The Ethics of Rhetoric (Chicago Henry P.err.ery Company, 1953), p. 190.

PAGE 55

44 iefined in the zszcess of using that definition to describe =. subdividicr. cf ideology. Zach -_-= an ideological system engages in explanation of its ic-^ons or its policies to its subjects or those outside its own societal jurisdiction, it is in a kind of symbolic conflict with those people, because it is directing arguments toward them. Since the situationally-unbound rhetoric of ideology tends to be argumentative in nature, it can best be defined as systemic argument: an assertion of putative fact which functions as a justification for action (s) taken or positions held on the part of the social structure . Such an argument is addressed to the public at large and is intended to instruct the populace as to what action and/or attitude in the situation being considered is most in keeping with the articles of ideology . Within the framework of ideology, a systemic argument is a specific philosophical justification for an action taken or a conclusion drawn. Thus, ideology attempts to fulfill its rhetorical function of justifying action to the people by use of systemic arguments. It assumes the people are generally in agreement and support actions being taken and that, prim.arily, it needs to explain the action by relating that action rhetorically to those ideological articles people hold to be true. The channel to use in the explanation should be readily available if Simons is correct in sta-ing that other ideological statements have long been

PAGE 56

45 passed on by ecurauors. "The dissemination of culturally accroved values as 'fact' has been a historic function of ed_rarrrs, a nieans by which social order is legitimated and ..3 2 preser-.--r. Quice often, the social order needs this legitimation, because the action being taken is of such a nature that it must be related clearly to ideological beliefs if it is to b^ assured of solid support on the part of the people. Such would obviously be the case when such action is highly controversial and has engendered debate among various factions of the populace. Even when debate or social dissent is not likely, however, the action should always be related to generally accepted ideological values to assure popular support of these actions. . Rorty indicates that the reference to ideology is essential. If it is the very criteria for interest and good that are at issue, the argument must still proceed by reference to some further conception of a human value. This ideological point goes hand in hand with a semantic one: no argument for change will be comprehensive unless it is phrased in terms that can be understood as appealing to accepted canons of value. "33 As part of understanding what a systemic argument is, it is necessary to know something about its source or origin. The systemic argument may originate in a variety of ways. A system.ic argument may be a part of any written document which Simcns, p. 241. 33 Amej-ie Oksenberg Rorty, "Naturalism, Paradigms, and Ideology," T'-.e Review of Metaphysics, XXIV (June, 1971), 652

PAGE 57

46 forras part of b. cornerstons for the ideological system. In r.-.acase, -r.e argument v/ill very probably have originated in -r.= -.v-ri-L-gs of one or more of the philosophers or pol:.'cz::a_ -.leorists v/hose thoughts formed the argumentative/ philoscpnical support for the type of society set forth by custodians of ideology. On the other hand, a systemic argument may develop out of a particular, narrow debate on a specific issue. Some "ideal" combination of words may be invented in the heat of debate which supports the ideological position so well that it is quoted extensively by others, with the likely result that soon the originator is lost sight of and only his words remain. When encountering this type of instance, it is easy to react in much the same way Griffin did vv^hen he discovered the role played by unknown speakers in historical movements: "We may come to a more acute appreciation of the significance of the historically insignificant speaker, the minor orator who, v/e may find, is often the true fountainhead of 34 the moving flood of ideas and v/ords." Some of the most prevalent systemic arguments may have been originated by very minor spokesmen for the ideology. Thus, a systemic argument may become a commonplace as its use i.-xcreases. But the commonplace nature of systemic arguments adds to their effectiveness, because they are not " "Leland M. Griffin, "The Rhetoric of Historical Moveme--3," Quar-erly Journal of Speech, XXXVIII (April, 1952),

PAGE 58

47 rer.erally perreived 23 blatant propaganda devices. The pers_a3ive ur.pact: also may be strong because of the argumentawiTe appeal made to the authority of the ideology as a whole. And then, of course, the great power of presumption rests v;ith the status quo . The tie-in ideology has with rhetoric is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that when used by ideology, rhetoric maintains the essentially pragmatic function which was de• scribed by Morris as being one which deals with the "relation 35 of signs to their interpreters." Systemic arguments, m a sense, are the rhetorical middle men which serve to relate the overriding ideology to the people in society. Systemic arguments, of course, are used by the ideology custodians to help in establishing and perpetuating the inherently inaccurate picture of reality sought and reflected by ideology. In this sense, the collective purpose of systemic arguments is similar to that ascribed by Simons to other systemorientations: "however reasonable they may appear in 3 S Charles W. Morris, "Foundations of Theory of Signs," International Encyclopedia of Unified Science , I (July, 1933), 30. In this sense, systemic arguments perform the same basic function attributed by Bitzer to rhetoric as a whole. He said that rhetoric "comes into existence for the sake of something beyond itself; it functions ultimately to produce action or change in the v/orld; it performs some task. In short, rhetoric is a mode of altering reality" (Lloyd F. Bitzer, "The Rhetorical Situation," Philosophy and Rhetoric , I [Winter. 1968], 3). Of course, Bitzer is at this point also altering the meaning of rhetoric somewhat. There are tines v
PAGE 59

-L 0_ 48 -ple, 1practice they have constituted indiscriminate -.ales f::_-he preservation of the existingsystems and :c£e privileged persons who would wield power v/ithin the-."~ Systemic arguments are no different. They, too, are used by the ideology custodians to help preserve the system. The custodians seek to convince the populace, or reinforce their already held belief, that the ideological interpretation of reality is in fact the" reflection of reality they should accept as accurate. This rhetorical function of ideology should dispel the more idealistic view of rhetoric's function given voice by Bryant: "Rhetoric recognizes the strength of the fictions men live by, as well as those they live under; and it aims to fortify the one and explode the other. "^^ He seems to be correct in saying that rhetoric "is concerned with 39 values," but he fails to acknowledge the validity of the charge made by Frye that "rhetorical value-judgments are closely related to social values and are usually cleared through a custorashouse of moral metaphors: sincerity, subtlety, simplicity, and the like."'^° While Frye ' s own 37 . Simons, p. 2 29. 3 8 Donald C. Bryant, "Rhetoric: Its Function and Scope," in The Province of Rhetoric , ed. by Joseph Schwartz and John A. Rycenga (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1965) , p. 22. This article originally appeared in the Quarterly J ournal of Speech , XXXIX (December, 1953), 401-424. ^^Ibid4C.. --cr^nrop Frye, Anatom.y of Criticism (Princeton: ?rince-3University Press, 1957), p. 21.

PAGE 60

49 -e-aphcr -ay ce lacking, his point that rhetoric goas hand -I'.ar.d 'vizh generic social values is well taken. Zr. ZZC-, far from helping men in society to explode the Tzy-'r.s of their ideology, the rhetorical function of ideology is designed to help perpetuate those myths and reinforce belief in them on the part of the populace. Systemic arguments are argumentative because the societal system is involved in a struggle with the consciousness of its members and must use whatever devices are most effective to persuasive advantage in convincing its members to maintain the inherently distorted picture of reality reflected by ideology. Because the ideology custodians see their role as an argumentative one, they tend to use systemic arguments in much the same way Simons says coercive persuasion is used by government systems. Coercive persuasion applies to any situation in which at least one party sees himself in genuine conflict with another, has some coercive power over the other, and finds it expedient to establish, persuasively, any or all of the following: (1) his relative capacity to use coercive force, (2) his relative is^illingness to use coercive force, (3) the relative legitimacy of his coercive force, (4) the relative desirability of his objectives .^-'It is primarily the last tv/o of these persuasive objectives which are the aims of an ideology when it employs systemic arguments. The custodians of ideology feel that the public should be willing to allow society to convince them that official actions are correct and desirable. '"Si-rr.s, p. 232

PAGE 61

50 :e cus-odians feal,.it must continually be the cz;-rerrs2^--' s power and right to inform the populace of this desi'B.jz-1'^t-/ , or the incomplete picture painted by the ideology r.ay begin to clash with reality as a result of open debate. Thus, not all information is released so that the public can scrutinize the conditions of reality. Only systemic arguments about the nature of reality and the legitimacy of the actions taken by the powers to reflect that reality are allowed to be debated. That information which tends to reflect a reality opposed to the ideological picture of reality is withheld from the general public by the custodians of ideology. Ideology Encourages Belief in Itself In order to understand the power ideologies have over men in all societies, it should be recognized that men tend to act according to their beliefs. If something is believed to be true for a man, then for that man it is true — and, what is more important, he will act as though it is true, Thus, v/hen one realizes that someone is defending as true a position known to be indefensible, it is easy to rationalize the conflict by recognizing that the other person One of the lessons currently being learned from the so-called Pentagon Papers case is that government withholds information from the public not only when revelation of such information might endanger national security--in which case it should be withheld — but also when revelation of such informa-icpmight paint a picture of reality quite different from the iesoription being presented by the custodians of t^^e TQ.s~.-~~'.'.

PAGE 62

51 ;rely a vi::rim of his ideology--or perhaps the person :r.3'v3 -'.-e position is indefensible is merely a victim of his z^rr. ideology in refusing to recognize the validity of the c-her position. Speaking pejoratively about this kind of relativism as an approach to history, Ortega summarized the position by noting that "the truth, then, does not exist: there are only truths 'relative' to the frame of 43 mmd of the person considering the matter." Such explanation applies to those who accept, without question, the articles of an ideology as "true." It is convenient to paraphrase Ortega by noting that the ideas, beliefs, and values v;hich make up an ideology can be seen as a collection of "truths" reflective of the frame of mind of the entire society or subgroup. The important thing to realize, as Garstin indicated, is that for the people within that group, no matter its size, the ideology 44 IS true and will not generally be disputed. Each person within such a structure may well be under the influence of competing ideologies, as was illustrated in the section on the pervasiveness of ideology, but within a functioning framework these competing ideologies will be ranked in a priority alignment such that "ideological jurisdictions" are clearly understood by members of the society. Thus, for an American, -he American Ideals form the foundation of his -3 Jose Crtega y Gassett, The Modern Theme , trans, by 'a-Ties Cleugh ^-Tew York: Harper Si Row, 1961), ~p. 29. 44 Garstin, pp. 3, 4, 43, 79.

PAGE 63

52 -uidir.g pririciplss ir. life."" Further, it is safe to assert -'~avirtually all Americans are trained to believe in the ?-.^'^za.~ Heals as part of their growing and educational prczess. £C that virtually everyone is aware at some level of conscicusness of the ideological jurisdictions which overlap throughout the society. The effectiveness of the ideology is protected against the charge of inconsistency by the fact that the ideology is reflected in a rhetorical movement of a symbolic nature. This movement can be identified and understood more clearly after ex^mlining the systemic arguments which are used to perpetuate the ideology. At this point, however, it seems logical to recognize the validity of Garstin's observation that "ideological content is not static once it is formulated." Further, such recognition indicates that, while the changes in ideology might be perceived by soma members of society, those members would accept the changes unquestioningly because of their very strong belief that the ideology continues to grow as it discovers more facts about the conditions of reality in the world. Not only do men expect their ideology to change and look forward to it, but they also would have difficulty 4 T Throughout this study, American will (1) refer to a residenof the United States who, though not necessarily a citizen, has been a resident of the country for a long enough period of -ime to acquire as his the parent ideology that of the Ur.^tei States and (2) be used as the adjectival form of. the y -jted States . America , likewise, will refer throughout only -D the "Jr.ited States. ""^Garstir., p. 79.

PAGE 64

53 cr-allenging the "aiidity of ths changes that do take place LT. ideology precisely because of their belief in that z.±%z'-z^y . J.ejai specifies the point when" he says that "idacl-gy sr.ould be viewed as consisting primarily of beliefs a.-.d only secondarily of ideas. The basic distinction is that ideas are subject to scientific operation (such as 47 testing and verification), whereas beliefs are not." Summary The primary function of this chapter was to define the concept of ideology for purposes of this study. In order to accomplish that task, however, it was necessary also to discuss the various problems involved in the study of ideology, differentiate between ideology and attitude, and describe the function of ideological rhetoric. Since systemic argument is such ei vital part of the function of ideology, it was necessary to define systemic argument as part of the description of the function of ideology. Now that these various tasks have been accomplished and ideology has been adequately defined, it is possible to move on to the role of history as it applies to this study. 47-, . . , Kejai, p. 3

PAGE 65

CHAPTER THREE HISTORY: ITS IDEAL AND PRAGMATIC ROLES I. Ideally, What Is History? A. Answers About the Past B. Fair Representation of the Past? II. Practically, What Is History? A. Imperfections in Historical Stances B. History Helps to Perpetuate Ideology III. Particular Severe Limitations on History Textbooks A. Unwary Ignorance on the Part of Authors B. Inertia Caused by Over-Reliance on Secondary Sources C. The Impact of Pressure Groups on Textbook Writing and Selection IV. Summary 54

PAGE 66

CHAPTER THREE HISTORY: ITS IDEAL AND PRAGMATIC ROLES In Chapter One, it was indicated that the rhetorical documents for this study would be high school American history textbooks. While the use of such documents was justified, no attempt has yet been made to indicate just what relationship exists between history and ideology. For purposes of this study, clarification of that relationship requires at least three steps. First, history's ideal fulfillment of its own goals should be described so that an understanding can be attained of the kinds of goals historians traditionally set for themselves. Second, it should be acknowledged that history, like most other human endeavors, rarely achieves its ideal goals. Thus, an examination should be made of what happens to history when it falls short of its goals. Third, since history textbooks specifically v;ill be the rhetorical documents utilized in this study, an examination should be made of the very special problems inherent in writing history textbooks. It is in examining the textbooks that a full understanding of the role played by those books in the perpetuation of ideolccy -.vill be gained. oo

PAGE 67

56 Ideally, What Is History ? P.arely ~0£;S one stop to ask himself the question, "wha1.3 >-^3tory?" Yet, he goes about talking about what his-cry -ells him or what he can learn from history as though he knew exactly the answer to his own unasked question. He seems to feel history is simply what took place in the past. Usually, he fails to realize that history is not what took place in the past, but a record of those events Without the record, the events themselves would have no way of being known or understood by men living in contemporary society. Of course, the record does not compile itself. It is put together as a result of scholarly research carried out by a person interested in finding out what happened in the past and in determining the relevance of those events to contemporary society. The scholar and his methods determine what kind of a record will be produced. A nswers About the Past A historian asks questions and seeks answers about the past. He is a scholar who has been trained to delve into events of the past, to learn all that he can about those events, and to put that knowledge in some order v/hich will make the past meaningful as a foundation for the present and the future. Fischer describes this investigative function quite sinply v/hen he defines a historian as "someone (anyone) who asks ^n open-ended question about past events and

PAGE 68

57 answers it -.vicr. selected faces which are arranged in the fcrr. of an eaplanatory paradigm." The basic tool used byall r.is-oriar.s , it would seem, is the process of questioning . Of course, these questions cannot be asked in a vacuum. They must have some structure, some organizing framework, if they are to be able to fulfill their function adequately. Answers will be meaningless if there is no organizing framework out of which the questions are asked. Again, Fischer supplies the explanation which puts the matter of questions in perspective. A moment's reflection should suffice to establish the simple proposition that every historian, willy-nilly, must begin his research v/ith a question. Questions are the engines of intellect, the cerebral machines which convert energy to motion and curiosity to controlled inquiry. There can be no thinking without questioning — no purposeful study of the past, nor any serious planning for the future. Moreover, there can be no questioning in a sophisticated sense without hypothesizing, and no systematic testing of hypotheses without the construction of hypothetical models which can be put to the test.^ In spite of the apparent validity of Fischer's statement, however, it should be noted that ideally the historian should never impose his own structure on the answers to his questions. Ideally, the hypotheses he uses to frame his questions will themselves grow out of other questions, so that he -v-ill never be guilty of imposing his point of view David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies (New York: Harper and R^w, 197 0) , p. ix . "Ibid. , p. 3.

PAGE 69

58 zr. the oast." I5.rr sasms to agree with this statement when r.e indicates -hathere are "questions which the historian _3 zzir.± by his vocation incessantly to ask," but he also war-5 r-'.at 'zhe historian who accepts ansv/ers in advance to these cuestions goes to work with his eyes blindfolded, and 4 renounces his vocation." While there must be structure, there must also be a limit on the degree of control the historian himself may exercise over that structure. Fair Representation of the Past ? Answers to historians' questions will inevitably provide a wealth of historical facts so vast as to demand that the historian select from among them. And beyond these facts, there must alv/ays be a myriad others of which the historian is not even aware. The problem is compounded when one realizes that those facts of which he does have knowledge range from empirically verifiable phenomena to subjective value judgments. The historian must decide v/hich facts to select from v/ithin this spectrum. Carr acknov/ledges the acrobatic function the historian must perform: "Somewhere between these two poles — the north pole of valueless facts It must, of course, be acknowledged that no such ideally -.-ritten history exists; nor will it ever exist. Man cannot look back into the past without the inherent necessi-y of imposing himself on the past. Thus, whenever one locks at the past, he will, of necessity, look at the pasi -nrough his own weak, biased eyes. An inherent part of iceLng hu.-an is the inability to escape oneself. ""Zdward Hallett Carr, What Is History ? (New York: Alfred A. Knocf. 1964), p. 103.

PAGE 70

59 and the south rrle of value judgments still struggling to zrinsfom the-selves into facts--lies the realm of hist-rical trurhThe historian ... is balanced between farclt.z ^r.-erpretation, between fact and value. He cannot 5 separate them." He cannot separate them, but to make any sense out of the facts available to him the historian must be highly selective. He must glean the material relevant to his purpose of understanding the past from all of the data available. And he must discard the rest as superfluous. In the ideal fulfillment of his function, the historian must be accurate as well as selective. He must adopt a kind of detached selection attitude if he is going to be fair to history. Again, Carr provides the support by noting that "the serious historian is the one who recognizes the historically conditioned character of all values, not the one who claims for his own values an objectivity beyond history." Only by letting history impose order can the historian be honest in fulfilling his function. The kind of accuracy demanded of a historian might be praised in many scholarly pursuits, but it is merely expected of the historian. It is a part of his function. In thinking of this requirement, Carr commented: "I am reminded cf Housman's remark that 'accuracy is a duty, not a virtue. ' To praise a historian for his accuracy is like ^Ibid. , pp. 175-176. ^Ibid. , pp. 108-109

PAGE 71

60 praising an archi-act for using well-seasoned timber or croperly mixed concrete in his building. It is a necessary 7 ci~~irion cr nrs work, but not his essential function." Practically, What Is History ? It is one thing to acknowledge the ideal fulfillment of the historian's function, but it is another matter entirely to find that ideal function applied in the works of historians. Just as questions the historian asks are not asked in a vacuum, neither is the historian himself functioning in a vacuum. He is caught in a framework himself which may be more binding on him than is the framework of the hypotheses he uses as a guide to asking his questions. History, then, in its practical application, is the result of the efforts of a human being who may consciously or unconsciously impose his own beliefs or ideology on the past in order to impose an interpretation on the past which may not be accurate. Imperfections in Historical Stances It should be acknowledged that a historian is both more and less than a scholar who asks questions. He is, above all, a human being who is subject to the same pressures, values, and beliefs that any other human being is influenced by. He approaches history out of a particular societal background and framework which influence his work. Simply stated, the historian cannot escape being what he is. No matter how 'ibid., p. 8

PAGE 72

61 hard he tries -c be objecrive, he, too, is influenced by societal values of which he may not even be aware. Carr su~cl_fies -he point by noting that the historian is himse_f carof history. T'r.e: historian, then, is an individual human being. Like other individuals, he is also a social phenomenon, both the product and the conscious or unconscious spokesman of the society to which he belongs; it is [in] this capacity that he approaches the facts of the historical past . . . The historian is part of hiszory. The point in the procession at which he finds himself determines his angle of vision over the oast. 8 It would seem, then, that even scholarly historians are strongly influenced by their surroundings. As human beings existing in a societal environment, historians can no more escape being influenced by that environment than can any other human being. It is inevitable that the social environment v;ill reflect itself in the historian's work. It is, then, both natural and totally understandable that the historians should be "guilty" of falling victim to and reflecting their own biases. Carr stated that it is obvious "that you cannot fully understand or appreciate the work of the historian unless you have first grasped the standpoint from v/hich he himself approached it; second, that that standpoint is itself rooted in a social and historical 9 backcrcur.z . " When reading history, it should be remembered f-h -T -he historian was operating out of a particular ""ibid. , pp. 42-43. Ibid. , p. 4!

PAGE 73

62 ^ie.z'^zzY . He, l:.ke the reader, was also once a beginning s-ure-~f iieclogy, but he has gone beyond that beginning by srer.z^r.g u.cst of his career studying many of the ideology's intri-cacies, learning how they fit together to weave a pa team that deserves to be shown to other students who follow after him. Even recognizing his own susceptibility to his environment may not keep the historian from falling victim to it. Dance stressed the difficulty by emphasizing how hard it may be for himself and other historians "to think ourselves out of the milieu in which we have been reared, to force ourselves into points of view which are strange to ourselves." Dance goes on to indicate that historians become "hidebound by the cultural traditions v/hich we inherit, and by the traditions of learning which we acquire in our educational environment . Part of the result of historians' reflecting their biases is that whatever they label as facts which they have selected for transmission through their work may not be, strictly speaking, factual at all. The reason for this apparent contradiction lies in the multiple uses of the word fact . Explanation is due. While discussing ideology in Chapter Tv/o, the way men act according to their beliefs was Edward Herbert Dance, History the Betrayer (London: Hutchinszr. i Co., Ltd., 1960), p. 45.

PAGE 74

63 inscribed. Z"vas indicated that if a man believes something to re -r-^e, r.e •/.•ill act as if it is true. Thus, that piece of ia-a ;>-ili become for him a "fact," whether it is in reaiirv rme or not, and whether it can be empirically verified or not. As a parallel to this notion, it might be pointed out that ideologies depend for perpetuation on entire systems of such "facts." All systemic arguments are facts of this type, and systemic arguments make up a large part of the content of history. These facts have meaning primarily in relation to each other and to the system of thought which gives them birth. Since historians' biases are beliefs, it is easy for them to label as facts things which they believe to be true. History Helps Perpetuate Ideology Part of the practical role of history, especially as it manifests itself in history textbooks, is to assist in perpetuating the ideology of the society. Part of this role entails an attempt to help people in society accept and act on their beliefs as facts. If the individual believes in the system, then he is very closely related to these facts and will act as though they are true. One function of history is to assist the parent ideology in turning systemic arguments into the kinds of beliefs by which men run their lives and to which men appeal when they need help in making a decision. If the effort succeeds, history will be perceived as being

PAGE 75

64 -rue by its reaiers and will have succeeded in fulfilling i-5 ideologiral role. It shzuld be noted that it is not necessarily the intenti:r. cf I'.iszorians or of writers of history textbooks that their "v.Trks be used for perpetuating ideology. Rather, that is seen as one of the justifications, explicit or implicit, for studying history. Billington, for example, points out that "bo-h educators in the United States and a majority of the people view instruction in the nation's history as a practical pragmatic means of protecting and preserving the 12 American way of life." He reinforces his assertion by noting that "today, as in the 1830 's, the purpose of American education is to instill loyalty to country into the nation's youth and to educate future citizens into the wise use of the franchise." While Billington 's comments apply to education as a whole, Draves speaks directly to the reason for studying history: "One of the justifications for the study of history is that it transmits from generation to 14 generation the culture of a given society." This approach has a greater impact than simply turning loose so-called opinion leaders to work on the people in 12 • • Ray Allen Billington, The Historians' Contribution to Angle -Arrieric an Misunderstanding (New York: Hobbs , Dorman Sr Company, Inc., 196 5), p. 27. ""Ibid. . D. 28 . 'David 3. Draves, "What's VJrong With the Teaching of I-Iiszory in the High School?" The Social Studies , LVI (March, lS-65) , 105.

PAGE 76

65 a -assive persuasion campaign. This way, edufrr -he custodians of ideology by teaching the idec'-z---o vDMng people so that they v/ill grow up believing the -T.y--';. -o be true, thus being more likely to support it and to assist in the perpetuation effort which will be directed toward their children. There would seem to be no more efficient or better way to perpetuate a myth than to teach it as truth to the students required to learn the story of their country and its system of government. Particular Severe Limitations on History Textbooks Ideally, high school history should serve, in Lauwerys ' words, to "give all pupils sufficient knowledge of the past to enable them to understand the present." The knowledge of the past attained in high school history classes, however, is not always geared to provide the students v/ith an accurate picture of the past. In part, this fact is due to the nature of the history textbooks, which are the main source of learning history. High school students are not as fortunate as scholars who utilize definitive histories and have access to the finest historical scholarship available. The history which is taught to high school students is not written by highly scholarly writers, by-and-large , nor is it taught by the best of historical scholars. Thus, the ability to maintain 1"^ _ "_ . A. Lauwerys, History Textbooks and International Under3-5.r.ii-r (Paris: UNESCO, 1958), p. 71.

PAGE 77

66 the same high ierree cf excellence demanded by history scholars inevi-aoly begins to slip. Ur-'-v'^ry Irr.rrance on the Part of Authors jvcsurprisingly, one reason for the "ignorance" attributed tr textbook writers is actually a function of the medium with which they deal. Their works are not lengthy, scholarly, definitive documents about particular aspects of history. On the contrary, a textbook for American history covers r.he entire span of the nation's history. This breadth of coverage necessitates a more rigorous selection process than would be necessary in a treatment of a part of the nation's history. The extreme selectivity necessarily imposes a certain lack of coverage or competence on the textbook. Relating the problem of selection to the treatment of specific groups within a society, Dance says that "history textbooks are necessarily short, and the shorter they are, the more they restrict the scope of the enquiry. Selection has to be made quite ruthlessly, and this inevitably entails inadequacy in the treatment of many human ,.16 groups . Of course, the main reason for the textbook writer's unconscious bias is the very humanity which he and all historians share, as discussed in the section on the practical defini-ior. of history. To be human is to have biases of 16 Dance, History Without Bras? (London: The Council :hristian3 and Jews, 1954), p. 49.

PAGE 78

67 vhi^h one is r.;aware. If that human being happens to "vrize textbccks, then his biases will inevitably find their v=y ir.tD the textbook. It is not really the fault of the wr"_-5r, r.-r is it an "error" which he can correct, unless his 'z-a.3SB are pointed out to him by a critic v/ho has his ear. Billington points out that, in spite of attempts which have been under way for some time to eliminate bias in textbooks, "nationalistic bias is as persistent in today's schoolbooks as in those used a generation ago. More important, this bias is potentially more dangerous, because it is less easy to detect. Usually it appears to stem not from any deliberate or conscious prejudice on the part of the author, but from the unconscious self." Even though the biased statements present in textbooks are there without the conscious knowledge of the textbook authors, their impact is felt nonetheless by students learning their nation's story from such textbooks. Lauwerys assumes that all authors engaged in v/riting textbooks v/ould eliminate all biased statements from their textbooks if they could. In spite of this possibly naive preface, however, he has to admit that all authors are biased. All authors hold opinions they are not aware of holding, and all, or nearly all, are biased and prejudiced winhout knowing it. This has effects on the textbooks they write and, consequently on the opinions and at-itudes of the children who use them. The result is that zhose textbooks serve ends which their authors would repudiate and deplore. ^3 in 1 O Billir.rzon, p. 2. Lauwerys, p. 31.

PAGE 79

68 These biases, of course, include the ideological orienz2.-ion whicr. z.-.e authors have absorbed and come to believe alzr.g with czher people in the society. Thus, in spite of the z^z-hat some would readily believe that history textbooks are totally objective, the truth of the matter is that these texts are riddled with bias emanating, in part, from the unwary ignorance on the part of the authors. Inertia Caused by Over-Reliance on Secondary Sources While an author's own unv/ary ignorance may cause serious problems regarding the filtering of biases into the classroom, there are also some methodological problems which add to the limitations of history textbooks. Basically, these methodological problems, take two forms. Although some well-known history scholars write textbooks, for the most part a writer of history textbooks is primarily that and not a history scholar in his ov/n right. Therefore, he depends for much of his material on hsitory scholars and other textbook writers, thereby utilizing secondary sources rather than primary sources as the foundation of his work. Lauwerys indicates that "far too often, this compilatiion is the result chiefly of consultation of other textbooks. Thus, ancient errors are handed on, and contact with fir5--hand up-to-date research grows ever more tenuOU3. ' j_:iuwerys also expresses agreement with the fact 19 Ibxd., p. 21

PAGE 80

69 rhan although the textbook v;riter "may be a scholar as well . . . he is ~zz functioning primarily as such v;hen he ~~^-e3 a -ex-cook. ?r^-ar:Liy because textbook writers are not their own scholars, ir is possible for new research findings to take quite a long time to filter down to the levels from which textbook writers do their job of compiling. Thus, even if the texucook author has in mind to present a fair and complete picture of his country's history, he is limited by the quality of the scholarship in secondary sources which he uses as his research materials. Billington indicates that the "latest scholarly findings have to filter down to the textbook level slowly, usually appearing first in general monographs, then in the. larger histories, and finally in textbooks. This process requires years so that texts are sometimes a generation behind in reflecting current his21 torxcal views." It can, of course, be argued that the blame for the time-lag should not be laid at the feet of the textbook author. Dance occupies this position v/hen he indicates that the textbook author may not be entirely to blame for the time-lag. It r.ay take anything from years to generations for the discoveries of research to percolate into the srhcclbooks. And for this the textbook writers are r.z~ -2 blame. Articles on research are legion; they ~^Ibid. , p. 27. Billington, p. 5.

PAGE 81

70 feal wi-h all history fro-i before Adam till after '"'----^-' ^~--""-o textbook writer can keep pace with a ~-'— '-----^ ^them. For another thing, most specialist resesLrrh is published in journals which few textbook "•*^----3 can be expected to see — and in any case, many a -ev piece of research is followed by another, con-rai:.crory piece of research in some equally inaccessible publication. 22 Dance's point is well taken, but it seems to miss the mark entirely. If the writer of textbooks were genuinely interested in filling his work with respectable scholarly findings, he could utilize journals m^ore in researching his book. It would be more difficult for him to compile his material out of journals, but it would result in much better history than is the case with using other textbooks and history books as the main sources of information. Billington seems far nearer an accurate depiction of the situation when he labels such lax scholarship on the part of textbook authors as "bias by inertia" and says that the term "means the failure of textbook writers to keep abreast of current historical scholarhsip, and their consequent readiness to perpetuate on their pages outworn legends that usually exhibit nationalistic bias. "^^ The fact that historians and history textbook authors are human and subject to all the flaws of human character has been mentioned several times. It should not come as a surprise, then, to discover that being part of a human 22_ -2^---/ History the Betrayer , p. 2! "'3^11 ^r. gtOR , p . 5 .

PAGE 82

71 rrr-.ur.it" has scr.ething to do with the poor scholarship which ccr.m-u-es ro zhe perpetuation of ideology in the rhetorical c.-S.zz-zzse zz high school American history textbooks. The wri-er zz textbooks is hampered not only by his own scholarly limirations, but also by the inertia of the very society he is attempting to teach. Since he is himself a part of that human society and is likely to be unable to write from a totally unbiased position, it might be easily understood that he lets himself get trapped by his own inertia and that of the society he writes about. It is so understandable, in fact, that Dance again offers an excuse for the authors' laxity by taking the attitude that that is simply the way things are. We are so accustomed to thinking along well-worn lines that we rarely make the intellectual effort needed to strike out along lines of our own. Generations of . teachers teach what they learned when they were young; generations of scholars learn what they will teach to others; and therefore the history taught in schools and universities lags far behind the new v/orld for which it is supposed to prepare its citizens. 24 In spite of the understandable nature of the situation, however, the blame should be borne by the authors. It is gratifying, then, to note that Billington's language indicates that his assessment of the situation places a bit more blame on the authors than did Dance. Billington says that "compounding this crime [of allov/ing a time-lag] is the tendency of all humans to think along well-worn lines rather ""Zar.ce, History the Betrayer, p. 47.

PAGE 83

72 ~han endure z'r.e i~teilac-ual torment needed to grasp new ideas. His-cr::^al distortions are passed on from genera-urn -Q genera-ion, from teacher to pupil, from textbook 25 a.-iir-cr iz zextbook author at all educational levels." The Inpacof Pressure Groups on Textbook .-rriting and Selection Whether history textbook authors want to write biased accounts of history or take any action to prevent that bias is not really at issue here. More important, perhaps, is the fact that there are groups v/hich exercise inordinate influence on the markets for which these authors v/rite. Furtherm.ore, these pressure groups seem to want the kind of bias which shows up in our textbooks. Many of these groups would echo Westwood's statement that "the primary aim of a course in American history in secondary school should be the teaching of the freedoms v/hich, in sum, distinguish America: teaching what they are, v/hence they came, how they evolved, how they have been attacked, defended, and qualified, and, finally, something of how they may be challenged in the jr j_ II 2 5 future. One would hope, implicitly, that this statement reflects the views of only a small reacrionary minority of Americans, so that Lz. could be discounted as the work of extremists. Such hcpe, however, is little more than a pipe dream. In Billinrton, pp. 5-6. 2 6 Howard 2. VJestwood, "A Layman's View of High School P-.erican Hisccr--," The Social Studies, XLVI (January, 1955), 3

PAGE 84

73 fact, Billingtrr. r.3.3 already been quoted as indicating that 'a r.ajority cf z'.'.a people view instruction in the nation's Z-s-cry as a practical, pragmatic means of protecting and 27 prs£er-.".-f -r.e American vv-ay of life." Thus, the opinion persis-5 r.iroughout the country that the primary purpose of teacning history is to pass on the ideology to the young generation. That opinion tends to manifest itself in the form of pressure brought to bear by national pressure groups on the vriting, publication, and selection of textbooks. Whatever else may be said of groups which attempt textbook censorship, it may be said that they represent a vivid manifestation of the function of ideology discussed in Chapter Two. It was explained at that time that ideology reflects the wishes of a society, whether or not those wishes picture reality as it actually is. Ideology reflects reality as the custodians of the ideology think it should be, not necessarily as it actually is. The same basic observation can be made about those groups v/hich attempt censorship of textbooks. On the whole, these groups believe themselves to be defenders of the ideology and feel it is their responsibility to force their views on a society which they believe has gone lax and is no longer concerned about protecting and perpetuating the American Ideals. Alvays, according to Nelson and Roberts, pressure groups strike "vif.-cut warning and force the particular object of ^7 Billmrzon, p. 27

PAGE 85

74 2 S zhair attack ~o respond as quickly as possible. On a r_H.zional scale, of course, this fact results in forcing szzLe-y as a whole to make a decision about the direction ir -ar.-s -e;:-books to take. Nelson and Roberts elaborate on this poxnt. Wha-ever the differences in dress or the nature of their worries, would-be textbook censors share the same convictions: that their views are the correct ones, that the child will be subverted if he hears the opposing philosophy. Always, the censors ignore the fact that no textbook can ever be perfect, and thatextbooks vjill always reflect the changing knowledge and the changing interpretations of successive generations. Society, as a result, must decide whether it wants its textbooks to be shaped by pressure groups or by scholars seeking to supply the most accurate information available. Too often, society has yielded to the pressure groups. 29 As has already been stated in the preceding section, all pressure groups think their v/ay is the only way which is right for the country. This fact implies, obviously, that such groups tend to be of the type generally referred to as right wing or super patriotic groups. By and large, this genera.lization is accurate. For example, groups actively taking part in censorship activities include the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Sons of the American Revolution, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 2 8 Jack Nelson and Gene Roberts, Jr., The Censors and the Schcrls (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1963), p. 3 --Ibii., p. 24. " ^Doc-ojr.er.tation of the specific censorship activities of groups labeled in this section as pressure groups is available in llelson and Roberts.

PAGE 86

75 the various Whi'e Citizens Councils, and such extremist rroups as .---erica's Future, Inc., and the John Birch Zr. -'.-.a other hand, however, from time to time groups whicr: are highly stable in most situations and which tend to be only moderately conservative get involved because they feel that they are themselves being threatened or cheated hy something they find in the textbooks. For example, the Florida State Chamber of Commerce once forced a published geography textbook to be changed by the publishers because it contained more pictures of California than of Florida. Bad for the tourist business, they felt. Nelson and Roberts provide another interesting example: "FTC [Federal Trade Commission] investigators learned that the National Electric Light Association, the American Gas Association, the American Railway Association and many of their member corporations had attempted — and often succeededin placing the utilities' own interpretation of history 31 before the natxon's children." Among the primary targets of pressure groups engaged in censorship activities at both local and state levels are the selection agencies whose responsibilities include choosing texrbooks for all the schools in their jurisdiction. Generally, attacks on selection agencies demand one of two thir.rs: a change in the make-up of the agency itself or a Nelson and Roberts, p. 31

PAGE 87

76 ' rs — > r^ f::^ in a -e;;--ook selection. In the first instance z~e de-and -.Lsually takes the form of groups' demanding that 3elec-icn arencies admit lay people to their membership. The 3.zB-ssz---on being made by the pressure groups in this ins-ar.ce ::3 that sufficient pressure can be brought to bear on the appointing officer (s) to force into membership lay people who will support positions of the group. Baxter indicates thac "recently, textbook critics have demanded more partici.t:a-ion by lay people in the selection of textbooks. It is not clear whether the demands are based on the assumption that laymen are better qualified than educators to select textbooks, or on the assumption that adoption agencies „32 have not been diligent in their duties." The second instance is just as conunon as the first. The intent, in this case, is usually to get a book changed, done away with, or selected, depending on the desires of the pressure group. Pressure groups have been so successful in rallying support that their campaigns to get books abolished, changed, or selected keep selection agencies quite worried. Nelson and Roberts cite a not unusual result of this kind of pressure: "In a candid moment in 1950, a deputy superintendent of the school system in the District of Colur±)ia revealed his formula for avoiding controversy '""Jarr.es Zdward Baxter, Selection and Censorship of Pu -lic Schocl. Textbooks (A Descriptive Stu dxL> Ph.D. dissert" aTIT?! (University of Southern Mississippi , 1964), p. 37.

PAGE 88

77 ever textbooks. The plan vvas simplicity itself. 'We try ~o -T.aka sure -.-.az the books we select are not objectionable re anyone. '"' " Billington acknowledges the validity of tn_£ £rar5-enr and points out that "local pressure groups, ofren r.cre nationalistic than the authors or users of textbooks, are in a position to bring pressure on school boards and adopting commissions to select texts mirroring their own • ^ • „34 point o" view. ' These examples seem to reflect a natural condition of this society: that the more powerful individuals and groups become, rhe more they reflect and emphasize the rectitude of ideology. It is but a short step beyond that stance to insist that all people in the society should be taught the ideology the way the powerful groups or individuals think it should be taught. Textbook publishers come in for a great deal of pressure directly from pressure groups. Sometimes, demands made are for changes in a particular book to make it conform to a particular set of criteria. Other times, demands are for suspending publication of a book the pressure group finds particularly offensive. This kind of pressure is nothing new for publishing houses. The first concentrated pressure they experienced came after the Civil War, when the North and the South each demanded textbooks specifically designed 33 34 Nelson and Roberts, p. 178. Billington, p. 28.

PAGE 89

78 -o present a cr.e-siiad vie'.v of the Civil War and its surrcunding issues. Nelson and Roberts indicate that publishers "berar. publishing regional textbooks, one version fcr -r.e Sz-iz-h and another for the North, and, as a result, 35 focrec. -r.e nxnds of students for more than two generations." After so many years of dealing v/ith, and giving in to, pressures, publishers seem to have become comfortable in the role -hey play in furnishing textbooks. They remain cautious and do not produce any highly controversial books because, as Nelson and Roberts point out, they are "well aware that an onslaught of criticism against a text by a rightwing or minority group can touch off a chain reaction among textbook selection committees and cause sales to drop off in many areas." Publishers' concern has become so pointed that, accojrding to Nelson and Roberts, the American Textbook Publishers Institute [now the Association of American Publishers] issued a policy directive urging that "publishers 'must try to avoid statements that might prove offensive to economic, religious, racial or social groups or any civic, fraternal, patriotic or philanthropic societies 37 xn the whole United States.'" Obviously, the publishers have their hands full trying to avoid offending any of that multiplicity of groups. 5 36 Nelson and Roberts, p. 26. Ibid . , p. 179 7 Ibic. , p . 181 .

PAGE 90

79 Although. 3.--ack.3 on publishers and selection committees ±0 a great deal of damage and cause textbooks to be lost or --rr.ed ir.-c clar.d, mildly stimulating treatments of their suh^ec-ar-er, pressure groups' impacts can be seen most clearly v-an they take on an individual author. When such attacks lake place, according to Nelson and Roberts, they 3 1 tend to be directed against the "philosophy of the authors." The iuosstriking example Nelson and Roberts provide of such attacks concerns the pre-World War II campaign against "a mild-Tiannered Columbia University . . . education pro39 feasor, Dr. Harold Rugg . " Dr. Rugg had borrowed money to finance his dream of a series of social science textbooks to be used in elementary and high schools and had v;orked on the series for over a decade before having his first volume published. His works "won immediate acclaim from educators, and schools throughout the nation began adopting them."^° At the height of his success, Rugg ' s books were being used by almost half of the school systems in the country and were topping 28 9,000 volumes per year in sales. Then the bottom fell out, because pressure groups decided that Dr. Rugg was a bit too "pink" to allow him to have any influen:;a on the children of this country. In less than six years, Rugg ' s sales fell more than 90 percent. "^Ibid. , p. 5. "^^Ibid., p. 34. '^'^Ibid., p. 35

PAGE 91

80 rpT ?he attacks or. ir-dividuals err.phasize, perhaps better :ir.ar. any otr.er example, -che comnitraent of pressure groups -c iieclocy. Tj-.ese groups are v/illing to go to any lengths necessajry -z prevent a book's being used which the groups dec^ie _s not in keeping with the ideology of this society, at leas-, not in keeping with their interpretation of that ideology. Summary Altnough this has been a rather detailed chapter, its purpose has been quite simple. The chapter has explained the ideal and the practical manifestations of history as an intellectual discipline. The chapter has noted that in the ideal state of history, historians answer questions about the past by selecting facts which present as accurate a picture of the past as possible. In discussing more practical aspects of history, it v/as noted that historians are themselves human beings who reflect their own biases and their ovm positions in history. It was noted that, in this very practical state, history helps in the perpetuation of ideology, especially as it is written in history textbooks for use in high school American history courses. Having drawn a distinction between the ideal and practical functions of historians, several severe limitations of his-ory textbooks v/ere discussed. It was indicated that a-j-ncrs of -2;:rbooks operate out of an unwary ignorance, -.cr.Lz'r. is impcsec on them in part by the medium in which

PAGE 92

81 they -.vrite 3.r.± ir. parz by their own unconscious biases. In 3.tii-:.rr. , -z vas indicated that the practice of relying too niuc" cr. secor.iary sources results in slowing the process of z-izzL-~ the latest scholarship into the minds of school childreri. Finally, the impact of pressure groups was discussed, with emphasis on the fact that pressure is aimed not only at textbook authors, but also at selection committees in the various states and at textbook publishers. V^ith this background in mind, the survey of the high school American history textbooks, as rhetorical discourse, can begin.

PAGE 93

CHAPTER FOUR A DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMIC ARGUiMENTS IN SURVEYED AMERICAN HISTORY TEXTBOOKS I. Identifying the Host Widely Used Textbooks, 1920-1969 II. Wars Used in the Study III. Describing the Data A. Arguments B. Illustrating the Distribution of Arguments C. Categories D. Movement in the Arguments 82

PAGE 94

CHAPTER FOUR A DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMIC ARGUMENTS IN SURVEYED AT'IERICAN HISTORY TEXTBOOKS Identifying the Most Widely Used Textbooks, 1920-1969 Various sources were used to gather information needed to identify the most widely used high school American history textbooks for the period 1920-1969. Throughout the history of American education, studies of textbooks have been carried out for many different purposes. Some of these studies have been authorized by committees of organization interested in some aspect of education, while others have been written by individual scholars interested in specific textbook content as it relates to educational problems. All of the studies have at least two things in common: (1) their authors have a strong desire to be able to generalize from the results of the studies and have, therefore, tended to use the most widely used textbooks for their analyses; and (2) all the studies have tended to be limited in the range of time covered due, in large part, it seems, to the great difficulty of obtaining information regarding the extent of use oE textbooks prior to the time contemporary with the studies' ceir.a written. 83

PAGE 95

84 Because ^l-.is srudy was designed to cover a specific -^r.e rericc ~f fiifty years, it became necessary to utilize a z~^^-^~.-studies limited to shorter spans of time to buili a list of high school American history textbooks which v;ere the r.ost widely used between the years 1920 and 1969. The use of these other studies for that purpose was dictated by the adamant unwillingness on the part of the publishers or the industry-wide publishing association to divulge information which would help in building the list needed. A total of seventeen studies of high school textbooks was used to build the list of most widely used textbooks to One of the most disappointing encounters was v/ith a high-ranking official of the Association of Araerican Publishers. This organization is the industry-wide association which keeps track of the growth of the industry, provides publishing houses with a variety of information requested by them, and provides whatever other services that may be requested from within the industry. According to the particular individual contacted, the Association has on hand, or can obtain, any circulation information one might need for scholarly purposes. The Association will not release the information, however, because it is "classified" by industry officials . Since such information could be released to scholars without revealing specific sales figures, some pressure should be brought to bear on the industry to bring about release of this information. There are many legitimate textbook studies which need to be carried out, but which cannot even be attempted without an inordinate amount of unnecessary, non-academic "busy work" on the part of the scholar. The publishing industry is, perhaps, understandably protective about specific sales figures. But, the industry has taken an extre.^.e and petty defensive stance on these matters. It would be a relatively simple and non-threatening matter to prepare ir.a release generalized lists of the "most widely used" :: : r :s in various fields and for different time periods. Hcpeful--r-hers will join in an effort to make such lists

PAGE 96

85 ze used as rheccricai documents in this study. Of the se-7S:--e~r. s--:.±:.~s used, twelve were doctoral dissertations = ---"-? '-'-zr: various aspects of the content or organization or .-.: r.school American history textbooks. The remaining "Specifically, the following seventeen sources were used to build the list of textbooks to be used as rhetorical documents in this study: James Edward Baxter, Selection and C ensorship of Public School Textbooks (A Descriptive Study) Ph.D. dissertation (University of Southern Mississippi, 1964) ; Ray Allen Billington, The Historians' Contribution to Anglo-American Misunderstanding (New York: Hobbs, Dorman & Company, Inc., 1966); The Canada-United States Committee on Education, A Study of National History Textbooks Used in the Schools of Canada and the Uni ted States (Canada: The American Council on Education, 1947) ; Marie Elizabeth Carpenter, The Treatment of the Negro in American History School Text books (Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Company, 1941) ; June Roediger Chapin, Differentiation of Content in United States History Textbooks , Ed.D. dissertation (Stanford University, 1963) ; John Wagner Hanson, An Inquiry into the Role of History Textbooks in Improving Understanding of Human Action s, Ph.D. dissertation (University of Illinois, 1953); Leon Hellerman, An Analysis of President Polk's Mexican Policy in Selected American History Textbooks for Secondary School , Ed.D. dissertation (New York University, 1972) ; Robert Addison Meredith, The Treatment of United States Mexican Relations in Secondary United States History Text books Published Since 1956 , Ed.D. dissertation (New York University, 1968) ; Helen N. Merritt, Certain Social Move ments as Reflected in United States History Textbooks , Ph.D. dissertation (New York University, 1952) ; Andrew Peiser, An Analysis of the Treatment Given to Selected Aspects of Populism and the Populist Party in American History High~ ~ School Textbooks , Ed.D. dissertation (New York University, 1971) ; Bessie Louise Pierce, Civic Attitudes in American School Textbooks (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1930) ; Pierce, Public Opinion and the Teaching of History in the United States (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926) ; Robert H. Ratcliffe, A Critical Analysis of the Treatment Given Repre sentative Social Science Ideas in Leading Eleventh Grade Ameri cTn History Textbooks , Ph.D. dissertation (Northwestern Univem-y, 1970); Masamitsu Tamashiro, An Analysis of Sel ect--d Aspects of United StatesJapan Relations from 1905 to 19' £5 J3und in High School History Textbooks of Both :;atic-i . Zi.Z. dissertation (New York University. 1972); Ed . D .

PAGE 97

86 five studies vere books which tended to deal with somewhat :crca.der ascec-s of textbooks. Although very few of the s-ufies =ur"/eyed textbooks drawn from more than a six-year per_::c. --e studies did overlap sufficiently to provide a corr.pr 2--er.sive list of the entire period being treated by this study. The final list gathered in this manner contained a total of one hundred eighteen books spread over the five decades being focused on in this study. In order to provide equal representation to each of the five decades, a decision was made to decrease the total number of books to fifty and to distribute that number equally among the five decades. Then, to produce this final list, ten books v;ere selected at random fx'om the list of most widely used American history textbooks for each of the five decades. "" The fifty books thus chosen constitute the rhetorical documents for this study and are labeled as such in the bibliography. Clarence Benjamin Wadleigh, Jr., Questions in American History Textbooks as Contributors to Development of Thinking Skills , Ed.D. dissertation (Stanford University, 1959) ; and Katrina Yielding, An Evaluation of Selected Secondary School Text books in the United States History, Based on an Analysis of the Treatment Given the Topic: Government Involvement in the Economy , Ed.D. dissertation (Auburn University, 1967). 3 In actuality, thirteen books per decade were selected at random. The only feasible way to obtain the books was to order them, through the inter-library loan system. It was feared that not all of the books could be easily located, or at all _-he case of some textbooks long out of print. As protec-.iiagainst coming up short, therefore, thirteen books per derafe -.'ere ordered, with the intention of using the first ten cer iaraae which were obtained.

PAGE 98

87 wars Used in the Study In its nearly two hundred years of existence, the United r-azes has been involved in many wars. Some of them were fc^rhby .--.erican colonists even before they had gained their :.r.i.ependence. Some of the wars were relatively minor affairs involving the colonists and Indian tribes, while others were global in scope. Generally, however, nine v^;ars are considered to have been the major wars in which the United Srates has been involved. Listed chronologically, they are: the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican-.-_Tierican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the war in Vietnam, Of the nine major wars, only seven are treated by this study. The Civil War is omitted because of its unique status of being an "in house" struggle. Although some foreign powers were involved in helping one or the other of the two sides, it was, strictly speaking, not an international struggle. Furthermore, it v/as felt that arguments used for and against this war would be unique to it. The Vietnam War also was omitted from consideration in this study. That war has been completed since this study was beg-r. , although there is still considerable trouble involvinr attempts to enforce the ceasefire. In addition, the war was noc concluded during the five decades of the study. Z'r.-3, although ^he beginning of the war is mentioned in some

PAGE 99

of the textbcc;-:3 drawn froni the late 1960 's, the conclusion zz the war is severed in none of the textbooks surveyed. J^r.ally, ivas felt that there has not been enough time s^r--= -r.e ceasefire to permit placing the Vietnam War in its prccer perspective. Describing the Data Arg'jner.-s Iz. was indicated in Chapter One that the textbooks would be surveyed to glean from them: (1) all reasons listed by each textbook for America's entry into each war, (2) all reasons cited by each text for withdrawing from each war, and (3) all cited dissenting arguments against entry into or withdrawal from each war. Once gathered, these arguments totaled V7ell over two thousand individual statements. The final area projected for study--arguments against v;ithdrawal-did not materialize in the textbooks, although there was mention of opposition to specific aspects of various treaties. Arguments for and against treaties, however, were not treated in this study. For purposes of this study, the statements drawn from 4 the textbooks generated twenty-one individual arguments. Only five of those arguments v/ere opposed to entering v>7ars. "For purposes of this study, all of the individual syntheses of -he statements generated by surveying the textbooks will be called arguments. It is fully recognized that these = rp--:_-.ents are. -cechnically speaking, categories in themselves, zs.-he term category v/ill be reserved for groups of argu-ents which are similar to each other.

PAGE 100

89 Fourteen syster.ic argi.rr.er.t3 were identified in the area of reasons for entering war. Only two arguments for v/ithdrawing f rcn wars 'were identified, and one of them was unique to the War cf 1S12There were, as has been noted, no arguments agai-3z withdrawing from wars. Following is an illustration of the way statements from the textbooks were grouped together to form the synthesized argunenzs. The four statements used in the illustration were drawn at random from the many statements encompassed by the argument, "The enemy encouraged other peoples against America.'' The sample statements are from four different textbooks and deal with two different wars: "The British also encouraged the Indian chief Tecumseh, who welded together the Indians of the Northwest under British protection and gave signs of restlessness presaging a revolt"; "The arms the defeated tribesmen left behind obviously had been received from the British. The Americans drew the logical conclusion that the English were up to their old tricks: plotting with the Indians against the frontiersmen"; "It was announced that Germany was planning to join with Japan and Mexico in an attack upon our country, and that in the event of success Mexico, as a reward for her assistance, was to receive -he states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas"; and "There were German spies plotting against and even destroying Ar.eri^an industries, while other German agents schemed to ir.vc'lve us ir. a war with Mexico."

PAGE 101

90 Now, these four s~3.z.a-.er-~s, and the many others from vhich chey were fraxvn, were relatively easy to deal with, frr -hey st^re rather blatantly that the country with v^hich we vere 3o::~ ro be at war was encouraging others against us. Havi-r irscerned the obvious similarity among these statements, rremained only to derive an argument which would accurately reflect the coimnon denominator of the statements. "The er.er.y encouraged other peoples against America" seemed to fill -r.e need. It was simple; it did not distort the meaning inplicit in the individual statements which it was to represent; and it provided a general wording which could encompass all similar statements. By fulfilling these requirements, the syntehsized argument accurately represents many statements in one. The same procedure was employed in deriving all of the systhesized arguments for and against entering wars. Of course, not all of the arguments were as easy to derive as the one just cited, but nothing was forced. If a statement could not be fit into an appropriate slot, as was the case with "War was inevitable," it was left to stand alone. Thus, there are some arguments v/hich refer only to one war, while others are used for several wars. It was assumed that the general r.atura of the arguments v/ould make them applicable to se-reral -.-.ars, but this v/as not always the case. The dara v-"ere divided into three areas. The first area czr.-a.ins fourteen systemic arguments used in the rhetorical

PAGE 102

91 discourse of -he rexzoooks to justify American entry into ""ar . The Z2ir-=en systemic arguments favoring entry are: {1} Il-.ere v;aS widespread pressure v;ithin America to enter the -. = rr 2) The enemy claimed sovereignty over America and her p^-ple; (3) The enemy put her troops on American soil; (4) War was inevitable; (5) The enemy imposed unwanted taxes upon Americans; (6) America has a tradition of safeguarding the freedom of other countries; (7) America has a tradition of opposing inhumanity; (8) The enemy killed and wounded Americans; (9) The enemy violated the individual rights of Americans; (10) The enemy damaged America's trade and her right to neutrality; (11) American property was threatened, damaged, or destroyed by the enemy; (12) America desired to expand her territory; (13) The enemy encouraged other peoples against America; and (14) The enemy insulted the American flag. These fourteen systemic arguments comprise those articles of the American ideology which deal with entry into wars. Although a few other articles of the Aiaerican ideology v-zill be used to clarify some points, these fourteen are the articles specifically treated by the study. There v/ere only five arguments cited by the rhetorical documents as being reasons opposed to T^iinerican entry into the wars. These five are: (1) There was a widespread feeling Iall of these arguments, enemy refers to the coun:ry(ie= H.rainsc which America eventually m.ade war. At the .i.-e ci T.'.e action described by these arguments, Ajnerica was Lcz yer ar ".•"=r with the country (ies) so designated.

PAGE 103

92 -r.3.~ the juszif :.rari3n for entering the wars v/as unacceptable: (2) Arr.enca should never be the aggressor; (3) The Ur.i-ei B'-zas should not involve itself in other countries' v/ars4 Entering the war would damage American trade; and (5) --_T.er:Lca should not expand her territory. Only two synthesized arguments were used by the authors of the textbooks to discuss withdrawal from wars. The first of these tv/o — both sides grew weary of fighting — appeared only in relation to the War of 1812. It was repeated in the rhetorical discourse of the textbooks from each of the five decades. The other argument favoring withdrawal from wars was that America fulfilled her aims for the war. This argument was used to describe the reasons for withdrawing from all of the remaining six wars and was reported for those wars in each of the decades following the completion of the war. It should be clear that this second argument is a euphemism for the fact that America v/on the wars and could, therefore, indeed make the statement that she had fulfilled her aims for the war. Illustrating the Distribution of Arguments Table I is designed to illustrate the distribution-across time and across wars--of arguments opposing American entry into wars. Each of the columns represents one of the decades r::vered by this study and each of the rows represents r-.e cf the seven wars studied. By referring to the -a'::le. iran easily be ascertained which arguments against

PAGE 104

93 entering a pamrular -.var appeared in the rhetorical clocur.en-s from, a riven decade. For the sake of convenience, the arruner.ts represented by the numbers in the body of the tarle are lis-ed at the bottom of the table. The table and the ir.f rrriaion contained therein will be used if necessary in zr.= ar.alyses which follow in this and succeeding chapter sectiD"3. Table I Distribution of Arguments Against Entering Wars War 1920's 1930's 1940's 1950's 1960's Amer . Rev. War of 1812 Mex.Amer . Span. Amer. World War I World War II Korean 1* 1 1 1 1 1,4,5 4,5 4,5 1,4 4,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 5 1,5 4,5 3,4 3 3 3 3 *Nunber3 ir. the table correspond to the following list of arg-jzr.er-rs : (1) There was a widespread feeling that the ju3-if icaticn for entering the war was unacceptable; (Z .-^.-.erica shculd never be the aggressor; (3) The United Sia-es should not involve herself in other countries' v;ars; \~; Entering -he vv'ar would danage American trade; and v5) America sr.culd not expand her territory.

PAGE 105

94 Table II u-il-zes the 5a-;e basic format as Table I -0 present the z:.stribution information about the systemic arr-.inent5 favcrxng entry into wars. Again, each column recreser.-s zne of the five -decades covered in the study and each rf -he rows represents one of the wars studied. By referr^r-c: v.o the table, it can be ascertained readily which argume-z5 were used in the rhetorical discourse of the textbooks to justify American entry into each war studied. To make the table easier to read, the argiiments represented by numbers in the body of the table are listed at the bottom of the table. This table also will be available for use in the discussions which follow, especially in the discussion of the symbolic movement of systemic arguments across time and across wars. Table III is designed for a purpose different from that of the first two tables. Table III is designed to illustrate the pervasiveness of use -of each of the arguments for and against entry into each war. The fact that a specific systemic argument favoring entry into a particular war appears in a given decade does not give all the information needed about that argument. For purposes of analysis, it is also importar.to know how widespread v/as the use of that argument fcr a particular war. Table III provides that information. It specifically illustrates the percentage of books S'_rv5yed which use a given argijment in the discussion of a par::icular war. In this table, each of the seven columns

PAGE 107

96 Table III Percer.-are of Books Containing Each Argument •sr-.ar . "var of Mex . Span.World World a'.-. 1312 Ainer. Amer. War I War II Korean 1*

PAGE 108

97 represents a -.-.-ar covered by -r.is study and each of the nine-een rows represents one of the systemic arguments favoring ----eriran er.-ry into wars — numbers 1-14 — or one of the arguner.-s agair.sz entering wars — numbers 1A-5A. Of course, this table -.-ill also be referred to v\?hen necessary in the analyses whicn fellow. Cateccries Al-.-Qugh each of the arguments is itself a synthesis of many s-azements, it also seems reasonable to be able to group the sys-e.-nic arguments favoring war into categories. The small nuriber of arguments opposing American entry into wars makes it unnecessary to include them in this categorization. The reason for grouping the systemic arguments is that there appear to be "clusters" of arguments v;hich are quite similar to each other. Furthermore, by grouping, patterns of arguments across wars and across time may be made clearer. It may be that there are no individual arguments which are used across all wars or in all decades; but, the category in which a particular argument appears may be used in every war, or in the rhetorical discourse of all books for a particular war, thus illustrating, quite clearly, helical movement of argumer.-s across wars. When corr^pared, the fourteen systemic arguments favoring American encr^ into wars divide themselves into four catercries, each consisting of at least two of the systemic ^rr-cr:.ents . Cacegory I — There was a pro-war sympathy in the

PAGE 109

98 country--inclui = 3 zwc s-s-er.ic arguments: (1) There was widespread pressure within America to enter the war; and 12} America desired to expand her territory. Both of these ar— ^mer.-s refer not just to a reason or justification for e--erz.-~g wars, but also to a v/illingness to enter wars. The first of the included arguments — pro-war pressure — prese--3 no problem fitting into this category. There may be sr.-e question, however, about the placement in this category 3Z -he second of the included arguments — desire for m.ore terri-cry. The rationale for its inclusion is quite simple. During -hose times when there was expansionist sympathy in America, that sympathy lent itself readily to the support of any war which might bring additional territory in the event of an American victory.. Thus, although the expansionist sentiment is not in itself purely a pro-war sentiment, it does lend itself to support of war. Category II — The enemy made political and physical claims on America — embraces three systemic arguments: (2) The enemy claimed sovereignty over America and her people; (3) The enemy put her troops on American soil; and (5) The enemy imposed unwanted taxes upon Americans. All three of these systemic arguments involve a claim of sovereignty -ver America by the enemy. Ca-erory III — Ajnerica is the protector of other peoples-al£2 includes "wo systemic arguments favoring American entry ir.zo wars: , : ". America has a tradition of safeguarding the

PAGE 110

99 fraedon of ether cour.tries; and (7) America has a tradition cf opposing inh-.:r?.anity . This category includes two argu~ar.-s -vhio.-. are used in the rhetorical discourse to support the p -er-cr;en.oa which has come, in contemporary times, to be knewis America's self-proclaimed role as policeman to the world. Tnese two arguments are generally used in discussing America's position that she entered particular wars in part because she felt it her duty to help others. Category IV — The enemy harmed America — is the broadest of the categories and includes six arguments supporting America's entry into wars: (8) The enemy killed and wounded Americans; (9) The enemy violated the individual rights of Americans; (10) The enemy damaged America's trade and her right to neutrality; (11) American property was threatened, damaged, or destroyed by the enemy; (13) The enemy encouraged other peoples against America; and (14) The enemy insulted the American flag. These six arguments comprise the category most widely used in the rhetorical documents' discussions of American entry into wars. Anytime another nation actually harmed, or threatened to harm, America in some way, that harm was in itself, or became a significant part of, the stated reason for America's going to v/ar with that country. Inclusion of the insult to the flag argument in this category -r.ay need clarification. Every time insulting the flag was rr.encioned in the rhetorical discourse of the textbooks,. Lreferred specifically to something which had been

PAGE 111

100 done to an Ar:Ler:L~an ship. In the War of 1812, for example, the boarding of American ships and impressment of American sailors by -he British was later referred to, in Madison's %ar -essage, as an insult to the American flag. The same ar^-siz-ar.is used by some textbook authors to label the Japanese bombing of an American gunboat on the Yangtze River prior -3 America's entry into World War II. Thus, the phrase, "an insult to the American flag" seems to have become a euphemism for some actual physical harm, or threat of harm, -o an American ship. In addition to the actual or threatened harm described by these systemic arguments, some of the arguments also involve the pricking of American pride. It is perceived, for example, as a slap in the face that any other country would violate the rights of American citizens, encour"age other peoples against America's outreaching friendship, or insult the American flag. Thus, the pricking of American pride adds weight to the harm or threatened harm described by each of the systemic arguments included in this category. Since the systemic arguments labeled and illustrated earlier in the chapter collapse into these categories, it should be helpful to illustrate the distribution of the categories as well as the individual arguments. Therefore, Table IV is iesirned to illustrate the distribution of the categcries across time and across wars. Each of the five columns of z.he table represents one of the five decades included in

PAGE 112

101 Table IV Distribution of Categories War l?2:'s 1930's 1940's 1950's 1960's Aner. Rev . War of 1812 Mex . Amer . Span. Amer. World War I World War II Korean I,IZ,IV* I, II, IV I, II, IV I, II, IV II, IV I, IV I, IV I, IV I, IV I, IV I, II, IV I, II, IV I, II, IV I, II, IV I, II, IV I, III, IV I, III, IV I, III, IV I, III, IV I, III, IV I, III, IV I, III, IV I, III, IV I, III, IV I, III, IV III, IV I, III, IV I, III, IV III III *The numerals in the above table correspond to the following list of categoriesCategory I— There was a pro-war sympathy in the country — includes systemic arguments (1) There was v/idepread pressure within America to enter the war; and (12) America desired to expand her territory. Category II — The enemy made political and physical claims on America--includes systemic arguments (2) The enemy claimed sovereignty over America and her people; (3) The enemy put her troops on American soil; and (5) The enemy imposed unwanted taxes upon Americans. Category III — America is the protector of other peoples — includes systemic arguments (6) America has a tradition of safeguarding the freedom of other countries; and (7) America has a tradition of opposing inhumanity. Category IV--The enemy harmed A--.erica — includes systemic arguments (8) The enemy killed ar.d wounded Americans; (9) The enemy violated the individual rights of Americans; (10) The enemy damaged America's trade ar.d her right to neutrality; (11) American property was threatened, iar.aged, or destroyed by the enemy; (13) The enemy enccuraged c-her peoples against America; and (14) The enemy insul-ed the Arr.erican flag.

PAGE 113

102 this study. Each of -r.B rc>5 represents one of the seven wars studied. 3y referring to the table, it is possible to ascertain readily v/hich categories were used to describe a par-icular var in any given decade. To facilitate reading the zable, -he categories represented by the roman numerals in -r-e table are listed at the bottom of the table. As was the case with the previous tables, this table will be referred -3 when necessary in the analyses which follow. In introducing the section on categories, it was indicated -hat a category might appear more frequently than a particular systemic argument contained within that category. Since the arguments within a category are all quite similar, the appearance of one would be as good, argumentatively speaking, as the appearance of any other. By the mere appearance of a category, the thrust of the arguments contained within that category would have been made. It will be helpful to illustrate the pervasiveness of the categories in the same way the pervasiveness of the individual arguments was illustrated . In order to provide a fuller picture of the pervasiveness of the categories. Table V is included. The function of Table V parallels that of Table III, and the two tables have siriilar designs. For purposes of analysis, it is important CO know how frequently each category was used in the rheccrical discourse of the textbooks. Table V specifically ^scrates cr.a percentage of textbooks surveyed which t , .

PAGE 114

103 Table V :are of Books Containing Each Category War of Mex.Span.World World 1812 Amer. Amer. War I War II Korean I*

PAGE 115

104 utilize a given. :;acegory in the discussion of a particular var. In this -able, each of the columns represents one of -he vars covered by the study, and each of the rows repres^--s one of z.he four categories. To facilitate reading the tahle, each category is listed below the table and an indicat^cr. ^3 nade of v;hich systemic arguments are contained within each category. As with the other tables, this one may be referred to in the analyses which follow. Movenenn in the Arguments In Chapter One, it v/as suggested that the data gleaned from the surveyed textbooks might provide some clues as to the ways in which the rhetoric of ideology moves symbolically. Two different kinds of movement were described as useful to this study and were defined thusly: rectilinear movement occurs when arguments change; helical movement occurs v/hen arguments recur. There are two ways to identify rectilinear movement in this study. The first involves noting if a war was described differently across time. That is, if the arguments about that v;ar changed, then those arguments moved rectilinear ly . The second method involves noting whether the arguments about -.vars generally changed from v/ar to war. That is, if every var -,;ere justified using different arguments, rectilinear mover.ent was present across v/ars . Each war would not have ~o be treaned in a unique manner, but only be described by using different arguments to indicate rectilinear movement,

PAGE 116

105 Similarly, -here are tvo ways helical movement can be identified. Jirsc, if arguments recur across periods of tirr.e for a particular vvar , the arguments about that war are ncvir.g helically. Although the times change and knowledge ahcuthe wars increases, the arguments remain the same, thus creating a helical pattern of movement. Second, if the same arg"-i3ents recur across wars, then the arguments about war ir. general may be said to move helically. Again, the wars were different and were fought in different time periods. Thus, if arguments recur when discussing different wars, rhat recurrence is evidence of helical movement. In order to determine whether rectilinear or helical movement occurred in the arguments gleaned from the rhetorical discourse of the high school American history textbooks surveyed, four areas need to be examined: movement in arguments across wars; movement in arguments across time of publication; the effect of wartime publication on arguments used; and the use of some arguments to explain all wars . Movement in arguments across wars . --As might be expected, there is considerable rectilinear movement across wars. The arguments for entering wars change from war to war. 3uthere is also helical movement across wars. Although ::he cor.ditions surrounding entry vary from war to war, rhere is r.o v/ar totally unlike any other war when viewed in terr-.s of the arguments used to justify American entry into wars.

PAGE 117

105 It is this overlapping of reasons for entry into wars that dexnons-_ra-.es the helical movement across wars. There is far more nelical movement across wars than rectilinear r.ove..ent. Arguments and categories are frequently repeated f--.=: war ro war. This fact is best illustrated by Table IVOf the four categories plotted on Table IV, only Category Il-enemy made claims on America-appears in less tnan ha_f of the wars, appearing in only two. Of the remaining .hree categories. Category Ill-protector of other peoples-appears in four wars. Category I-pro-war sympathyappears in six wars, and Category IV-enemy harmed Americaappears in six of the seven wars studied. Thus, although there is movement of both kxnds in the arguments used to justify entry into wars, there is greater helical movement than rectilinear. ^^^^^^^^^ntJ^II^rgume^ p^^^^^^ ^^ movement of arguments across time is even more one-sided than the movement across wars. Again, there is both rectilinear and helical movement across time. Across time, however, the difference between rectilinear and helical movement is even greater than the difference across wars. From tne standpoint of the rhetorical function of ideology, the grea-.er air.ount of helical movement is significant because Of tne implication that the ideology's position on tir.e war does nor have to chancre.

PAGE 118

107 Basically, -hs sarr.e arg-jrr.ents are used across time to justify entry :.r.zo a particular v/ar. There is, however, sone rectilinear movement. For example. Table IV indicates -.".a3ategor:.e5 I — pro-war pressure, II--enemy made claims c~ .-jierica, and IV--enemy harmed America — are the main categor-es used to explain the American Revolution. Each of these -rjree categories was used to explain the war in four of tl-^e five decades covered by this study. These same categories riiay have been used in each Ajtierican history textbook since che first one was published, but that is sheer speculation and is beyond the scope of this study. In addition, however, the table indicates that during the 1960's, Category I — pro-war sympathy — ceases to be used for that purpose. The disappearance of Category I in the 1960 's suggests there is some rectilinear movement in the arguments across time for the American Revolutuion. A check of Table III, however, indicates that only one of the systemic arguments in that category, namely number I — widespread pressure within Ainerica--was used and that it was used in only 10.2 percent of the rhetorical documents. In addition, a further check of Table IV confirms that there is only one other instance — in World War II — of rectilinear movement across ti.T^e fcr any of the seven wars studied. When the categories are used fcr analysis, then, rectilinear movement is minimal. If Table II :.s used for analysis, more rectilinear movement can be identified in four of the wars — the American

PAGE 119

108 Revolution, the :-:a:--:Lcar--.--.erican War, the Spaxnish-American •.ar, and Worl'Car II--but that: movement is insignificant aue -o the s^-^larity of the changing arguments. V(hxle -.-.ere is little rectilinear movement across time, --ere is a great deal of helical movement. A glance at ei-r_er Tahle II or Table IV will indicate the extent of rscurrerce of arguments across time. Each war is treated in v:Lr--ially the same way in each of the five decades surveyec. Zr. fact, when categories are considered, every war excepr r~a American Revolution is treated the same way throuchcut the five decades. It seems to make no difference that over the years a great deal more has been learned about each of the wars than was known when the first of the surveyed books was written. Once an argument is established, it seems to acquire the presumption of the status quo and continues to be used without challenge, just as the guardians of ideology v/ould like it to be. This helical movement is not quite as prevalent in the arguments opposed to American entry into the wars. As Table I indicates, only the Mexican-American War and World War II are treated the same way by the rhetorical discourse of the textbooks across the five decades. Although the other -rars have some recurrence of arguments, there is considerably -ore rectilinear movement of arguments against these wars. Although the intent obviously cannot be proved, ----13 ract see-3 to indicate reluctance on the part of the

PAGE 120

109 textbook authors ro deal wich objections to the various wars. If no such reluc::ance were present, there would be more holical nover.e.-c indicating a consistent approach on the ~=.r~ of zT.osauthors--sirailar to the consistency indicated i-j-.e treatment of the pro-war arguments. As it is, a sigr.^f ;.;ar.z number of authors fail to treat arguments opposed -z -he wars at all. Chapter Five will consider the treaznie.-of arguments opposing entry into wars in more detail. Descriptively, it need only be noted at this point that tr.ere is considerably more rectilinear movement among the arruinents opposing entry into wars than there is among the systemic arguments favoring American entry into the various wars. Wartime publication did not have a significant effect on the arguments used . --Although it is generally agreed that the mood of a country is more nationalistic* during a war than during peace, this nationalism does not seem to change the way established patterns of arguments are used in the textbooks surveyed. The country was engaged in war during parts of three of the five decades surveyed, but the nationalistic spirit of wartime did not seem to affect significantly the established approach to the wars, either those wars ccn-eriporary with the publication date or those fought prior zo publication of the texts. It is interesting, hcverer, thar slightly fewer opposition arguments appear in -r.e 1940 's or zhe 1950' s, both decades containing wars.

PAGE 121

110 Th e use of sor.e arg-:i~:er.-3 co explain all wars . --Although zhere was no one argument which v;as universally applicable -z all of the v^rs studied, it is significant that three of i^he four categories v/ere used to justify more than half of the vars azd that two of the categories were used to justify all z-zna of the wars. It is also significant to note tha-r.e "var not covered by those categories is the Korean War. In rhe other six wars, it was argued that the enemy had hirr-ed America in some way and that there was strong pressure within the country to enter the war. Neither of these ranegories could be used for the Korean War since America entered that war as a result of a unilateral decision which marked the maturing of the idea that America has become the self-proclaimed policeman of the world.

PAGE 122

chapter five a:;alysis, evaluation, and projections IAssertion of Fact in Systemic Arguments A. Errors of Omission B. Errors of Commission II. Transformation of Patriotic Appeals into Systemic Arguments III. The Tone of the Textbooks Surveyed A. Treatment of Controversy Surrounding Wars B. America Is Always Right IV. Significance of the Symbolic Movement V. A Concluding Statement A. Summary B. Some Projections of the Study .11

PAGE 123

CHAPTER FIVE ANALYSIS, EVALUATION, AND PROJECTIONS :;cw -hat the data have been described, it is necessary to proceed to the question of what it all means. The meaning and significance of the systemic arguments gleaned from the -ncswidely used high school American history textbooks can be ascertained by focusing on four specific aspects of the systemic arguments: (1) the assertion of facts in systemic arguments; (2) the practice of transforming patriotic appeals into systemic arguments; (3) the tone of the author's presentation of the arguments; and (4) the significance of discernible symbolic movement present in the data from the textbooks. Assertion of Fact in Systemic Arguments Whatever other properties a systemic argument may have, it must, by definition, be an assertion of putative fact. The assertive nature is a necessary requisite in order that recipients of such arguments perceive that what they are reading or hearing is the truth, not just a presentation of one side of an issue. To allow the populace to perceive systenic =rr-:~ents as just another collection of opinions would be t3 z.^zea.-he instructive purpose of the arguments. Thus, all szzr. argur.er.ts are presented as assertions of fact. 112

PAGE 124

113 While carrying out t'na rhetorical function of ideology, however, authors of the rhetorical documents used in this szudy ofan fall into errors of a rather basic nature. Such errors nav or may not be serious or unethical in and of rh^r.selves. When combined, however, they virtually preclude the ccssibility of gaining from the textbooks an accurate unders-anding of America's entry into wars — which is the sub^ecmatter of the systemic arguments being studied. The resul-3 of this study indicate that history textbook authors make such errors, and the purpose of this section is to discuss --'.e form and significance of such errors. Errors of Omission In Chapter Two, it was indicated that one of the rhetorical functions of ideology is to simplify the complex social and political issues so that the populace can more easily internalize ideological positions on these issues. By wording the systemic arguments as assertions of fact, authors of the rhetorical discourse of textbooks contribute to this simplification. The simplification, however, is carried to such an extreme in the textbook setting that it creates a distorted picture of the actual causes of America's wars. The r.ost extreme exaniple of this practice encountered -.vas -he one book which declared simply that the American Revolution "-.v-as inevitable." Vv^hile that statement was an isolated instance, virtually every surveyed book played an

PAGE 125

114 active role in the iaeolcgical practice of simplifying complex reasons ir.-o systeziic arguements . One of -'r.e problems inherent in assertions is that they cf-en lack thorough explanation or evidence. Such is the case "-.-izh tr.e systemic arguments for war in the history textbcc.-:3 surveyed. For example, one book indicates that "American za-azens, by virtue of their ancient traditions of der.ccracy, naturally sympathized with a war for independence and self-government." Thus, America's tradition of safeguarding ~he freedom of other countries is cited as one of the na.-~ reasons for entering the Spanish-American War. Yet, there as no effort to prove the statement that America has a tradition of safeguarding the freedom of other countires. The assertion stands alone. Another book, speaking of the same war, states thab the American people "turned with enthusiasm to a crusade to free an oppressed people," neglecting the rather significant role played by the "yellow press" in building and encouraging that enthusiasm. In both cases, there is little support for the assertions made, and even less development of the complex issues which surround and 1 modify the war. ~Zas not the author's memory or knowledge of American his tor"/ whazn is being relied on to produce the statements concerning ahe definitive historical interpretation of the vrars. Dr. Jah-i Mahon of the University of Florida Department cf r.istory supplied a list of the definitive works on each cf aae wars included in this study. The definitive vjorks ana ahe 'v/ars ahey treat are: (1) The American Revolution — John C. Miller, Origins of the American Revolution (Boston:

PAGE 126

115 Even those books vhich nencion the fact that the "yellow press" influenoed the feelings of Americans toward the war seeni to make .-er.tion of the fact almost as an afterthought. Ihadwick, on rhe other hand, calls attention to the fact that "--. greau democracy, the eduction of whose masses usually er^zs '-^---'si the public school, and v\7hose library, later, is the r.evspaper , does not reason with a volume of interna2 tiona_aw m xts hand. ..." Chadwick proceeds to explain --a enormity of the role played by the so-called yellow press ir. stirring up the emotions and arousing the "prejudices ar.d sympathies" of the American people prior to the war. Perhaps in no other war has journalistic sensationalism played such a key role in the pre-war attitude of the people; yet very little is made of this practice in most of the rhetorical documents surveyed. Of course, the error of painting an inaccurate picture may be caused in part by the fact that textbook authors are Little, Brown and Company, 1943) ; (2) the War of 1812 — Reginald Horsman, The Causes of the War of 1312 (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962); (3) the Mexican-American War — Justin H. Smith, The War With Mexico (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1919) ; (4) the SpanishAmerican War--French Ensor Chadwick, The Relations of the United Szates and Spain (New York: Russell & Russell, 1968); (5) World War I — Frederic L. Paxson, American Democracy and the World War: Pre-War Days, 1913-1917 (New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1966); (6) World War II — Herbert Feis, The P.oad to Pearl Harbor (Princeton: Princeton Universi--Press, 1950); (7) the Korean V7ar--John W. Spanier, A-T.erican Foreirn Policy Since World Vvar II (New York: Frederick A. Praerer, Inc., 1960); and (8) the Vietnam War — George McTurnan Kahin and John W. Lewis, The United States ir. Vietnam (^7ew York: the Dial Press, 1967) . ^Chadwick, po. 432-433

PAGE 127

115 severely United in space available. But the problem goes beyond rr.ere sir.plif icauion to ignoring or over-simplifying significant fac-ors surrounding the wars being discussed. 3ne of zne prime examples of this kind of omission is --=cnly one of the textbooks surveyed makes mention of the ph^_rscp:-ical climate surrounding the American Revolution. Dur:.r.g rne eighteenth century, there was a global atmosphere of revelation, change, and freedom. In the colonies, according cc .-liller, that feeling was fed by the philosophical treacraent of the Glorious Revolution in the writings of John Locke. The definitive work gives major emphasis to the mood of the times and to the philosophical currents which influenced the thinking of the American people.^ Despite the ready availability of such information, most of the textbook authors seem disinterested in couching systemic arguments in the context of the times. The authors do not seem to think seriously about the possibility of improving the information content of the books while continuing to use systemic arguments to perpetuate the ideology. From the ideological standpoint, this omission of support may be the most direct way to accomplish the purpose of teaching the students a set of systemic arguments. With no great volumes of detailed explanations, support statements, or opp 3 5^ng viewpoints to contend with, the students can conc5-3rare -heir primary efforts on learning the systemic Miller, ro. 167-197

PAGE 128

117 argument encour.-ared in -he rhe-crical discourse of American history textbco^-cs. Of coarse, there is a degree of accuracy in all of the 5ys-emic arg-oments. The distortion of reality results, not frc3 what is presented, but from the great amount of detail, ccr.-3x-, and explanation which is omitted. The omitted marer:Lal brings an entirely new perspective to the events being discussed. As might be expected, when compared to the fuller pz-czure presented in the definitive works, systemic arg-jTzen-s standing alone do not present an entirely accurate picture dz the reasons for entering wars. The omission of importar.details creates a simplism formed by a very careful selection of material which supports only the ideological position. Returning again to the Spanish-American War as an example, it is true that most of the textbooks surveyed acknowledged the fact that no proof was ever found of the cause of the sinking of the Maine . But, these same books fail to deal adequately with the treatment of the Maine's sinking in the press, with the reason for the Maine's presence in Havana harbor, or with the complexities of the negotiations which had been going on between America and Spain concerning the situa-ion in Cuba. Instead, the books simplify the incident vvirh such explanations as: "The American battleship Maine , anchored in Havana harbor, ".Nras blown up and sunk. Believing that: the Spanish had done this, many Americans clamored for

PAGE 129

113 war"; "On tha r.ighz of February 15, 1S98, the United States battleship Maine , which had been feent to Havana harbor to crotect the in-erests of Americans, was destroyed and two hundred and fifty of her crew were killed"; and "it [the Uniuec States] was horrified by the news that on the e'-^r.-^'z of February 15 the battleship Maine , on a friendly visit in the harbor of Havana, had been sunk by a terrific explosion, carrying two officers and 266 men to the bot-c3. The Spanish government immediately . . expressed its sorrow over the 'accident' to the American warship. But the conviction that the Maine had been blown up from the 4 outside seized on our people with uncontrollable force." Through such simplistic treatments of the sinking of the Maine , the textbooks help to confuse rather than clarify the reasons for America's entry into the war. Chadwick indicates that it is absurd to say that the Maine v/as on a "friendly" mission. If anything, the ship was in Havana harbor as a show of force, indicating to Spain that the United States was dead serious in her demands that hostilities cease in Cuba. Cuba was so close to the shore of the United States that it was felt necessary to bring hosnilz-ries to an end as soon as possible. There was also, of course, a possible threat to the vast American holdings in Cuba. America had been engaged in efforts to force Spain to recognize Cuba's independence. All of Chadwick 's A ChadwicK, pp. 293ff-

PAGE 130

119 revelations indicaca thar -he Maine v/as in Havana strictly on business. The problem of oversimplification cannot be solved im-ediately. :::either classroom time nor textbook space allow f-11 disc^-ission of each war. In addition, of course, the teac-ers zhemselves are, for the most part, not fully trained to dispel -che cloud of inaccuracy which prevents full understai:dir.g. Some attempt could be made on the part of textboclv aucdors to deal more thoroughly with major contributing fac-ors surrounding entry into wars and to direct highly motiva-ed students to definitive sources where they could study -de wars in more detail. For::unately , perhaps in response to criticism of textbooks, there is one area in which some progress is being made to alleviate this problem. The most contemporary textbooks read seem to be providing more detail. Not all of this detail takes the form of substantiation of systemic arguments, which are still set forth with great regularity. Nor does the added detail eradicate the simplisms which those argum.ents represent. But, some of the additional detail is being devoted to such things as describing some of the economic and social conditions which were contributory causes of American entry inzo ".vars. Errors of Czzzz?.Lssion There is another kind of distortion. This one results from misrepresenting the facrs. Wars are admittedly.

PAGE 131

120 extremely complex; and ±is quite difficult to gain ade^ quate understanding of the reasons for them without extensive study. Idoes the mind of even a high school student an injustice, however, when he can leave a course in Americahistory firmly believing that the American Revolution was caused by the tyranny of George III. Such impressions • are highly probable , since students are reading sysuenic arguments about wars rather than less slanted accounus of the wars. Misrepresentation of fact was common in the rhetorical disccurse of the textbooks. Books from every decade, for example, offer as one of the primary reasons for America's going to war with Mexico the statement borrowed from President Polk's v;ar message that . American blood had been shed on American soil. It is true that some of General Taylor's troops were killed by Mexican soldiers, but it is not true that the men were killed on American soil. The men were killed on land which was the subject of a serious boundary dispute between the two countries. The land had been claimed, but never occupied, by Texas prior to that state's being annexed by the Uniued States. But, the area was both claimed and occupied by 2-Iexico, whose citizens had lived there for years. Sere books -ention briefly the boundary dispute, but almost all proceed uo assert that Aiaarican blood was shed on American soil. The land at that rr.onient was a kind of no-man's

PAGE 132

121 land, and the flat assertion z'r.a^ the killing took place on American land is just not true. This kind of representation could have a counterproductive ir.pact on students who pursue their study of his-crv at a level of higher education. Once they ascertain the ac--al causal factors of the v;ars, they are likely to doubt the a_"-en-icity of American history they learned in high scr.col. Of course, as the authors of textbooks are well aware, the danger is minimal, because those who pursue advanced s-udy of American history still constitute a minority in this country. Ir. carrying out the situationally-unbound rhetorical function of ideology, textbook authors appear to be unwilling to present a full debate and allow the students/judges to make a decision free of pressure. Instead, textbook authors give primary emphasis to one side of the resolution and tend to take much of their evidence out of context. As assistants in the perpetuation of ideology, it is not their function to present all facts and allow a free decision on the rectitude of American entry into wars. Their function, rather, is to teach students those systemic arguments about American entry into wars which will help perpetuate the American ideology by instilling the belief that America did the right zhir.g in every war she entered. It was demons-rated in Chapter Three that both authors and publishers of textbooks are under strong pressure to take this "patriotic"

PAGE 133

122 approach to American history. Taking this approach to explaining wars is facilitated by the fact that America seems ro have a tradi-ion of rationalizing wars by appealing to ideology. Spanier indicates that "American depreciation of pcver and reluctance to recognize it as a factor in human affairs -akes it necessary to rationalize actions [specifically, vars] in the international arena in terms of ideo5 logical collectives and universal moral principles," Transformation of Patriotic Appeals into Systemic Arguments Cr.e of the more interesting aspects of the study grows out of che fact that segments of Presidential war messages are cucced routinely by textbook authors. It is not unusual that these important speeches should be quoted by authors of high school American history textbooks. It is, however, somewhat unusual that the quotations are used to explain American entry into wars rather than, as would be expected, just to illustrate what the President said about the wars. In the textbooks, these quotations themselves become systemic arguments for the American entry into wars. As should be obvious, those messages are not designed primarily to serve the historical function of explaining or jusccfying wars. VJhile the President may well refer to certain episcdes which he feels may have contributed to the r.ecessity of going to war, his primary purpose in composing 5 Spanier, p. 86.

PAGE 134

123 such messages is at least three-fold: first, the Presidential v;ar message is an official request that the Congress accept the President's rationale for the request and proceed to perfom its own constitutional function of formally declaring the existence of a state of war; second, the message functions to inform the American people officially that a -v-ar is L-jainent; and third, the message is designed to eliciz the support and patriotic loyalty of the American people in the upcoming struggle. Of course, there is a fourth purpose for the speeches which -=y, in some cases, be very important to the President. Generally, when a President requests a declaration of war, he knows that request will be granted. He also knows his speech will be preserved for posterity and he wants that message to contribute to a good historical image of himself. Because he is neither engaged in a persuasive political effort nor asking for a judicial decision, his message is neither deliberative nor forensic. Generally, these war messages fall under the rubric of epideictic oratory. V7hen President VJilson declared that America was entering the World War "to make the world safe for democracy," his statement vas not intended to be historically accurate. Mora probably, it was intended as an epideictic rallying cry desirned to arouse the patriotic zeal of the American people. Similarly, when President Polk declared that American blood had been "shed on American soil," he did not intend that

PAGE 135

124 statement to be used as a historically accurate description of the reasons .-jrierica entered the Mexican-American War. Rather, it v.-as i.nt:ended, more likely, to arouse the patriotic indigna-ion of the Am.erican people so that they v;ould support his controversial war. In spi^e of the fact that Presidential v/ar messages were ir.-endec. for purposes other than historical explanation of the -.v-ars, zhey are used as such by the textbook authors in explainingfour of the seven wars covered in this study. PresidenMadison's comments regarding the rights of Americans and -he. insult to the American flag are cited in 8 9.9 percent and 35.4 percent respectively as justifications for entering the War of 1812. President Polk's argument that American blood had been shed on American soil is used by 97.9 percent of the surveyed books to justify America's war with Mexico. McKinley's statement that he had exhausted every effort to relieve the intolerable situation in Cuba is used in 91.8 percent of the books to blame Spanish inhumanity as part of the cause of the war v/ith Spain. Finally, it is indicated in 93.9 percent of the books — sometimes not even bothering to quote Wilson directly — that America entered World War I to make the world safe for democracy. Three of the seven wars, on the other hand, are not jusLf led by reference to Presidential war messages. The ---~erican Revolution — prior to which there was no President; rhe Second Wrold War--which is contemporary and more

PAGE 136

125 demanding of expiar.atior.; and the Korean War — which is justified as an internationally sponsored police action — are exempt from such treatment by textbook authors. President Jranklin D. Roosevelt's memorable war message announcing World War II is quoted frequently, but the quota^:.3n generally is not converted into systemic arguments for enrermg rhe war. It is interesting to speculate that there are au least two reasons why his speech is not used more frer-uantly in such a manner: first, the Japanese attack on Pe2.rl Harbor which thrust America into the war is considered sufficient justification for American entry; second, it may be tha-he relative contemporary nature of the war assures that parents of the readers of the ideological rhetoric of textbooks have vivid memories of American entry into that war and will explain that entry to their children. Thus, it might be better to cite the war message as an epideictic rallying cry, which it definitely was, than to try to use it to justify American entry. By tracing the use of VJilson's message for World War I, some support for the second of these two theories can be found. First, some basic information is needed. Of the textbooks surveyed from the 1920*3, 87.5 percent used Wilson's s^atanenzr.a^ the world must be made safe for democracy as a syszenic arg'ument for entering the war. The percentage dropped, to 7 5 percent, in the 1930 's, but rose to 100 percent of the books surveyed in the 1940 's. There was a drop

PAGE 137

126 to 83.3 percencf -he books surveyed in the 1950 's, but a rise back to 100 percent in the 1950 's. Of course, there are multiple possible reasons for the variation in percentage of books using the statement as a systeraic arguiaent . At least one possibility is as follows. Icculd be that the percentage remained relatively low in the iecades immediately following the war because of close proxinity to the war. The drop from the 1920 's to the 1930 's cculd be due in part to the general disillusionment which set in on -he nation during the 1930 's. The proximity argument would be the same as previously ventured for World War II, namely, rhat parents of people reading the textbooks were well aware of the more accurate reasons for the war. The rise in percentage of use during the 1940 's may have been due to the nation's involvement in VJorld War II. It might also be speculated that the drop in the 1950 's was due in part to the realization brought on by cold war tensions that the v/orld was not yet safe for democracy. Of course, even with the quasi-empirical support, this is a highly speculative argument. It is, however, plausible to use proximity to the war and cold-war tensions as explanations for the non-conversion of Roosevelt's speech into systemic argiiments in the rhetorical discourse of the tex-books. It is possible to exter.d -he speculation by indica-ing that textbooks might begin that con"ersion as tir.e passes and conditions change.

PAGE 138

127 The use of Presidential war messages as systemic arguments is, of course, closely related to the errors of oversimplification and misrepresentation of facts. It is perhaps more important than either of those, however, because of the tremendous authority appeal which accompanies any Presidential statement. The President of the United States is cf-en thought of, after all, as the highest ranking guardian of our country's ideology. It is precisely because of his rank and the authority which accompanies his statements rhat a strong effort should be made, when utilizing his speeches in history textbooks, to make clear the difference between his request for a declaration of war--or speakir.g for posterity, or to arouse the citizenry — and the reasons which brought about the necessity for a war message. To treat these messsages as historically accurate explanations of America's entry into wars is to ignore their pi-imary functions. In an extreme example of the failure to make the distinction called for, some of the books which used Polk's war message offered no other explanation for the Mexican-American War. The Tone of the Textbooks Surveyed 3eyond the ability to discern obvious discrepancies bet-.ceen the treatment of a war in the rhetorical discourse of textbook au-hors and the analysis of that same war by the definitive his-orians, there is a more subtle way in which the textbooks contribute to a distorted picture of reality.

PAGE 139

128 This aspect concarns the tone used to transmit the various arguments to the reader. Richards explains the concept of tone by saying that "the speaker has ordinarily an attitude to his listener . He chooses or arranges his words differently ... in automatic or deliberate recognition of his relation to them . The tone of his utterances reflects his avrareness of this relation, his sense of how he stands towards those he is addressing." This section will examine the ^one of the arguments used by focusing on two factors: (1) the author's special treatment of controversial wars and (2) -he impression given by the textbook authors that America is alv.'ays right in her reasons for going to war. Treatment of Controversy Surrounding War The first major point to be made about the tone of the authors is that they do not seem to think arguments opposing American entry into v/ars deserve treatment equal to that given systemic arguments in favor of entering wars. It is granted that in any given war covered by this study — with the possible exceptions of the American Revolution and World War II (prior to Pearl Harbor) --there was much more sentiment supporting American entry into wars than opposing that entry. Even acknowledging the validity of that point, ho-.vever, does not negate the fact that the authors seem to have a negative attitude toward arguments opposing American I. A. Richards, Practical Criticism (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1956), p. 182.

PAGE 140

129 entry into wars. They are relatively consistent in utilizing high percentages of the systemic arguments for entering each of the wars studied. They are extremely inconsistent, however, in use of opposition arguments and relatively few of the authors even mention opposition to the various wars. Table III indicates that less than half of the surveyed booKS use any given argument of opposition to entry in treating any particular war. This point can best be illustrated by studying the example of the most controversial war included in the study. Prior to the Vietnam War, it is fair to say that the Mexic:ar--A:iierican War was the most controversial of the wars in which America has been involved. The war presents a very special problem to the author who v/ishes to assure students that the United States was justified in entering the war. The authors fulfill this rhetorical function of ideology by heavy reliance on the Presidential war message. The rhetorical functions and significance of Presidential war messages have already been discussed. In addition to using Polk's v;ar message, the authors cite reasons which are likely to stir the patriotic feelings of the readers. It is, perhaps, ass'jmed by the authors that most readers would feel any war justified which was entered because Americans had 'Dee:r: killed. Additionally, if the authors succeed in arousing the patriotic feelings of the readers, then those readers -light not be as likely to question the rectitude of American

PAGE 141

13 reasons for entering the war or to question the validity of systemic arg-uiaents being used to arouse their patriotic feelings. Three of the five systemic arguments used to justify .-jT.erican entry into the Mexican-American War are: The enemy put her troops on American soil; The enemy killed and wounded Aiuericans; and American property was threatened, damaged, or destroyed by the enemy. With the emphasis on such compelling syszenic arguments, the two additional arguments about prowar pressure and desire to expand American territory are virtually lost in the shuffle. Although in this war it is imperative that the authors present the case for opposition to the -.v-ar, the most frequently cited opposition argument — number (5), America should not expand her territory — appears in only 47.9 percent of the books surveyed. America is Always Right The second major point to be made about the tone adopted by authors of high school American history textbooks is-whether intentionally or not--they convey the clear impression that America was always right in her rationale for entering war. Transmitting this attitude to students, of course, v;ould be one of the goals of the situationallyur.bound rhetoric of ideology. It is necessary for the young people of f^jaerica to believe in the American ideology if that ideology is to be perpetuated, and one of the articles of that ideology is that America is always right. Four areas will be

PAGE 142

131 discussed in this secticr. to illustrata that the authors convey the impression that America's justification for entering wars was always right. The authors' attitude toward the enemy . --It is perhaps natural to cast aspersions on an enemy before, during, and after a war. When America was an obvious victor, however, a-d could afford to be generous, such comments suggest an azrempt on the part of the authors to show that America was right in undertaking the war in the first place. The aurr.crs of the rhetorical documents surveyed indicate a very nega-:Lve attitude toward America's enemies in the various wars 5-udied. In their non-oratorical form of rhetoric, the authors indicate either that America \vas totally justified in entering the war or that she was forced into entering the war, which is another way of saying she was justified in entering the war. Two brief quotations from different books and about different wars will illustrate the point. In discussing the outbreak in Cuba which preceded the Spanish-American War, one auuhor says: "In order to put down the uprising the cruel governor-general, ' Butcher' Weyler, herded the old men, the women, and the children into concentration camps. There they died like flies from starvation and disease." Another author indica-es that the Revolutionary War came about not because of violations of the law or of the rights of the colonists, but "it came mainly because an ignorant and stupid

PAGE 143

132 administration with slight knowledge of the American problem and no knowledge whatsoever of the American mind passed law after law which goaded the colonists to action and fanned to flame the long-smoldering resentment against the whole British colonial system." The assertive nature of these quotations is not the issue here. Rather, these statements are two clear examples of -s.e tone most of the textbook authors tend to adopt when talking about America's enemies. The implication of the tone IS obvious in both instances. America was justified in going -o war in the one case because of the cruelty to others and in the other case because of a total lack of understanding of her peculiar situation on the part of England. Unequal treatment of opposing arguments . --This point was mentioned in the section on the treatment of controversy surrounding war, but warrants further elaboration here. In spite of the controversy surrounding the Mexican-American War, 4 6.1 percent of the books surveyed do not even mention opposition to that war. All but one of the other wars covered, being less controversial, had even less treatment of the opposition to American entry into wars. The one exception is the treatment of opposition to World War II, prior to the azrack on Pearl Harbor. The point is simple. If the history textbooks are going to fulfill their educational function, they should make a thorough efforr to clarify .--^erican history for the high

PAGE 144

133 school students. As was indicated in Chapter Three, however, because of pressure from various sources as well as their unwary ignorance, authors often place more emphasis on the rhetorical function of ideology than on the educational function of textbooks. Part of that misplaced emphasis results in the unequal rrea:ir.ent received by opposing arguments. If the interest were purely educational, the textbook authors would tend to be consistent in their treatment of opposing arguments as thev are in the treatment of systemic arguments favoring er.-ry. Tables I, II, and III illustrate that there is no consistency in the treatment of opposition arguments. Table I indicates that opposing arguments vary across time for every -v-ar. Table II, however, depicts a high degree of consistency across decades for the systemic arguments favoring entry. Finally, Table III indicates that a significantly higher percentage of books contains systemic arguments than opposing arguments. In fact, only one of the opposing arguments--the already mentioned opposition to World War II-appeared in more than 47.9 percent of the textbooks surveyed. The unequal treatment received by opposing arguments would seem to indicate the tone adopted by the authors that Arr.erica is always right. Since arguments for entering war are right and those opposing entry wrong, in the minds of supporters cf the ideology, there is no reason why opposition should be given equal treac.-aenu. But only equal discussion

PAGE 145

134 of both sides v/ould facilitate fuller understanding of circumstances surrounding Anerican entry into wars. Opposition arguments are not systemic arguments . --The third point seems to continue the illustration of the tone of the authors. Unlike the synthesized arguments favoring .-jzerican entry into each of the wars, those arguments opposing entry are not systemic arguments. They do not constitute "a justification for action (s) taken or positions held on -he part of the social structure," as required by the definition of systemic arguments. Quite the contrary, the oppcsjing arguments are statements which attack the justifications offered for entering the wars. Systemic arguments provide an ideological rationalization for American entry into wars . --The final point to be made about the tone of the textbooks is that systemic arguments, by definition, appeal to the articles of the ideology in justifying the actions of America. One book provides a clear example of this process of appealing to ideology while discussing America's entry into World War I: "Democracy, the right of nations to decide their own fate, a pledge of enduring peace — these were the ideals for which the American people were to pour out their blood and treasure as if in a great crusade." Spanier indicates that using its ideology to rationalize actions taken in the realm of foreign policy has traditionally been a prac-ice of the United States. Once Americans are provoked, however, and the United States has to resort to force, the employment of this force can be justified only in terms of the universal

PAGE 146

135 moral principles with which the United States, as a democratic country, identifies itself. Resort to this evil instrument, war, can be justified only by presuming noble purposes and completely destroying the immoral enemy who threatens the integrity, if not the existence, of those principles. American power must be "righteous" power; only its full exercise can ensure salvation or the absolution of sin. The national aversion to violence thus becomes transformed into a national glorification of violence, and our wars become ideological crusades to make the world safe for democracy — by democratizing it or by converting the au-hcritarian or totalitarian states into peaceful, iemocratic states and thereby banishing power politics for all time."^ The jL-ipression left by the definitive histories of America's wars is that all the wars were caused by highly compleic sees of conditions and events. In carrying out the rhetorical function of ideology, however, authors of American hiszory textbooks set forth systemic arguments which, by appealing to articles of the ideology, leave the clear impression that American entry into each war was totally justified. The ultimate conclusion to be drawn from this analysis of the tone of the textbook authors is that ideology does indeed use systemic arguments to help perpetuate itself. The ideological position on the v/ars is strongly set forth so that its distorted picture of reality can be internalized and perpetua-ed by students exposed to it. :hod used by the authors to assist in this peris really quite ingenious. No one can accuse the -e::-brrk aurhcrs of denying the basic freedom of expression -c -'--^se opposing the wars or of failing to present both sides of the war issue. The tone adopted by the authors o — (Ci-f i^^ d Spanier, p. 10,

PAGE 147

135 clearly implies, however, that reasons for entering the wars are forthright and truthf^jl and that those opposing the wars are somehow suspect. This tone is itself another simplism. Horsraan's definitive work on the War of 1812 indicates quite clearly that no one was right in that war, that the causal factors leading into the war were so complex that it would te his-corically inaccurate to imply that any of the involved powers were right. To a slightly lesser degree, perhaps, the sane can be said about each of the wars studied. Thus, no::nly the content of the arguments but also the authors' tone constitute an oversimplification of the reality surrounding --j::ierican entry into wars. Significance of the Symbolic Movement As was described in detail in Chapter Four, the rhetoric of ideology does indeed exhibit symbolic movement across time and across the wars covered by this study. By studying the non-oratorical rhetoric of textbooks, a great deal has been learned about the nature of ideology itself. At least two generalizations about the symbolic movement detected in the rhetorical discourse of the textbooks will help clarify whau is already known about the rhetoric of ideology. First, the preponderance of helical movement exhibited in the systemic arguments for entering wars indicates the stability of the ideology on the particular issue of v/ar. Although there is some rectilinear movement indicating minor changes in the systemic arguments across time and

PAGE 148

137 across wars, there is far rr.ore recurrence than change of arguments. The irr.plication to be drawn is clear: There is no need for the ideology to revise itself or its rationale for the wars in which the country has been involved. By developing sys-emic arguments which high school students have been able to internalize over long periods of time, his-ory tex-book authors have made a significant contribut::or. co the perpetuation of ideology in American. That contribution is protected by the fact that across the years not enough pressure has developed to necessitate significant changes in systemic arguments supporting American entry into wars . Second, it is important to note the significantly higher amount of rectilinear movement in the arguments opposing American entry into v/ars when compared to the systemic arguments for wars. The high degree of rectilinear movement seems to give credence to the idea that in attempting to fulfill the rhetorical function of ideology, textbook authors are locked on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, freedon of expression is an inherent part of the American ideology and v/ould seem to demand full discussion of arguments opposing American entry into wars. On the other hand, the rec-irude of Ar-.erican action in entering wars is also an inherent part of the ideology. Full and open discussion might cause perceptive students to call into question the veracity of systemic argur.en-3 for entering wars. Such

PAGE 149

138 questioning could sariously danage the ideology's stance on wars fought by the co-_intry. The lack of any easy solution to this problem of apparently conflicting articles of ideology seems a plausible explanation for the increased rectilinear movement among arr-jraents opposing entry into wars when compared to those supporting entry. The desire to encourage full discussion is offset by the overriding pressure to maintain the rectitude of the ideology. The result of this balance is the av;-rvard-seeming rectilinear movement which indicates a change in approach to dealing with opposition arguments across wars and across time. Also, as has already been discussed, the tone of the authors toward opposing arguments conveys considerable doubt about the accuracy or value of the arg-unents opposing American entry into wars. As a final point, considerable pressure has been v/ithstood, from within the ranks of historians themselves, in maintaining these patterns of movement. The revisionist historians have made a very strong effort to question the legitimacy of American entry into any war. Thus far, the ideology has weathered the storm. By the end of the period covered by this study, none of the revisionists' positions on American wars had yet managed to change or modify the ideological stance perpetuated rhetorically in the high school American history texubooks.

PAGE 150

139 A ririal Statement Summary The analysis of the data gleaned from the surveyed textbooks has shown that in high school American history textbooks from 1920 to 1969, an ideology has indeed utilized sys-emic arguments in its attempts to perpetuate itself. The analysis indicates that textbook authors make assertions of fact through systemic arguments which distort reality, scrr.etimes by leaving out important material and other times by misrepresenting the complexities of the causes of wars as set forth by the definitive works. The epideictic v/ar messages of Presidents are transformed into systemic arguments favoring American entry into wars. The impression is conveyed by the tone adopted by the authors of the rhetorical doconen-s that America is always right. Finally, even the patterns of symbolic movement reflect the fact that there is a strong ideological bias in the textbooks Having developed the need to transcend situational and oratorical restrictions and having justified the focus of the study on arguments forand against American entry into and withdrawal from wars, the study proceeded to indicate that, knowingly or not, textbook authors help to fulfill the rhetorical function of ideology by passing on systemic argur.er.rs to high school studenizs. Those systemic arguments rationalize America's entry into v.-ars by appealing to lofty articles of the American ideology. Those systemic arguments

PAGE 151

140 are clearly designed to make the impression on students that America is always right. Because of laws requiring most children to remain in school until a certain age, exposure to these systemic arguments is very high. While no exact statement about the effectiveness of these arguments can ever be made, it can be observed that most of the poeple in the United States during the time period covered by this study had no formal education beyond high school. Thus, what they believe to be true abcuthe v/ars this country has been engaged in was learned as a resulu of their exposure to systemic arguments about those wars and not from a detailed study of the complex reasons for each of the v/ars. Some Projections of the Study During the process of carrying out this study, several possibilities for future research studies presented themselves. 3y way of closing out the study, five of those possibilities are briefly introduced in the following section. An immediate benefit might be derived by the field of education. In order to create more textbooks which do not give undue weight to ideological points of view, but which provide full and complete discussions of important aspects of American history, the results and methods of this study could be applied to contem.porarv high school American history textbooks. Such a study could determine v/hether systemic

PAGE 152

141 arguments continue to be used by the authors to explain American entry into wars and to determine if systemic arguments are utilized in the discussions of other aspects of American history. in a world which is growing smaller daily, it should ^3 unacceptable to tolerate an approach to history which strongly distorts the essential facts of history in order to make the parent ideology appear always to be right. Textbooks today need a more international outlook which could be encouraged by rhetorical studies of the arguments used in contemporary textbooks. It would also be interesting to study the possible conflicts between parent and subideologies . To carry out this study, it would be necessary to compare the systemic arguments 3f the parent and subideologies on a particular issue across time or during the discussion of a particular issue. As discussed in Chapter Two, conflicts between parent and subideologies are possible. When one occurs, a study of the rectilinear movement in the arguments might enable the researcher to trace the patterns of symbolic movement in the rhetoric of the two groups as they move toward compromise solutions to the problem causing the conflict. Such a study, of course, would be more nearly situationally-bound than the one just completed, but the tools developed here might be used in such a study. Third, utilizing the sysuemic arguments identified in this study, a rhetorical analysis might easily be performed

PAGE 153

142 on Presidential '..-ar -"=332.-0,•„ tu, -»=a,e^, m the past or, preferably, in a predictive nature -o^ -..-,._o ,,. e -o--.are v,-ar messages. The systemic argu-ments comprise a body of inventional materials which -..ht be called on and used for the purpose of explaining or r.stxfying entry into a „ar . The body of arguments has already been established in the process of teaching ^erican ---^story to high school students. Thus, a future President -i^.t -„-ell turn to this source for help i„ rallying support "'"';"""""" "" "="°"=-« specific: arguments can be F-aci:-ad. If the foreign country is under threat of ''""J'"'^''''" "-"^^°^«' the President might well use systemic arr---ent -:), America has a tradition of safeguarding the freed., of others, as Justification for entry, whether or not the ta,«over is accompanied by outside aggression. Ka. prediction must be modified, however, by the possible results Of the fourth study. Opposition to the Vietnam war has been widespread and highly vocal. Because of the Vietnam War opposition, it may be impossible for any future President to rally support by appealing to the systemic arguments which have been used to rationalize American involvement xn the war in Vietnam. To form a solid prediction about the possible disappearance of some systemic arguments as ''^''-~--' :-s = ifications of ;^erlcan involvement in future ''""'"_'"''' " thorough study of all the systemic argu.-»ents '"' """ --°=-'--<3 during the Vietnam War is needed. One set =-systemic argu.-,ents was used for the original involvement

PAGE 154

143 in the war. At least two other systemic arguments — American property was threatened, damaged, or destroyed by the enemy (justification for asking for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution) and the enemy killed and wounded Americans (justification for using the Commander-in-chief clause of the Constitution to protect troops in the field) — have been used in the ongoing barzle on the part of Presidents to maintain support for Ar:erica's war policies in Vietnam. Perhaps this study would reveal some explanation in rhetorical terms of why these and orlier systemic arguments lost their effectiveness and, based on chat revelation, predictions could be made about how to avoid such argumentative pitfalls in the future. Finally, there should be carried out a very thorough syntactical study of the identified systemic arguments and argu--r.ent3 opposing American entry into wars. While carrying out the present study, a tendency was noticed to carry the tone of authors all the way down into the actual grammatical sturcture of the systemic arguments and the arguments opposing American entry into wars. The synthesized systemic arguments were all very simple assertions of fact which utilized the indicative mood verbs to assist in structuring the assertive nature of the arguments. The synthesized opposition argum.ents were also very sirr.ple sentences but utilized both the indicative and subjunctive moods. Even the indicative rr^ood opposition arguments, however, appeared to be elliptical for a more complex subjunctive structure.

PAGE 155

144 In order to derive a precise description of the syntactical structure of the tv70 sets of arguments, a very complete, sentence by sentence, analysis of all the individual statements in the textbooks needs to be carried out. If the observed tendency is, in fact, present in the arguments, then a highly detailed argument could be developed indicating that the syntactical structure of the arguments reflects the tone of the textbook authors. Evidence is already available from Searle, Osgood, Sebeok, and others which indicates that the meaning, or influence on meaning, of grammatical structure is perceived the same way by message source and message receiver, The s^udy might well result in a very subtle but highly significant analysis of the way even the syntactical structure of arguments is utilized in the prepetuation of ideology through situationally-unbound rhetorical discourse.

PAGE 156

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Aristotle. Rhetoric and Poetics . Trans. W. Rhys Roberts and Ingram Bywater . New York: Random House, 1954. Austin, J. L. "Performative-Constative, " in The Philosophy of Language . Ed. J. R. Searle. London: Oxford University Press, 1971. Baxter, James Edward. Selection and Censorship of Public School Textbooks (A Descriptive Study) . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, 1964. Bez-inghaus, Erwin P. Persuasive Communication . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. Billington, Ray Allen. The Historian's Contribution to Anglo-American Misunders banding . New York: Hobbs , Dorman & Company, Inc., 1965. Bitzer, Lloyd F., and Black, Edwin, eds. The Prospect of of Rhetoric . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, Inc., 1971. Bock, Kenneth E. The Acceptance of Histories . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1955. Brembeck, Winston Lament, and Howell, William Smiley. Per suasion: A Means of Social Control . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952. Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Function and Scope," in The Province of Rhetoric . Ed. Joseph Schwartz and John A. R',-cenga. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1955. Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes Toward History . Boston: Beacon Press, 19 51. The Canada-Uni-ced States Co.~_T.ittee on Education. A Study of National History Textbooks Used in the Schools of Canada and the United Srates . Canada: The American Council on Education, 1947. 145

PAGE 157

146 Carpenter, Charles. History of American Schoolbooks . Philadelphia: Universicy of Pennsylvania Press, 1953. Carpenter, Marie Elizabeth. The Treatment of the Negro in American History School Textbooks . Menasha, Wis.: George Banta Publishing Company, 1941. Carpenter, Ronald Henry. Schemes of Syntax as Attentional Factors of Advantage in Discourse . Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin, 1965. Carr, Edward Hallett. What is History ? New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 19 54. Chadwick, French Ensor. The Relations of the Unibed States and Spain . New York: Russell & Russell, 1958. Chapin, June Roediger. Dif f erentation of Content in United States History Textbooks . Ed.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1963. Ccmmanger, Henry Steele. The American Mind . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950. Cronl-iiite, Gary. Persuasion: Speech and Behavioral Change . Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1959. Dance, Edward Herbert. History the Betrayer . London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., 1950. . History Without Bias? London: Council of Christians and Jews, 1954. Dilthey, Wilhelm. Pattern and Meaning in History . Ed. H. P. Rickman. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Dolbeare, Kenneth M. , and Dolbeare, Patricia. /yuerican Ideologies . Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1971. Duhamel, P. Albert. "The Function of Rhetoric as Effective Expression," in The Province of Rhetoric . Ed. Joseph Schwartz and John A. Rycenga. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1955. Elson, Ruth Miller. Guardians of Tradition . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1954. Feis, Herbert. The Road to Pearl Harbor . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Fischer, Davis Kackett. Historians' Fallacies . New York, Harper and Row, 1970.

PAGE 158

147 Fotheringham, VJallace C. Perspectives on Persuasion . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1956. Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1957. Garstin, L. H. Each Age is a Dream . New York: Bouregy & Curl, Inc., 1954. Gottschalk, Louis. Understanding History . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951. Greenwald, Anthony G. "On Defining Attitude and Attitude Theory," in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes . Ed. Anthony G. Greenwald, Timothy C. Brock, and Thomas M. Ostrom. New York: Academic Press, 1968. Griffin Leland M. "A Dramatistic Theory of the Rhetoric of Movements," in Critical Responses to Kenneth Burke . Sd. William Howard Rueckert. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969. Habemas, Jurgen. Toward a Rational Society . Trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970. Hanson, John Wagner. An Inquiry into the Role of History Textbooks in Improving Understanding of Human Actions . Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois, 1953. Hartz, Louis. The Liberal Tradition in America . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1955. Haberle, Rudolf. Social Movements: An Introduction to Political Sociology . New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts , 1951. Hellerman, Leon. An Analysis of President Polk's Mexican Policy in Selected American Plistory Textbooks for Secondary School . Ed.D. dissertation. New York University, 1972. Horowitz, Irving Louis. Radicalism and the Revolt Against Reason . Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1961. Horsman, Reginald. The Causes of the War of 1812 . Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962. Huntington, Samuel P. P olitical Order in Changing Societies . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.

PAGE 159

148 Johnstone, Henry VI., Jr. "Persuasion and Validity in Philosophy, " in Philosophy and Argument . University Park, Penn.: The Pennsvlvania State University Press, 1969. Kahin, Geroge McTurnan, and Lewis, John W. The United States in Vietnam . New York: The Dial Press, 1967. Kraus, Michael. The Writing of American History . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1953. Lane, Robert E. Political Ideology . New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Langer, William L.,and Gleason, S. Everett. The Undeclared War . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953. Lasswell, Harold D., and Kaplan, Abraham. Power and Society : A Framework for Political Inquiry . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950. Lauwerys, J. A. History Textbooks and International Under standing . Paris: UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) , 1958. Leff, Gordon. History and Social History . University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1969. Lerner, Max. Ideas are Weapons . New York: The Viking Press, 1940. Lichteim, George. The Concept of Ideology and Other Essays . New York: Random House, 19 67. Lipset, Seymour Martin. The First New Nation . New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1963. Madge, Charles. Society in the Mind: Elements of Social Eidos . New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1964. Mannheim, Karl. From Karl Mannheim . Ed. Kurt H. Wolff. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971. 2'larcuse, Herbert. One-Dimensional Man . Boston: Beacon Press, 1964. Mayntz, Renate . Theodor Geiger on Social Order and Mass Society . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969. McClintock, Robert. The Meaning of Limited War . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967.

PAGE 160

149 Means, Richard L. The Ethical Imperative . Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1959. Meredith, Robert Addison. The Treatment of United States Mexican Relations in Secondary United States History Textbooks Published Since 1956 . Ed.D. dissertation. New York University, 19 68. Merritt, Helen N. Certain Social Movements as Reflected in United States History Textbooks . Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1952. Miller, George A. Language and Communication . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951. , and Chomsky, Noam. "Finitary Models of Language Users," in Handbook of Mathematical Psychology . Ed. R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter. Vol. II. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963. Miller, John C. Origins of the American Revolution . Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1943. Triumoh of Freedom. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1948. Nelson, Jack, and Roberts, Gene, Jr. The Censors and the Schools . Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1963. Nisbet, Robert A. Social Change and History . New York: Oxford University Press, 1969. Noble, David W. Historians Against History . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1965. Ortega y Gasset, Jose. The Modern Theme . Trans. James Cleugh. New York: Harper and Row, 19 61. Osgood, Charles E., and Sebeok, Thomas A., eds. Psycholin cuistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965. Ostrom, Thomas M. "The Emergence of Attitude Theory: 19301950," in Psychological Foundations of Attitudes . Ed. Anthony G. Greenwald, Tirr.othy C. Brock, and Thomas M. Ostrom. New York: Academic Press, 1968. Paxson, Frederic L. American Democracy and the World War : Pre-war Days, 1913-19i7 . New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1965.

PAGE 161

150 Peiser, Andrew. An Analysis of the Treatment Given to Selected Aspects of Populisra and the Populist Party in American History High School Textbooks . Ed.D. dissertation, New York University, 1971. Pierce, Bessie Louise. Civic Attitudes in American School Textbooks . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1930. . Public Opinion and the Teaching of History in the United States . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926. P.atcliffe, Robert H. A Critical Analysis of the Treatment Given Representative Social Science Ideas in Leading Eleventh Grade American History Textbooks . Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern University, 1965. Rejai, M. Decline of Ideology ? Chicago: Aldine-Atherton , 1971. Rex, John. Key Problems of Sociological Theory . London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul, 1961. Richards, I. A. Practical Criticism . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1955. Rowse, A. L. The Use of History . London: Rodder and S toughton Limited, 1946. Searle, J. R. "Introduction," in The Philosophy of Language . Ed. J. R. Searle. London: Oxford University Press, 1971. . "What is a Speech Act?" in The Philosophy of Language. Ed. J. R. Searle. London: Oxford University Press, 1971. . Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Sebeok, Thomas A., ed. Style in Language . Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1960. Silverstein, Louis. A Critical Analysis of the Treatment Given Violence in Leading Eleventh Grade American History Textbooks . Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern University, 1970. Sorel, Georges, Reflections on Violence . Trans. T. E. Hulrae, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1915.

PAGE 162

151 Spanier, John W. American Foreign Policy Since World War I I. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1950. Tamashiro, Masamitsu. An Analysis of Selected Aspects of United States-Japan Relations from 1905 bo 1960 as Found in High School History Textbooks of Both Nations . Ed.D. dissertation, New York University, 1972. Thonssen, Lester, and Baird, A. Craig. Speech Criticism . New York: The Ronald Press Company, 194 8. , , and Braden, Waldo W. Speech Criticism . 2nd edition. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1970. Wadleigh, Clarence Benjamin, Jr. Questions in American History Textbooks as Contributors to Development of Thinking Skills . Ed.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1969. Kaxman, Chaim I., ed. The End of Ideology Debate . New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1968. Weaver, Richard. The Ethics of Rhetoric . Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 195 3. Weber, Max. "'Objectivity' in Social Science and Social Policy," in Philosophy of the Social Sciences . Ed. Maurice Natanson. New York: Random House, 19 63. Westley, Bruce H., and MacLean, Malcolm S., Jr. "A Conceptual Model for Communications Research, " in Dimensions in Communications: Readings . Ed. James H. Campbell and Hal W. Hepler. 2nd edition. Belmont, California: V7adsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1970. Wolfers, Arnold, and Martin, Laurence W. , eds. The Anglo American Tradition in Foreign Affairs . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956. Yielding, Katrina. An Evaluation of Selected Secondary School Textbooks in United States History, Based on an Analysis of the Treatment Given the Topic: Government Involvement in the Economy . Ed.D. dissertation, A.uburn University, 1967. Zeitlin, Irving M. Ideology and the Development of Socio logical Theory . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, Inc., 1968.

PAGE 163

152 Journals Bitzer, Lloyd F. "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy and Rhetoric , I (Winter, 1968), 1-14. Bonner, Thomas N. "America's Wars and Their Causes: As Seen Through the Eyes of Historians." The Social Studies, XLVII (January, 1956) , 22-26. Brockriede, VJayne E. "Dimensions of the Concept of Rhetoric." Quarterly Journal of Speech , LIV (February, 1968) , 1-12. Bryant, Donald C. "Aspects of the Rhetorical Tradition — I: The Intellectual Foundation." Quarterly Journal of Speech , XXXVI (April, 1950), 169-176Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. "The Ontological Foundations of Rhetorical Theory." Philosophy and Rhetoric , III (Spring, 1970), 97-108. Cona, Carl B. "Major Factors in the Rhetoric of Historians." Quarterl y Journal of Speech, XXXIII (December, 194 7) , 437-450. Draves, David D. "What's Wrong With the Teaching of History in the High School?" The Social Studies , LVI (March, 1965) , 103-106. Drucker, H. M. "Marx's Concept of Ideology." Philosophy , XLVII (April, 1972) , 152-161. Edel, Abraham. "Reflections on the Concept of Ideology." Praxis (1967), 564-577. Graves, Harold F. "Public Speaking in Propaganda." Quarterly Journal of Speech , XXVII (February, 1941), 29-33. Griffin, Leland M. "The Rhetoric of Historical Movements." Quarterly Journal of Speech , XXXVIII (April, 1952) , 184-188. Heiges, Richard. "American Public Opinion Prior to Foreign Wars." The Social Studies , XLIII (February, 1952), 76-80. Hendrix, Jerry (Chairman), Waldo M. Braden, Ralph T. Eubanks, Wayne C. Minnick, and Donald E. VJilliams. "Rhetorical Criticism: Prognoses for the Seventies--A Symposium." Southern Speech Journal, XXXVI (Winter, 1970), 101-114.

PAGE 164

153 Hunt, Everett. "Ancient Rhetoric and Modern Propaganda." Quarterly Journal of Speech , XXXVII (April, 1951), 157-160. Huston, James A. "Do Historians Seek the Truth?" The Social Studies , XLIV (December, 1953) , 258-260. Hyppolite, Jean. "The 'Scientific' and the Ideological' in a Marxist Perspective." Diogenes , LXIV (Winter, 1968), 27-36. Larson, Richard L. "Lloyd Bitzer's "Rhetorical Situation' and the Classification of Discourse: Problems and Implications." Philosophy and Rhetoric , III (Summer, 1970), 165-168. May, Ernest R. "What Will Teachers Say About the Vietnam War?" in Gainesville Sun , February 11, 1973, pp. 5A, llA. McNally, James Richard. "Toward a Definition of Rhetoric." Philosophy and Rhetoric , III (Spring, 1970) , 71-81. Meadows, Martin. "The United States Entry Into World War I: A Note on the Writing of American Diplomatic History." The Social Studies , LIX (April, 1968), 147-152. Michael, Richard B. "Teaching the American Historical Myth in the Elementary School." The Social Studies , XLIII (April, 1952) , 161-164. Morris, Charles W. "Foundations of the Theory of Signs." International Encyclopedia of Unified Science , I (July, 1938) , 1-59. Ohles, John F. "The Curse of the Textbook." The Social Studies , XLIV (February, 1952) , 64-66. Osborn, Zdichael. "Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark Family." Quarterly Journal of Speech , LIII (April, 1967), 115-126. Palr.er, John R. "Theories of Social Change and the Mass Media." The Journal of Aesthetic Education , V (October, 1971) , 127-149. Putnam, Robert D. "Studying Elite Political Culture: The Curse of 'Ideology.'" The American Political Science Review , LXI (September, 1971) , 651-681. Rorty, Amelie Oksenberg. "Naturalism, Paradigms, and Ideology." The Review of Metaphysics , XXIV (June, 1971), 637-667.

PAGE 165

154 Scholfield, Frank A. "Ideology and the Teaching of the Social Studies." The Social Studies , XLVIII (February, 1957) , 57-59. Schreiber, Paul R. "American History Needs a New Kind of Textbook." The Social Studies , XLIII (December, 1952), 315-317. Scott, Robert L., and Smith, Donald K. "The Rhetoric of Confrontation." Quarterly Journal of Speech , LV (February, 1969) , 1-8. SiiTcOns, Herbert W. "Persuasion in Social Conflicts: A Critique of Prevailing Conceptions and a Framework for Future Research." Speech Monographs , XXXIX (November, 1972) , 227-247. Scector, Robert M. "The Better Preparation of High School Students for Their College History Courses." The Social Studies , LVIII (November, 1967), 235-241. Strong, Douglas H. , and Rosenfield, Elizabeth S. "What is History? A Neglected Question." The Social Studies , LIX (October, 1968), 195-198. Wal-er, Oris M. "On Views of Rhetoric, Whether Conservative or Progressive." Quarterly Journal of Speech , XLIX {Decenoer , 1963) , 367-382. Weischadie, David E. "American History in Our Secondary School Textbooks: A Philosophical Approach." The Social S-udies , LVIII (February, 1967) , 62-67. Wetter, Gustav A. "The Ambivalance of the Marxist Concept of Ideology." Studies in Soviet Thought , IX (September, 1969) , 177-183. V7ilkerson, K. E. "On Evaluating Theories of Rhetoric." Philosophy and Rhetoric , III (Spring, 1970), 82-96. West-.vcod, Howard C. "A Layman's View of High School American History." The Social Studies , XLVI (January, 1955), o o . Wxage, Ernest J. "Public Address: A Study in Social and Intellectual History." Quarterly Journal of Speech (December, 1947), 451-457. Zaner, Richard M. "Philosophy and Rhetoric: A Critical Discussion." Philosophy and Rhetoric , I (Spring, 1958), 61-77.

PAGE 166

155 Zivotic, Miladin. "The End of the Ideals or of Ideology?" Praxis (1959), 409-429. Rhetorical Documents Adams, James Truslow, and Vannest, Charles Garrett. The Record of America . New York: Charles Scribner ' s~Sons , 1942. Alden, John R. , and Magenis, Alice. A History of The United States . Mew York: The American Book Company, 19 50. Allen, Jack, and Betts, John L. History: USA . New York: The American Book Company, 1967. Ashley, Roscoe Lewis. American History . New York: The -Macmillan Company, 1914. Augspurger, Everett, and McLemore , Richard Aubrey. Our Nation's Story . River Forest, Illinois: Laidlaw Brothers, 1954. Beard, Charles A., and Beard, Mary R. History of the United S-ates . New York: The Macmillan Company, 1921. ' ^^'^ • History of the United States . edirion. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925. and . The Making of American Civilization. jr. I-.ew York: The Macmillan Company, 193 9 Bourne, Henry Eldridge, and Benton, Elbert Jay. A History of the United States . Boston; D. C. Heath Sc Co. , 1921 Bragdon, Henry W., and McCutchen, Samuel P. History of a Free People . New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956. and . History of a Free People . New York: The Macmillan Company, 19 50. Canfield, Leon H. , and Wilder, Howard B. The Making of Modern America . Cambridge: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1950. and . The Making of Modern America . Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1954. , and . The Making of Modern America . Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin Company, 195 0.

PAGE 167

156 Casner, Mabel, and Gabriel, Ralph H. The Story of American Democracy . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1945. , and . The Story of American Democracy. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1950 , and . The Story of American Democracy. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1955. , and . The Story of the American Nation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962. Cousins, R. B., and Hill, J. A. American History for Schools . Boston: D. C. Heath & Co., 1913. Eibling, Harold H., King, Fred M. , and Harlos, James. Our United States . River Forest, Illinois: Laidlaw Brothers, 1959. Evans, Lawton B. The Essential Facts of American History . Revised Edition. New York: Benj . H. Sanborn & Co., 1920. Faulkner, Harold Underwood, and Kepner , Tyler. America--Its History and People . Revised Edition. New York: McGrawHill, 1938. , and . Am.erica--Its History and People. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19 50. , , and Bartlett, Hall. The Am.erican Way of Life . New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941. Fish, Carl Russell, and Wilson, Howard E. History of the United States . New York: American Book Company, 1934. Forman, S. E. Advanced American History . New York: The Century Company, 192 2. . A History of the United States. Revised edition. New York: The Century Co., 1923. Freeland, George Earl, and Adams, James Truslow. America ' s Progress in Civilization . New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1940. Gavian, Ruth VJood, and Hamm, William A. United States History . Boston: D. C. Heath, 1960. Graff, Henry F., and Krout, John A. The Adventure of the America n People. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1959.

PAGE 168

157 Hamm, William A. Tha American People . Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1939. Harlow, Ralph Volney. Story of America . New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1937. James, James Alton, and Sanford, Albert Hart. American History . New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915. Kelty, Mary G. Life in Early America . Boston: Ginn and Company, 1941. • Life in Modern America. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1945. McGuire, Edna, and Postwood, Thomas B. Our Free Nation . Revised Edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961. / and . The Rise of Our Free Nation. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1942. Muzzey, David Saville. An American History . Revised edition. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1920. History of the American People. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1929.. History of the American People. Boston: Ginn and Company, 193 8 . A History of Our Country. Boston: Ginn and Company, 19 37 A History of Our Country. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1943. Our Country's History . Boston: Ginn and Company, 1957. Nichols, Roy F., Bagley, William C, and Beard, Charles A. America: Yesterday and Today . New York: The Macmillan Company, 193 9. Piatt, Nathaniel, and Drummond, Muriel Jean. Our Nation From Its Creation . 2nd. edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. Rugg, Harold. The Conquest of America . Boston: Ginn and Company, 193 7.

PAGE 169

158 Todd, Lewis Paul, and Curti, Merle. Rise of the American Nation . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966. Wertenbaker, Thomas Jefferson, and Smith, Donald E. The United States of ZVmerica: A Flistory . New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1933. Wilder, Howard B., Ludlum, Robert P., and Brown, Harriet McCune. This Is America's Story . New York: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1954. Wirth, Fremont P. The Development of America . New York: The American Book Company, 194 4. The Development of America. New York: The American Book Company, 1954.

PAGE 170

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Woodrow Wilson Leake, Jr., was born 17 May 1944 in Rome, Georgia. He began his education in the public schools of East Ridge, Tennessee, but received the bulk of his precollege education in the public and private schools of Rome, Georgia. In September of 1962, Mr. Leake matriculated at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Majoring in English, Mr. Leake graduated with a B.A. from Emory in June, 19 66. Beginning in September of 1968, Mr. Leake did graudate work in English and speech at Wake Forest University, the University of Alabama, and the University of Florida. From 1966 to 1968, Mr. Leake served as the first fulltime director of the Student Union at Emory. At Wake Forest, he was the assistant debate coach during the academic year 1968-1969. He served as a debate assistant at the University of Alabama during the academic year 1969-1970. Since September, 1970, Mr. Leake has been employed as a graduate teaching assistant at the University of Florida while completing the requirements for his Ph.D. degree. In January, 1969, Mr. Leake and Susan Elizabeth Woods of Jacksonville, Florida, were married. They have no children. Mr. Leake is a member of various national and 159

PAGE 171

160 regional speech-communication associations; Omicron Delta Kappa, Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha, Pi Delta Epsilon, and Phi Kappa Phi honorary fraternities; Phi Delta Theta social fraternity; and was listed in the 1966 edition of Who's Who Among Students in American Colleges and Univer sities .

PAGE 172

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ranald H. Carpenter, Chairman Associate Professor of Speech I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. P&^JudjC. /kUJU^ :aH4^ Donald E. Williams Professor of Speech I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ^£^t.J H,. ST Paul Moore fcO.^ Professor of Speech I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Anf hony J . Olark Assistant Professor of Speech

PAGE 173

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Marilyn B. Zweig Assistant Professor of Philosophy This dissertation was submitted to the Department of Speech in the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December, 197 3 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 174

.'>• A b MM. 7 2 2 5 8 1m ^'^


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E5OF5LDW9_3LP7KQ INGEST_TIME 2017-07-14T21:57:31Z PACKAGE UF00097582_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES