A RHETORICAL STUDY OF THE MOVE DIATRIBE IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICA

Jeffrey Nelson and Gina Kaye Maddox

Jeffrey Nelson is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at
Kent State University, Trumbull Campus.  Gina Kaye Maddox is an
Instructor in the Department of Communication and Theatre at Mount
Union College.


A rhetor using diatribe works to ridicule societal customs by making
outrageous statements considered absolutely offensive to prevailing
notions of modesty or decency.  Windt (1990) has depicted the diatribe
as "absurdist moral dramaturgy intended to assault sensibilities, to
turn thought upside down, to turn social mores inside out, to commit in
language the very barbarisms one condemns in society" (p. 225).  At
least in western civilization the diatribe traces its origin to the
cynics of ancient Greece, individuals who believed in the concept of
complete freedom for every human being, with no required conformity to
rules enacted by the authorities (Dudley, 1937; Windt, 1990).

	Among recent research projects delving into the genre of
	protest rhetoric, some important work on the diatribe has been
	accomplished by investigators such as Hart (1978), Pearce,
	Littlejohn, and Alexander (1987), and Windt (1972, 1990).  Yet
	Hart's efforts dealing with irreligious rhetoric and Pearce,
	Littlejohn, and Alexander's research into the Christian right
	do not examine rhetors who consistently used the diatribe for
	an extended period in their lives, as did the ancient cynics.
	Even Windt's pieces delving into the Yippies analyze the
	communications of individuals who after a relatively few years
	of staging outlandish forms of opposition to the establishment
	became, in many cases, a part of that establishment (Rubin,
	1976).

	One group that has continually employed the diatribe for more
	than two decades calls itself MOVE.  These people, most of them
	living in Philadelphia, bear a remarkable similarity to the
	Greek cynics, both in general lifestyle and in the kind of
	rhetoric employed.  MOVE members have exerted a significant
	impact not only on the Philadelphia municipal government but on
	the residents of that major United States city.

	In exploring the diatribe as utilized by MOVE, this article
	takes special note of the rhetorical use of obscenity as a
	concept associated with terms such as "disgusting," "filthy,"
	"grotesque," "offensive," "revolting," and "lewd" (Webster's,
	1986, p. 1557). In fact, obscenity has served as a staple in
	the repertoire of rhetorical strategies favored by users of the
	diatribe (Windt, 1990).  This study is justified in three
	ways.  First, MOVE's rhetoric provides a vivid example of the
	use of diatribe in contemporary society.  The article may
	contribute to our discipline's knowledge of this device and how
	it functions. Second, though the article concentrates on MOVE,
	the rhetorical principles discussed as well as their adaptation
	within the study's parameters can shed light on the rhetoric of
	other groups. Finally, the MOVE organization still receives
	strong notice from Philadelphians as well as others across
	Pennsylvania and the nation; witness the intense publicity
	surrounding the group's court battle

	To provide a comprehensive analysis of MOVE's use of obscenity
	in the diatribe, the article delves into three categories: (1)
	the members' lifestyle, (2) the types of symbolic actions
	utilized in addition to language, and (3) the language
	adopted.  The examination concentrates on the 1971-1990 period
	when the organization stood at its peak with 100 or so
	members.


LIFESTYLE

	Users of the diatribe frequently show a greater concern than
	other rhetors that the lives they lead coincide with the kinds
	of appeals they make.  They feel that their ethos should be
	constantly reestablished in everything they do.  Yet the effort
	to construct this ethos does not require the development of a
	favorable relationship with their audience.  On the contrary,
	in their view, rhetors are often called to scorn audiences in
	public speeches and related actions, and to scorn society
	through the way the rhetors live (Windt, 1990).

	Indeed MOVE members did match the above description.  They
	closely resembled the ancient cynics in their devotion to
	natural law.  They had as their goal what Windt (1990) calls
	"personal absolute freedom," to be found "not in civilized laws
	nor in abstract ideologies, but in nature, in the natural self,
	in the concrete experiences of living" (p. 216).  Those people
	staying at the organization's headquarters, first on North 33rd
	Street and later on Osage Avenue, eventually cut off
	electricity, heat, and running water in an effort to lessen
	their dependence on modern technology.  Their diet consisted
	primarily of raw vegetables and fruits, sometimes raw meat,
	never any cooked or processed foods, and they chewed garlic to
	ward off disease (Boyette, 1989; MOVE Organization, 1985).

	The residents scraped the paint from the walls to prevent lead
	poisoning, burned candles to provide light, used pieces of junk
	for furniture, and slept on the floor.  They did not bathe
	often and wore ragged clothing, with the children sometimes
	wearing none.  Older children were kept out of school since,
	after all, optimum learning came through real-life activities
	and not through conventional bureaucratic teaching techniques
	(Boyette, 1989; "It Looks," 1985; Saline, 1985).

	In a number of cases, members assumed the last name of Africa.
	Vincent Leaphart, who founded the group, became known as John
	Vincent Africa, and associate Donald Glassey emerged as Donald
	Glassey Africa, with others altering their names similarly.
	Not only did the name offer the participants a solid connection
	with their roots, since most of the members were of
	African-American descent (Saline, 1985), but it also suggested
	an identity with a continent still considered rustic and simple
	in some regions, not spoiled by commerce.

	Instead of using plumbing, residents at the headquarters buried
	human waste in the ground on the property.  When roaches and
	rats appeared, the MOVE people did not attempt to exterminate
	them since they were living beings.  Stray dogs had an open
	invitation to visit, sometimes dozens of them staying in the
	shelter (which was blocking an alleyway neighbors had used for
	access), built at the back of the property (Harry, 1987; "It
	Looks," 1985; "Mysteries," 1985; Saline, 1985).

	The label MOVE did not function as an acronym but served as a
	reminder to the organization's followers that they should
	"commit themselves to moving in the direction of natural law,
	rather than the lawlessness of this [contemporary] life style"
	(MOVE--An Organization, c. 1973, p. 3).  Of course this
	devotion to natural law had an impact, first on neighbors.  A
	number of MOVE's activities were readily observable and in fact
	could directly affect the neighboring residents--for example
	the maintenance of the dog shelter and the harboring of rats
	and roaches.  Later, due to media reports, all
	metropolitan-area residents had the opportunity to learn of the
	group's peculiar living arrangements.  For many if not most
	onlookers to label the MOVE lifestyle as obscene would not have
	overstated the case.

	Yet even after the publicity, MOVE members made no effort to
	change their lifestyle.  From their perspective, to identify in
	any way with a corrupt society would have served to condone
	immorality and that was precisely the message they did not want
	to communicate.  Nor could there be any compromise.  While most
	rhetors in a democratic society are willing to consider some
	give-and-take, rhetorical descendants of the cynics will have
	none of that since to do so would represent to them a kind of
	deal with the devil (Windt, 1990).  Thus when Philadelphia city
	officials attempted to work out a negotiated settlement
	regarding health and safety matters with MOVE representatives,
	they rejected the overture (Boyette, 1989).

	Further, when MOVE representatives did send their message to
	civilized society--whether through printed flyers distributed
	in the city, bullhorns, the broadcast and print media, or any
	other means--no one person generally took credit, nor was a
	careful record keeper of the transmission's date, time and the
	like.  Though John Africa acted as an inspirational source, all
	members shared in a community stressing freedom and equality,
	with no individual commanding a position of dominance.  To have
	one rhetor singled out would have been to blemish this communal
	feeling.  Moreover, to keep an accurate, thorough record of
	activities would have served to formalize the group and in a
	sense match it to organizations associated with the
	establishment, thus abridging the members' free spirit.
	Accordingly some important MOVE documents referred to in the
	remainder of this paper list neither author nor exact date.


SYMBOLIC ACTIONS

	If MOVE's living arrangements seemed grotesque to many
	observers, so did their methods of communication to the outside
	world.  But since they believed that they had such a vital
	mission, waging "war" (R. Africa, personal communication,
	January 22, 1990) with the bureaucracy, they felt that in order
	to gain attention they should do anything necessary, including
	"yell[ing] obscenities over and over at the system" and
	producing "disruptive and abrasive" behavior (MOVE
	Organization, 1985, p. 2).

	No place stood as too sacred for MOVE's bold, jarring
	protests.  The members used loudspeakers set up on their house,
	shouted to passersby on Philadelphia street corners, disrupted
	meetings of the school board and other governmental agencies,
	as well as court proceedings.  In proclaiming their demands for
	complete animal freedom (if people should be free, so should
	animals) they confronted visitors to the Philadelphia zoo and
	patrons of pet stores throughout the city (Boyette, 1989; MOVE
	Organization, 1985).  On any issue truly important to them,
	MOVE members would go virtually anywhere to express their
	position forcefully.

	In utilizing shock-laden tactics as a method to reach
	audiences, MOVE representatives followed other users of the
	diatribe.  Employing such a tactic with its two objectives--to
	gain attention and to redirect audience perspectives (Windt,
	1990)--allowed MOVE first to gain interest from listeners who
	normally would have no concern about learning of some
	bizarre-obscene group and second to get those listeners if even
	for a moment to think again about certain preconceived
	attitudes.

	Despite the seriousness of the MOVE members' mission, they took
	time to poke fun, too, at what they saw as the self-aggrandized
	bureaucracy.  It was generally a biting humor they injected
	into their efforts aimed at startling audiences, serving not
	only to offer comic relief but to make a point in dramatic
	fashion (see Windt, 1990).  Thus at one point MOVE
	demonstrators stormed into the studio used for taping the Mike
	Douglas Show and handcuffed the host to call attention to an
	incident in which a loose chimpanzee had been shot with a
	tranquilizer gun and carried away in handcuffs (Boyette,
	1989).

	In fact MOVE members regularly took advantage of the mass
	media, especially radio and television, to make their views
	widely publicized, a part of their overall effort to reach the
	greatest possible number of people (Boyette, 1989).  MOVE
	representatives were again acting similarly to some previous
	users of the diatribe--declaring at certain times their
	interest only in being personally free and left to themselves,
	but then also going out and promulgating their views among the
	public at large, frequently using methods developed in the
	civilized society they opposed.  Seeming contradictions have
	rarely bothered cynic-like rhetors since they generally insist
	that the truth is constantly being discovered based on new
	exigencies that arise in life (Windt, 1990).  Indeed this
	position bears a resemblance to a view widely held in the
	communication field (Scott, 1967).


LANGUAGE

	MOVE members did not hesitate to "yell obscenities over and
	over at the system" (MOVE Organization, 1985, p. 2) in order to
	startle audiences into listening to the group's complaints.  At
	one time, for example, MOVE rhetors referred to police as
	"insensitive bastards" and went on to say that if the "cops"
	wanted a confrontation, "let 'em come the fuck with it" (MOVE
	Wants, c. 1978, p. 1).  At another point, after hearing that
	the city might try to evict them by force from their living
	quarters, organization members threatened Mayor Wilson Goode,
	other Philadelphia officials, and the police:

We're going to keep on fighting....  We don't give a fuck about your
helicopters.  We don't give a fuck about your bomb.  We don't care
about your swat teams.  We don't care about your mother fucking cops.
We don't care about your mother fucking detectives....  We've been
waiting for you....  We're going to take some of you mother fuckers
with us. (quoted in Memorandum from Mr.Lytton, 1985, p. 9)

In Ramona Africa's (1987) words, what MOVE had to deal with was a
"rotten ass system" (p. 9).

	That system, as indicated earlier, included much more than
	government agencies and employees, too.  Thus John Africa
	declared that most preachers in America provided nothing more
	than a "distorted laxative," a "constipational hazard," and
	"perpetual prostitution" (quoted in MOVE--An Organization, c.
	1973, p. 4). Indeed anyone who became intimately involved with
	an establishment program, MOVE said, was "mentally distorted,
	imbalanced," a genuine "demon" (MOVE--An Organization, p. 5).

	While MOVE members regularly used profanity, they also relied
	on another kind of obscenity that resulted in a brutal attack
	on the establishment, that is, commonly accepted wording but
	put together to appear "repulsive by reason of malignance ...
	cynicism, irresponsibility" (Webster's, 1986, p. 1557).  Thus
	MOVE rhetors singled out the establishment for its
	contributions to "deformed babies, murder, rape, genocide,
	suicide, countless bombs, perpetual wars and meaningless
	killing" (p. 1557).  The bureaucracy had created "a life style
	that is fiction, an illusion . . . unreal, that you cannot
	relate to naturally, or sanely, a life style that has pressed
	you, jammed you violently into a corner, strangling the very
	life from you" (MOVE--An Organization, c. 1973, p. 1).

	Indeed, according to MOVE, if the common people had true
	freedom, with no authorities constantly controlling how they
	lived, most serious human problems would disappear.  For
	instance, it was "industrial people . . . educated people who
	hire scientific educated people to create guns, bombs, knives,
	chains, glass, razors, iron pipes, every violent piece of
	equipment black folks are systematically associated with"
	(First Day, c. 1985, p. 5).  In fact, "poor folks couldn't
	shoot people with guns if rich folks had not created guns,
	influenced the use of guns, and taught folks how to use them"
	(p. 5).

	MOVE attacked the system for another kind of violence, that of
	bringing "poison" and "pollution" to "God's air, God's water,
	God's soil."  That system introduced to people "unhealthiness,
	confusion, and the dissatisfaction that misleads people to
	drugs, crime, perversion in search of satisfaction" (Africa, c.
	1990, p. 4).

	Not just the industrial-governmental complex but other segments
	of mainstream society allegedly contributed to the violence.
	Organized religion, for example, again came in for attack this
	time representing an extension of the existing "technology and
	insanity."  Instead of freeing people to make their own
	decisions, this type of religion "imposed" on people "the
	insane teachings of [bureaucratic] man," it acted as an
	"unnatural insertion of distorted direction" and as a
	"hemorrhage [sic] of imposition."  It provided nothing but the
	"addiction of blind perspective" and the "deification [sic] of
	mental confusion" (MOVE--An Organization, c. 1973, pp. 4-5).

	Such language clearly did not have as its purpose any sort of
	reconciliation with MOVE's enemy.  If anything, its aim was to
	polarize (see Windt, 1990), to press audiences to become
	charged emotionally and react one way or another, to deny them
	the luxury of taking the middle ground.

	As with their physical action for the Mike Douglas Show aimed
	at using humor to jar the audience to attention over a critical
	matter, so did MOVE rhetors apply language for the same
	purpose. John Africa declared, for instance, that the
	established churches in America were providing their
	congregations with a worthless "leaky umbrella of heaven"
	(quoted in MOVE--An Organization, c. 1973, p. 4).  And
	professors frequently did little more than to contribute to the
	"spiraling insomnia of synthetic education" (quoted in MOVE--An
	Organization, p. 4).  Ramona Africa (1987) described
	Philadelphia Mayor Wilson Goode as a "boot lickin', eager to be
	used, system lovin', polka dot nigga" (p. 7).  In their
	cynic-like comical style MOVE members worked to deflate the
	pompousness of the power wielders.

	There did exist a noticeable lack of obscenity in one phase of
	MOVE's rhetoric, when the group's members explained their
	solution to the problem being faced.  If the language aimed at
	the establishment stood as grotesque and repulsive, so did the
	wording associated with MOVE itself appear as almost sacred in
	the sense that it connected with America's endearing values of
	liberty and equality.  What had to be done was to return to
	"Mom's Law" or "the law of Mother Nature" (quoted in Saline,
	1985, p. 171).  Mom's Law:

doesn't make separations or just apply to people who are rich or have
status.  It applies to everyone.  For example, if you have a
politician, a lawyer, a cop, white people, Puerto Rican people, poor
people and rich people all standing in the rain, everybody's gonna get
wet. (quoted in Saline, p. 171)

	Indeed the whole of MOVE's rhetorical agenda might well be
	termed "ironical" since by generally using what the system
	would label as obscenities, MOVE rhetors claimed they were
	merely doing what was necessary to fight the real obscenities
	inflicted by the establishment on society.  As Ramona Africa
	(personal communication, January 22, 1990) observed,

We don't use the word M.F. as a slang or for lack of a vocabulary or
message.  M.F. don't begin to describe [the behavior of] the cops, and
It's one thing to hear somebody screamin at the top of their lungs and
see no reason for it; it's another thing to hear somebody screamin at
the top of their lungs because they're bein attacked [by the
establishment].


SUMMARY DEVELOPMENTS

	Representatives of the Philadelphia city government, including
	the mayor, tried over a period of years to negotiate a
	settlement with MOVE.  These officials attempted to get the
	organization's members to transfer their headquarters to a more
	rural location, to change some of their living habits, or at
	least to restrain their use of strident rhetoric.  As
	negotiations consistently failed, the city took various MOVE
	members to court, charging them with violating local statutes,
	with the proceedings often ending in convictions and jail terms
	for the defendants.  In 1978 the city took especially strong
	action, having police storm the MOVE headquarters in order to
	force eviction.  The police succeeded in driving the residents
	out but one officer died in gunfire.  Each side claimed that
	the other bore responsibility for the death (Boyette, 1989;
	Harry, 1987).

	Seven years later with MOVE in another location, at the mayor's
	direction, police dropped a specially designed bomb on the
	organization's building, the action devised to force the
	residents out with no harm to people's lives.  What resulted
	was a mammoth fire that destroyed not only the MOVE house but
	61 others, and 250 people were left homeless.  Worse, at the
	MOVE headquarters 11 people died, including six children along
	with John Africa himself (Boyette, 1989; Harry, 1987).

	With MOVE already having collected a $2.5 million settlement
	from the city over the 1985 debacle ("MOVE Bombing," 1992;
	Russakoff, 1991), in 1996 some organization members are suing
	for more money, and the group still maintains a residence in
	Philadelphia (Terry, 1996).


CONCLUSION

	Obscenity permeated the rhetoric of MOVE members in their
	dealings with the establishment.  Their verbal and nonverbal
	actions, their whole lifestyle combined to produce what most
	Americans probably would view as indecent, depraved, or
	repulsive.  Yet MOVE members in large measure sought this kind
	of reaction, for in a sense it confirmed for them the rightness
	of their cause in stark opposition to civilization's standard
	operating procedures. In contrast to the objectives pursued by
	most rhetors, MOVE representatives had little interest in
	bringing people together but instead worked to polarize,
	stressing the purportedly irreconcilable differences between
	the two sides.  This attitude no doubt helps explain the
	group's small size--While not shunning interested parties, MOVE
never seemed much concerned about winning converts.

	If MOVE members had seen their rhetoric as truly obscene, they
	might have agreed to reconsider their tactics.  But of course
	to them it was the power structure that had the corner on
	obscenity with its placing pressure on people to conform to its
	revolting, irresponsible position on the environment and the
	earth's inhabitants.  Nothing worthwhile could be achieved by
	compromising with pure evil.

	For the time in the 1970s and 1980s when MOVE did appear in the
	Philadelphia spotlight, negativity had to be a consideration.
	Because of the organization's seeming constant depiction of the
	establishment as wicked, some potential supporters may have
	become repulsed.  Such a consistent diet of antagonistic
	rhetoric can often succeed in depressing a group's potential
	admirers, making them want to devote their backing to a cause
	being championed in a more positive manner.  Negative rhetoric
	can also become universalized, prompting the rhetors' aims to
	become confused in the audience's minds.  Thus, after a while,
	MOVE looked to be fomenting disgust and even hate for all in
	Philadelphia's government, irrespective of whether the
	individuals had ever done good for the city's people.  This
	kind of negative approach, in Hart's  words, "tends to insure
	that one's rhetoric will increasingly appeal to fewer and
	fewer" (1978, p. 43).  While as neo-cynics MOVE members
	supposedly did not care about receiving any p

	For its part, the Philadelphia city government never did
	achieve any significant common ground with MOVE.  Perhaps
	Burke's remarks that "the nature of acts and agents should be
	consistent with the nature of the scene," that is, the
	container and the thing contained fit each other (1968, p. 3),
	help explain the impasse.  The perceived local and world arenas
	for city hall differed radically from those of MOVE, with
	MOVE's members refusing to adopt a rhetoric which they saw as
	complementing a corrupt bureaucratic scene.

	While the organization's loyalists still reject what they
	consider the unjust rule of the municipal authorities, the two
	sides now communicate through an elaborate mediation network,
	especially when tensions appear to be surfacing ("MOVE
	Bombing," 1992; Russakoff, 1991; Terry, 1996).  MOVE appears to
	have mellowed somewhat.  As sociologist Todd Gitlin has
	observed, "The pace can never be sustained" (quoted in
	Gallagher, 1993, p. 58).  In other words, the stamina required
	by the pace of radical rhetoric over a several-year period
	makes a slowdown inevitable for any group.

	Organizations in the US with notable similarities to MOVE
	include the Branch Davidians and the Montana Freemen.
	Regardless of whether they can be labeled true cynics, members
	of both groups have a societal vision far out of tune with the
	ordinary, and exhibit a kind of cynical behavior, frequently
	using the diatribe (see "Hard Lessons," 1993; "In the Shadow,"
	1995).  Their rhetoric bears a great likeness to MOVE's in the
	sense that its display through their overall lifestyle as well
	as specific verbal and nonverbal actions often encompass what
	most Americans probably term as obscene.  The appearance of
	these groups may suggest that as long as civilization thrives,
	so will cynics and the diatribe exist too.

	Though the power brokers in society have proven over time that
	they can effectively adapt their communications to a wide range
	of audiences, users of the diatribe seem to have them baffled.
	Cynic-like rhetors have no use for the establishment nor for
	the rhetorical principles that establishment has developed over
	the last two millennia or so.  These rebels' devotion to
	obscenity bespeaks their abhorrence of civilized authority.
	Moreover, despite their small numbers, their rhetoric has had a
	keen impact on contemporary American culture.  The little
	interest paid by critics to the diatribe and its users needs to
	expand so that we can understand better some strange but often
	potent rhetors and their work.




Africa, R. (1987).  Long live John Africa!  Long live John Africa's
	revolution!  Unpublished manuscript.  In MOVE collection at
	Temple University library.

Africa, R. (c. 1990).  Long live John Africa!  Unpublished manuscript.
	In MOVE collection at Temple University library.

Boyette, M. (1989).  "Let it burn!"  The Philadelphia tragedy.
	Contemporary Books.

Burke, K. (1969).  A grammar of motives (California ed.). Berkeley:
	University of California Press.

Dudley, D. R. (1937).  A history of cynicism.  London: Methuen.

First day: MOVE (c. 1985).  Unpublished manuscript.  In MOVE
	collection at Temple University library.

Gallagher, J. (1993, January 12).  When the spotlight dims. Advocate
	(Los Angeles), pp. 56-59.

Hard lessons in the ashes (1993, May 3).  Newsweek, p. 31.

Harry, M. (1987).  Attention, MOVE!  This is America.  Chicago:
	Banner Press.

Hart, R. P. (1978).  An unquiet desperation: Rhetorical aspects of
	"popular" atheism in the United States.  Quarterly Journal of
	Speech, 64, 33-46.

It looks just like a war zone (1985, May 27).  Time, pp. 16-19, 21-22.

Memorandum from Mr. Lytton to Ms. Hanley regarding the
	chronology of events involving MOVE from May, 1984 through May
	12, 1985 (1985, July 15).  Unpublished manuscript.  In MOVE
	collection at Temple University library.

MOVE--An organization that is about just that (c. 1973). Unpublished
	manuscript.  In MOVE collection at Temple University library.

MOVE bombing survivor getting out of prison (1992, May 13).  The
	Plain Dealer (Cleveland), p. A10.

The MOVE organization (1985).  Unpublished manuscript.  In MOVE
	collection at Temple University library.

MOVE wants this situation ended quietly (c. 1978).  Unpublished
	manuscript.  In MOVE collection at Temple University library.

The mysteries of MOVE (1985, May 27).  Newsweek, p. 25.

Pearce, W. B.; Littlejohn, S. W.; & Alexander, A. (1987).  The new
	Christian right and the humanist response: reciprocated
	diatribe.  Communication Quarterly, 35, 171-192.

Rubin, J. (1976).  Growing up at thirty-seven.  New York: Evans.

Russakoff, D. (1991, October 1).  Radical MOVE relocates to upscale
	neighborhood:

Residents near university try to cope with change.  Washington Post,
	p. A3.

Saline, C. (1985, September).  My life in MOVE.  Philadelphia
	Magazine, pp. 169-174.

Scott, R. L. (1967).  On viewing rhetoric as epistemic.  Central States
	Speech Journal, 18, 9-17.

Terry, D. (1996, April 2).  A trial revisits Philadelphia's 11-year-old
	heartbreak.  New York Times, p. A12.

Tharp, M.  (December 4, 1995).  In the shadow of Ruby Ridge.  U.S.
	News & World Report, pp. 59-60.

Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language
	(1986).  Springfield, MA:  Merriam-Webster.

Windt, T. O., Jr. (1972).  The diatribe: Last resort for protest.
	Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 1-14.

Windt, T. O., Jr. (1990).  Presidents and protesters:  political
rhetoric
	in the 1960s.  Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.


??











	The Pennsylvania Speech Communication Annual






	Jeffrey Nelson and Gina Kaye Maddox



60




71




59