Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10 2307@40970650 PDF
10 2307@40970650 PDF
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The New School is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.
http://www.jstor.org
culture,thwarting
scrupulousinterpretationand re-represen-
those deemed
tationof some cultural"others,"specifically
religious
inappropriately or otherwise
problematicor repug-
nant,and generatinga radicallyparochialimaginaryof the
marginsin whichonlysanctionedcultural"others"survive.
TheBookofScopes
4
According to Furniss, Fundamentalist Controversy, "the Scopes trial was a part,
actuallythe climax,of the fundamentalistcontroversy"(p. 3). At the other end of the
spectrum, Jerry Falwell with Ed Dobson and Ed Hindson, The Fundamentalist
Phenomenon:The Resurgenceof Conservative Christianity(New York: Doubleday, 1981),
representthe event in virtuallythe same terms: "the FundamentalistMovement was
broughtto an abrupt halt in 1925 at the Scopes trial"(p. 90).
5
Evangelical historian George Marsden comes close to destabilizing modernist
frames by concentratingon the ways in which the trial and fundamentalistswere
(mis)interpretedin the press, implicitlycalling into question the statusof the "events"
as such. Marsden also argues that some fundamentalistsshortly came to fulfill
modernist stereotypeswith a vengeance, thus fueling more ridicule and leading
"moderate"orthodox Protestantsto fallaway. In thisway,he concedes some "truth"to
The ForcesofRepresentation
event,"a complex,
The Scopes trialwas a "representational
multilayered,polyvocal,open-ended discursiveprocess in
whichparticipants (includingself-appointed"observers")cre-
ated and contestedrepresentationsof themselves,each other,
and theevent.
In thebeginning, thearenaofthetrialwastheconstitutional
challengeimaginedby the nationalofficersof the ACLU in
New York City who were looking for a test case of the
Tennessee law and the men of Daytonwho concoctedthe
Scopes test.RogerBaldwin,directorof the ACLU, described
in retrospectwhathappenedto thecontoursof thecase when
WilliamJenningsBryanofferedto appear as counselforthe
attorneygeneralof Tennessee:
It was immediatelyapparent what kind of trialit would be: the
Good Book against Darwin, bigotry against science, or, as
popularly put, God against the monkeys. With Bryan for the
prosecution, it was almost inevitable that Clarence Darrow
should volunteerfor the defense. Darrow was well known as an
agnostic; he frequently wrote and lectured on the subject,
ridiculingmany of the Old Testament myths.. . .
The legal issues faded into obscurity against the vivid
advocacies of an unquestioning faith and of a rational and
probing common sense. Bryan threw his challenge to the
defense lawyers,stating,"These gentlemen . . . did not come
here to trythis case. They came here to tryrevealed religion. I
am here to defend it. ... I am simplytryingto protectthe Word
of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United
States." And Darrow replied to him. "We have the purpose of
modern stereotypes, but only after the fact of their invention. See Marsden,
and AmericanCulture,pp. 184ff.
Fundamentalism
6
Tompkins,D-Dayat Dayton,
pp. 57-58.
thereforejust as settledbeforethefactbythisrepresentational
imbalanceas was thecase againstScopes in thecourtof law.
The Scopes trialwas a spectacularmedia event fromthe
momentBryanand Darrow signed on and convertedit, in
Bryan'swords,into "a duel to the death" betweenevolution
and Christianity. Radio StationWGN,an outletof theChicago
Tribune, made it the occasion of the firstnational radio
hook-up,so thatnewsfromDayton,in thecourtroomand on
the streets,was broadcastlive all over the countryfor two
weeks.And thenover100,somesaid 200, newspaperreporters
and photographers fromall the big cities(twofromLondon)
descendedon Dayton,a townof 1800 in thehillsofTennessee
northeastof Chattanooga.No doubt manyof thejournalists
consideredthemselvesChristians.Some of them may even
have harboreddoubtsabout evolution,and a fewwrotewith
sympathy fortheorthodoxcause. But none of themidentified
withthe fundamentalist standard,and overalltheirreportage
composedan unrelenting, at timesunbridled,renditionof the
modernvoice.In the 1920s,dozensof orthodox,conservative
fundamentalProtestant journals and bulletinshad national
circulations, they notsend"observers"
but did to Dayton.Some
did notmentionthetrialat all, and othersdescribedit briefly
and belatedly,mainlyas anotherinstanceof liberals'attacking
the Bible or as the unfortunate occasionof WilliamJennings
Bryan's death. The trial was thus constitutedfor most
Americansby the pressfromthe modernpointof view.The
fundamentalist, eventheconservative, pointofview,spokenin
its own voices, was erased, and then reinscribedwithin,
encapsulatedby, the modern metanarrative in the "news"
read,and heard,aroundthecountryand abroad.
10
Tompkins, D-Day at Dayton,p. 40.
11
Ibid.,pp. 50-51.
12New York
Times,July 10-11, 1925.
tofinish.
EveryBible-shouting, psalm-singing pulpitherointhe
statepouredoutofthehills. . . andtheycamefromoutsidethe
statetoo.. . . Someprofessional circusperformers, whomust
havefeltat home,brought twochimpanzees. The airwasfilled
withshouting fromearlymorning untillateintothenight.13
13
Scopesand Presley,Center
oftheStorm,
pp. 98-99.
14
Allen, Bryanand Darrow,pp. 156-157.
15When I sketched this
reframingof Bryan's performance- as it mighthave been
rendered froma fundamentalistpoint of view thatresistedmodernistinsinuations- it
was purelyimaginary.Since then,the encounter between Bryan and Darrow has been
thefactsknewitwouldturnout,thenthenewspaper reporters
raiseda greatnoiseof ridiculeaboutthe awfulscenewhen
LawyerDarrowquestioned Mr.Bryanabouthisbeliefs.. . .17
ReverendRamsaydescribedDarrow'sline of questioningas
"repulsive,abusive,ignorant,tiresometwaddleabout Bible
questionsthatno truestudentof God's HolyWordwouldever
thinkfitto answer."
ReverendRamsay'svoicewas savvyand hostilebutnonethe-
less presupposedBryan'sdefeat and hence collaboratedin
constructing thetrialas a modernistvictory. Modernaccounts
of the Scopes trial,no matterhow gloatingor unself-critical,
could not by themselveshave constituted the trialas literally
meaningthetriumphof modernity. Fundamentalists read the
Darrow's
trial,specifically in the
interrogation, essentially same
way,and it was the overlap,the convergenceof the twostory
lines,thatproducedthe sensationthatthe modernversionof
events had literallycome true. Bryan lost in terms of
fundamentalist expectationsbecause he failedto defendthe
Bible accordingto code, which required active,aggressive
Bible quoting,an abilityto parryall "infidelobjections"and
"standardvillageatheistquestions,"and, finally, a willingness
to assertthateveryclaim,everyword,everydot and tittle,in
the Bible was literallytrue.In each respect,Bryanbrokethe
pose of absolutebiblicalliteralism, and thatamountedto his
publiclybetraying fundamentalism as well as the Bible,
Christianityand God.
The pointis notthatfundamentalists could haveinterpreted
events some other way but that, given their narrative
constraints,theycould not have interpreted eventsany other
way.Certainly not after Bryan said the daysof Genesismight
not have been literallytwenty-four-hour days. With that
exchange, Darrow robbed Bryan of the veryground upon
whichhe spoke- Bryan,itturnedout to theamazementof all,
was noteven a fullyformedbiblicalliteralist.
17 Ö3Herald and Presbyter,
Presbyterian Aug. 6, 1925, p. 14.
OpeningUp
* For their
conceptual suggestionsand editorial aid on this essay, I would like to
thank Wendy Brown, Kelly Countryman,Richard Randolph, David Schneider, and,
especially,Joan Scott.