TONGUE
OF FIRE
Emma Goldman,
Public Womanhood,
and the Sex Question
DONNA M. KOWAL
Cover photo courtesy of PhillyHistory.org,
a project of the Philadelphia Department of Records.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS
v
ILLUSTRATIONS
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ix
x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have decided to take up the fight here and to fight it out to the
end. I do not want to go to prison. I want to walk under the sky,
under the stars—but not the stars and stripes—but prison or no
prison, I will not be silenced.
—Emma Goldman, “Free Speech Strangled,”
Free Society, April 21, 1901
xi
xii INTRODUCTION
Essays (1910), a collection of her lectures and writings, and The Social
Significance of the Modern Drama (1914), a commentary on the politi-
cal ideas of modern playwrights. After her deportation, she published
three additional books: My Disillusionment in Russia (1923), My Fur-
ther Disillusionment in Russia (1924), and a 2-volume autobiography
titled Living My Life (1931). The subjects of her speeches and writings
ranged broadly from arguments about free love, marriage, birth control,
sex trafficking, and suffrage to critiques of government, capitalism, cen-
sorship, morality, and war. No matter the subject, the trajectory of her
discourse was aimed at creating a society where all individuals could
think and act freely and creatively—with social unity being a product
of voluntary engagement in communal affairs rather than prescribed
by authoritative structures.
For Goldman, anarchism and feminism were interconnected modes
of thinking and acting in the world. As an anarchist, she considered
human oppression to be derived from both property relationships and
the “demons” inside our minds, and concluded that the realization
of individual autonomy was the only way to achieve liberation from
these oppressive forces. As a feminist, she challenged gender/sex norms
through both words and actions, violating the norms of acceptable
public behavior for women without concern for her reputation. The
emancipated woman (and man) resisted moral authority, compulsory
marriage and motherhood, and sexual double standards. Celebrat-
ing uninhibited autonomy and sexual freedom, Goldman understood
birth control as both an economic and personal imperative for women.
Whether it was her romantic relationships outside of marriage or her
rousing public speeches and writings that sometimes landed her in
prison, she aspired to conduct her life in a way that stayed true to her
ideals.
Although there certainly were many other radical women in Amer-
ican history who exposed the deeply rooted causes of social inequal-
ity and sought to live their lives according to their ideals, I submit
that the example of Goldman is especially cogent because her public
notoriety as the “Most Dangerous Woman in the World” enabled her
to challenge the prevailing norms of womanhood as well as the very
constitution of “public” and “private” spheres of discourse. Indeed, her
unprecedented access to audiences, which included sustained press cov-
erage, helped popularize the “New Woman”—a term that was used to
describe modern women who were actively resisting gender/sex norms
xiv INTRODUCTION
in Russian, German, and Yiddish, and in later years she was able to
speak in Italian and French. Some of her lectures were free, while oth-
ers required an admission charge of about twenty-five cents. Smaller,
impromptu audiences occasionally formed around her in saloons. She
primarily addressed “promiscuous audiences”2—that is, crowds consist-
ing of both men and women—with the goal of promoting anarchism
to the masses, although occasionally she sought female-only audiences
for select topics such as birth control. As she developed into a national
public figure, her audience widened to artists interested in exploring
unconventional forms of self-expression3 and spectacle-seekers who
wanted to see in person this “High Priestess of Anarchy.” Government
reports and newspaper articles indicate that it was not unusual for
Goldman to draw a crowd of five hundred to eight hundred people to
hear her speak. Chapter 5 thus examines the media sensationalism of
this avowedly public woman, touted by tabloid-style newspapers across
the country as “Red Emma, Queen of Anarchists.” Goldman’s promi-
nence among anarchists, writes Margaret Marsh, is largely due to “her
wide-ranging propaganda efforts that reached well beyond the confines
of the anarchist movement.4 And her popular appeal is especially note-
worthy in the context of a male-dominated movement.
Anarchist women led unconventional lifestyles that signaled the
rise of an economically and sexually independent “New Woman.”
Anarchist women rejected institutionalized authority in all its forms;
and their philosophical ideas and rhetorical practices, which were not
uniformly shared, led to the formation of a radical counterpublic that
was situated in opposition to not only the public, as an extension of
the state, but reformers and radicals who were not willing to go as
far in attacking the root causes of oppression. In this analysis of the
contributions of Goldman, a central figure of the anarchist-feminist
counterpublic, it is crucial to begin by understanding the sociopolitical
context in which some women were drawn to anarchism as the only
viable solution to the conditions of capitalism.
EMERGENCE OF AN ANARCHIST-FEMINIST
COUNTERPUBLIC
For over two decades, theories about the nature of the public sphere
have been analyzed, challenged, and amended, especially in response to
ANARCHIST WOMEN AND THE “SEX QUESTION” 5
society, but rather they believed that “public goods” would be satisfied
by the agency of individuals mutually supporting each other, not by
institutions. Accordingly, anarchist women positioned themselves in
conflict with reformers who accepted the existing hierarchy but sought
to change it from within. For example, they critiqued the women’s
suffrage movement for its failure to address the root causes of sexual
inequality—namely, institutionalized authority and thought. Anarchist
women’s interpretation of social inequality was also notably different
from that of male anarchists, whose public advocacy tended to overlook
gender-based forms of oppression. As free-love advocates, anarchist
women “evoked radical notions of the possible by challenging their
audiences to consider ‘woman’ as a transitional construct,” writes Kate
Zittlow Rogness (2012).18 Furthermore, in the process of speaking
and writing in public forums about sexual freedom, anarchist women
embodied a sense of women’s agency and identity that pushed the
boundaries of what is speakable in public. As precursors to the second
wave of feminism, they theorized the personal as central to the struggle
for an equal and free society.
Because anarchist women emerged from and identified with diverse
socioeconomic and ethnic experiences, they differed from one another
in the way they envisioned anarchist solutions to inequality and injus-
tice—and, as provocateurs of anarchy, they did not hesitate to critique
one another’s arguments and contributions to the anarchist cause as
they vied for the attention of audiences and readers. Yet, despite any
competing interests and differences in philosophy, they were willing to
support one another in times of need, if only on behalf of the greater
cause of anarchism. On some occasions, they also were willing to lend
their support to socialists, communists, and other radical non-anarchist
groups—for example, to defend freedom of speech or support striking
workers. They also found common inspiration in the “martyrs” of Chi-
cago’s Haymarket Square tragedy of 1886. Their political conscience
was awakened by eight anarchist men who were convicted (and four
of whom were executed), for a bombing incident during a labor dem-
onstration in the square—despite the lack of an identifiable culprit.19
In what follows, I offer the following brief survey of the contri-
butions of five anarchist women—Kate Cooper Austin, Voltairine de
Cleyre, Florence Finch Kelly, Lucy Parsons, and Emma Goldman—in
order to illustrate some of the areas of difference and commonality
that formed the anarchist-feminist counterpublic. This overview also
8 TONGUE OF FIRE
and lynching,35 she did not acknowledge her racial identity.36 Reject-
ing property relations and the abject poverty that stems from them,
her approach to anarchism instead underscored class struggle and the
necessity of supplanting capitalism. She was also outspoken about the
economic exploitation of women, whether it be in the context of the
factory, marriage, child labor, or sex trafficking. Unlike her contempo-
raries, however, she did not view “sexual varietism” to be critical to the
anarchist cause; instead she considered monogamy to be more natural
to human relationships—and without the risks of unwanted pregnancy
and venereal disease.37 Like Goldman, Parsons delivered speeches
across the nation and Europe. Yet the two women were known to be
political rivals with Goldman viewing Parsons as an opportunist who
took advantage of her husband’s notoriety and Parsons accusing Gold-
man of being driven more by ego than by commitment to the cause of
freedom.38 As a writer, Parsons contributed articles to various radical
publications and served as editor of Freedom: A Revolutionary Anar-
chist-Communist Monthly and The Liberator. In 1879, while pregnant
with the first of her two children, she wrote articles for The Social-
ist, a publication that her husband edited, and she gave speeches to
the Working Women’s Union.39 When Albert lost his job, she worked
as a seamstress to support the family while continuing with her own
activist work. One of the founders of the Industrial Workers of the
World, established in 1905, she insisted that it be an inclusive union
of workers that made no exclusions based on sex, class, ethnicity, or
race.40 Parsons’s activism continued into her eighties, a testament to her
uncompromising commitment to the pursuit of freedom.
Born in Lithuania, Emma Goldman (1869–1940), the principal
subject of this study, was one of three daughters and two sons in a
household that abided strictly by Russian-Jewish traditions. At the
age of seventeen, she immigrated to the United States in 1886 to flee
a restrictive Orthodox life that would have included an arranged mar-
riage. While living with her sister and her husband in Rochester, New
York, and working at the Garson Company textile factory, she was
subject to grueling labor conditions and exposed to the world of labor
organizing. She and her coworkers were enraged by the wrongful con-
viction and hanging of Albert Parsons, Adolf Fischer, August Spies,
and George Engel in Chicago on November 11, 1887, a day that came
to be known as “Black Friday.” In 1889, following a brief and unhappy
marriage to a fellow factory worker, Goldman moved to New York
12 TONGUE OF FIRE
will inevitably resort to violence out of desperation and zeal for the
cause of freedom.51 Some police reports on Goldman’s lectures indi-
cate that she occasionally threatened the use of violence, although the
authors of such reports may have exaggerated or fabricated her words
to justify the case for her deportation. A government transcript of the
speech “We Don’t Believe in Conscription” (1917), delivered in New
York City, quotes her as stating: “We believe in violence and we will
use violence. . . . [I]f it’s their [the government’s] intention to make
us quiet they may prepare the noose, they may prepare the gallows,
they may build more prisons for the spread of revolt and conscience.”52
During her career as an anarchist activist, Austin grew increasingly
more militant in her writings. According to Miller, she evolved into a
“bloodthirsty” rhetor who was “infatuated with violence” as a necessary
tool for bringing about revolution, as she urged her readers, “Let the
workers retaliate, give blow for blow, take life for life.”53 By contrast,
Kelly, who was drawn to anarchism primarily for its focus on rational
thought and its rejection of feminine virtue, was less committed to class
struggle and likewise less inclined to address the issue of violence.54
Taken together, the differences in persona, philosophical perspective,
rhetorical strategy, and activism among anarchist women point to a
fluid, dynamic counterpublic. As a collective of women who espoused
anarchist ideals, they imagined a society where personal liberty in its
most radical sense applied to women and men equally.
ANARCHIST-FEMINISM
A mong the anarchist women who were politically active during the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Emma Goldman
was by far the most prominent in terms of her public notoriety and the
wide dissemination of her speeches and writings that covered a broad
range of topics over the course of a long career—she was a woman
whose ideas were perceived to be such a security threat that the United
States government found it necessary to deport her in 1919. No doubt,
she has also received a great deal of scholarly attention because she was
“rediscovered in the 1960s by a generation of feminists who celebrated
her defiance of traditional womanly behavior.”1 Goldman understood
the “sex question” as not merely a matter of the expansion of women’s
sphere of influence into the public realm but a matter of their per-
sonal autonomy, happiness, and dignity. She diagnosed the problem
of women’s oppression to be the product of capitalism and a dualistic
system of gender, which regulated women’s bodies and limited their
25
26 TONGUE OF FIRE
ability to act independently from men. The solution to this problem did
not require collective action (as in public demonstrations and strikes)
inasmuch as it necessitated sexual agency (as in resisting gender/sex
norms and making personal choices about intimate relationships and
reproduction). To borrow from a phrase used by Judith Butler, instead
of “bodies that matter,”2 Goldman theorized bodies that love.
As part of her theory of gender performativity, Butler argues that
the binaries of sex and gender are a product of “a temporal process
which operates through the reiteration of norms.”3 As a mechanism of
power, “[W]e cannot take gender, or gendered meanings, for granted,
since gender is precisely that which is being produced and organized
over time, differently, and differentially,” write Butler and Elizabeth
Weed (2011).4 When analyzing representations of gender/sex in Gold-
man’s discourse, it is therefore critical to consider how gender/sex is
contextualized and how it “operates in the production of apparently
unrelated domains such as class, power, politics, and history itself.”5
Additionally, while Butler’s theory focuses more on the unconscious
performance or “doing” of gender, it is important to consider how
Goldman’s discourse created a space for agency—that is, a conscious
“undoing” of gender/sex norms. In the process of challenging gender/
sex norms, Goldman produced an alternative model of womanhood
that embodied her anarchist-feminist philosophy and her experience
as a working-class, Russian-Jewish immigrant woman. In other words,
her marginal status, although a source of hardship, opened up the “gaps
and fissures”6 through which she could destabilize gender/sex norms.7
In what follows, I examine Goldman’s vision of sexual revolution, and,
in particular, the way she challenged the existing system of masculine
control, conceptualized sexual freedom, and attempted to reconcile
the oppositional discourse of the gendered/sexed body. Appropriately,
I begin with a closer look at the gender/sex politics that regulated
women’s bodies at the turn of the century.
The pathology and sexual danger associated with the female body
was linked to a myriad of social meanings about sexual behavior and
ontological assumptions about womanhood. The sexes were under-
stood exclusively as “opposite” with the male body serving as the norm
through which the female body would be judged as different and
“other.”32 The male body was strong, vigorous, in control, and engaged
in the polis, while the female body was mysterious, unruly, unclean,
weak, and best kept hidden from public view—and the object of het-
eronormative masculine desire. In short, the hierarchical binary of the
body was (and largely continues to be) interwoven within public/pri-
vate spheres of influence: mind/body, masculine/feminine, public/pri-
vate, culture/nature, reason/emotion.33 Within this system of Cartesian
dualities, the body is figured as a force that obstructs or debases the
pursuit of knowledge, and therefore simply being in a woman’s body is
a burden.34
This oppositional discourse of gendered/sexed bodies and the
body politic at the turn of the century is the scene in which Goldman
contested the existing sexual morality and attempted to negotiate the
normative constraints of gender/sex, especially as it shaped women’s
agency. Understanding gender/sex as “the activity of managing situated
conduct in light of normative conceptions of attitudes and activities
appropriate for one’s sex category,”35 I believe that the term “negotiate”
is important here because it calls attention to Goldman’s refusal to
limit gender to two opposing positions and efforts to create an open-
ing for new possibilities for agency. And, while the sexual revolution
that Goldman was a part of was predominantly heterosexual, as the
discussion below affirms, there is evidence of her entry into discourses
aimed at challenging heteronormative constructions of sexuality. In the
discussion that follows, I address the central ideas that comprise Gold-
man’s philosophy of gender/sex, including the exercise of individual
autonomy and sexual agency, the management of risks associated with
sex, and the widening of the scope of gender/sex.
AU TONOMOUS BODIES
It Really Stands For” (1910) as “that factor in man [sic] which asserts
itself freely and spontaneously without any external force, in harmony
with the requirements of nature. For instance, the demand for nutri-
tion, for sex gratification, for light, air, and exercise, is a natural law. . . .
To obey such laws, if we may call it obedience, requires only spontane-
ity and free opportunity.”36 Working from this proposition of a state
of human existence unrestricted by religion, property, and government,
she presents anarchism as a “releasing and liberating force because it
teaches people to rely on their own possibilities.”37 Therefore, while
the mind/body binary establishes women’s “innate” qualities as rea-
son to devalue their contributions and exclude them from public life,
for Goldman they are among the qualities essential to experiencing
freedom and autonomy independent from established authority—an
argument based on the topos of passion rather than individual rights
or virtues.38
Goldman’s critique of freedom envisions a self-creating, ever-
becoming individual who follows his or her own “instincts,” “tastes,”
“desires,” or “inclinations.” In a draft essay titled “The Tragedy of the
Modern Woman” (n.d.), she identifies in lucid terms the internal obsta-
cles that women face: “Women have not dared freely to be themselves,
even to themselves. . . . The tragedy of the modern woman is she lacks
courage to be inwardly free.”39 Indeed, unlike suffrage advocates and
other reformers who assumed equality and freedom to be a state of
existence sanctioned by law or government, where agency is legiti-
mated and articulated within the public sphere, Goldman argues that
the freedom of the individual exists a priori to public life and takes the
form of positive liberty. “It [individual autonomy] is not the negative
thing of being free from something, because with such freedom you
may starve to death,” she argues in “The Individual, Society and the
State” (1940), an essay published in pamphlet form late in her career.
She continues, “Real freedom, true liberty is positive: it is freedom to
something; it is the liberty to be, to do; in short, the liberty of actual
and active opportunity.”40 Goldman’s vision of the limitless individual
echoes the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner—both of
whom viewed state and economic power as artificial—and the emerg-
ing existential philosophy movement, which emphasized the authentic-
ity of the experience of the individual, freedom of choice, and personal
accountability in the face of institutionalized power. Within the con-
text of contemporary public sphere theory, Goldman’s construct of the
34 TONGUE OF FIRE
In the same essay, she continues by urging women and men to tran-
scend “the absurd notion of the dualism of the sexes, or that man and
woman represent two antagonistic worlds”;46 in order to experience
true freedom, both must recognize each other not only as a sex but as
“the human being, the friend, the comrade and strong individuality.”47
To add further clarity to her rejection of a binary construct of gen-
der, consider a fragment of Goldman’s writing catalogued within The
Emma Goldman Papers microfilm collection under the heading “Sexual
Instinct and Creativity” (n.d.). In addition to theorizing sexual desire
as a biological and social force experienced by both “the married” and
“the unmarried,” in this fragment she redefines so-called masculine and
feminine traits as universal qualities:
and possibility. Her questioning of the gender binary and the delinea-
tion of women as a discrete “sex” is a form of consciousness-raising—a
strategy commonly associated with second-wave feminism—aimed at
challenging the notion that one’s possibilities in life are an outgrowth
of the sexed body. For women, acting as sexual agents—a message that
aligns with third-wave feminism—was imperative in order to eschew
the confines of moral, religious, and medical authority.
SEXUAL AGENCY
It is important to recognize that for Goldman free love does not mean
unrestrained promiscuity; rather, it means the freedom to be fully
human—which she equates with the freedom to love without artificial
constraints. When asked to define love during a newspaper interview
in 1897, she replied by describing the experience of social intimacy:
Some day, some day men and women will rise, they will reach
the mountain peak, they will be big and strong and free, ready
to receive, ready to partake, and to bask in the golden rays of
love. What fancy, what imagination, what poetic genius can
foresee even approximately the potentialities of such a force in
the life of men and women. If the world is ever to give birth
to true companionship and oneness, not marriage, but love will
be the parent.63
p.m. on Wednesday night. Amelia informed the police officer that she
was a “respectable girl.” She explained that she had left the home of
her aunt, Mrs. Maggie Osterburg, that evening to go to another aunt’s
home because Osterburg could no longer afford to support her. Having
difficulty finding the home of her other aunt, identified as Mrs. Dit-
tmyer, Amelia had approached a man on the street to inquire about
the location of the Dittmyer residence—for either she had the wrong
address or the family had moved. “While she was with the man, who,
she said, was a stranger to her, she was arrested as a disorderly char-
acter,” the news report stated. Her family and friends attested that she
was a “girl of good character”; however, upon the hearing the testimony
provided by the police officer, who observed her with two men in front
of a saloon, the judge sentenced her to the workhouse on Blackwell’s
Island.65 The implications of Goldman’s advocacy for women’s sexual
agency are significant when one reflects on Schauer’s “crime” for being
in public with a man. Beyond expanding their participation in public
life, the normalization of sexual freedom would influence how women
are seen in public, shifting both the constitution of normative public
behavior and the social geography of gender.
During Goldman’s lifetime, it was single, working-class women––
who were not bound by the same expectations of virtue and chastity as
middle-class women and who worked in public spaces by necessity—
who embodied this new sexually assertive woman in the public streets,
dance halls, amusement parks, theaters, and factories of New York
City.66 So-called charity girls who engaged in sexual intimacy with men
for the sake of pleasure rather than economic gain inevitably “slipped in
and out of prostitution when unemployed or in need of extra income,”
notes Kathy Peiss (1986).67 Leisure activities that involve sexual rela-
tionships, however, come with a set of personal risks for women.
SEXUAL DANGER
Sexual freedom and the benefits derived from it require the freedom
for individuals to experience sexual pleasure and to enter and leave inti-
mate relationships as they choose, openly and non-monogamously—
and to do so without risk of harm to themselves or others. Implicit in
Goldman’s writing about sexual danger is the notion of sexual con-
sent and sovereignty; sex should not be coerced nor commodified. She
40 TONGUE OF FIRE
Goldman argues that women, more so than men, repress their sexu-
ality by upholding “Puritanic” notions of morality—not being “free and
big enough to learn the mystery of sex.”83 She urged women to refuse
to conform to the external forces that upheld misguided notions of
feminine purity. In the draft essay “The Element of Sex in Life” (n.d.),
Goldman identifies moral authority as the source of the problem:
Taking aim at the double standard applied to women, she also chastises
“a ridiculous sexual morality” 85 that upholds “sex is stronger in the male
than the female” and “[s]ex is disgraceful for nice girls.”86 Insofar as
sexual expression is fundamental to both health and happiness, humans
are ultimately “much more of a sex creature than a moral creature,”87
she argues. Her appeal for women to develop sexual awareness thus
challenged the social purity and anti-obscenity campaigns’ attempt to
keep sex privatized and assert a moral, asexual feminine ideal. Ulti-
mately, she diagnosed the suppression of sexuality to be a danger along-
side prostitution, venereal disease, and jealousy.
Goldman explains the consequences of sexual restraint in the
case of unmarried women in “The Hypocrisy of Puritanism” (1910)
by citing the work of Sigmund Freud: “Absolute sexual continence is
imposed upon the unmarried woman, under pain of being considered
immoral or fallen, with the result of producing neurasthenia, impo-
tence, depression and a great variety of nervous complaints.”88 In the
44 TONGUE OF FIRE
Poor child, how often the passions may have beaten at your
heart, and the rich powers of youth have demanded their right?
When your head rolled in the soft pillow, how awakening
nature quivered through your limbs, the blood swelled your
veins and fiery fancies poured the gleam of voluptuousness
into your eyes. Then appeared the ghosts of the soul and its
external bliss. You were terrified, your hands folded themselves,
your tormented eyes turned its look upward, you prayed. The
storms of nature were hushed, a calm glided over the ocean of
your appetites. Slowly the weary eye-lids [sic] sank over the life
extinguished under them. . . . Now the habit of renunciation
cools the heat of your desire.91
Believing that the effects of childhood sexual repression last into adult-
hood and take a toll on women’s health and vitality, Goldman advo-
cated the necessity for sex education. In “The Social Importance of the
Modern School” (1912), she writes:
Thus, beyond promoting knowledge of sex and the human body, sex
education, as Goldman sees it, should be aimed at eliminating artificial
social division and moral order.
It is clear that Goldman’s critique of the role of capitalism and
morality in causing sexual danger was far-reaching in its consideration
of both psychological and social implications; however, it is also appar-
ent from the discussion above that her critique focused on addressing
the relationship “between the sexes” (emphasis added). In this regard,
consistent with the oppositional binary implicit in the discourse of the
sex question as it was debated during her lifetime, Goldman’s public
advocacy tended to affirm heteronormativity even as it theorized a
broader definition of human sexuality that embraced homosexuality.
SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS
Goldman’s advocating for the removal of the influence of the state and
religion from personal relationships had significant implications for
the emerging movement for the rights of homosexuals. The gay rights
movement in the United States had barely begun during her lifetime;
however, in Germany and England the first wave had manifested itself
in the form of literary and scientific works and an early gay liberation
organization called the Scientific Humanitarian Committee. In addi-
tion to publishing a journal, the Committee launched a public petition
campaign in 1897 against a Prussian penal code that criminalized male
homosexuality.93 Goldman familiarized herself with the European lit-
erature, interacted with members of the gay community in Greenwich
Village, New York City, and became “[o]ne of the first public support-
ers of gay rights in the United States.”94 In A Queer History of the United
States (2011), Michael Bronski notes that the available terminology in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries limited what writers
and activists could say about homosexuality. During Goldman’s life-
time, the terms “invert” and “homosexual” were widely used by social
scientists, journalists, and others, and the term “lesbian” was introduced
in 1897 by Havelock Ellis.95 Similar to female reproductive “disorders,”
homosexuality fell under the scrutiny of the medical profession that
prescribed vasectomy and ovary removal to “cure” men and women of
their sexual “perversion.”96
Goldman spoke and wrote about the oppression of homosexu-
als, although this dimension of her work isn’t well documented in her
46 TONGUE OF FIRE
She continued with an expression of empathy for the men and women
who suffer from social isolation because of their so-called disease and
proclaimed anarchism to be “the living influence to free us from inhibi-
tions, internal no less than external, from the destructive barriers that
separate man from man [sic].”98
By defining sex as a significant social force—that is, sex is just as
much about social intimacy and pleasure as it is about procreation—
Goldman certainly created an opening for recognizing homosexual and
heterosexual relationships equally. As discussed earlier, she believed
that repression of sexuality stifled human ingenuity and creativity.
During a trip to Paris in 1900, Goldman came to the defense of the
poet and playwright Oscar Wilde, who was persecuted in England
BODIES THAT LOVE 47
As the draft continued, she also critiques the social regulation of both
heterosexual and homosexual relationships: “Economic inadequacy
does not stamp out heterosexual urges any more than the enactment
of a punitive law can destroy homosexual impulses.”108 These remarks
affirm Goldman’s open view of human sexuality.
Additional evidence of Goldman’s support for homosexuality—
both male and female—as a form of natural expression takes the form
of a published letter addressed to Magnus Hirschfeld, editor of Jahr-
buch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen and founder of the Scientific Humani-
tarian Committee, an organization dedicated to promoting the rights
of homosexuals. Goldman’s letter to Hirschfeld (1923), which was
written in English and published in German, is a response to an essay
authored by Karl von Levetzow who alleged that French anarchist
Louise Michel, a friend of Goldman’s who died in 1905, was a lesbian.
Goldman began the letter to Hirschfeld:
I have been familiar with your great work on sex psychology for
a number of years. I have admired the brave struggle you have
made for the rights of people who, by their very nature, can
not [sic] find sex expression in what is commonly called “the
normal way.” . . . I thank you for [the] . . . able and heroic stand
you have taken against ignorance and hypocrisy on behalf of
light and humanism. . . . I may, indeed, consider it a tragedy
for those who are sexually differentiate in a world so bereft of
understanding for the homosexual, or so ignorant of the mean-
ing and importance of the whole gamut of sex. But I certainly
do not think such people inferior, less moral, or less capable
of fine feelings and actions. Least of all should I consider it
necessary to “clear” my illustrious teacher and comrade, Louise
Michel, of the charge of homosexuality. Her value to human-
ity, her contribution to the emancipation of all the slaves, is so
great that nothing could add or detract from her, whatever her
sexual gratifications may have been.109
“It is a tragedy, I feel, that people of a different sexual type are caught
in a world which shows so little understanding for homosexuals, is so
crassly indifferent to the various gradations and variations of gender
and their great significance in life.”110 In any case, Goldman’s defense
of Michel affirms that she did not limit normal sexual intimacy to
heterosexual relationships. In the same letter, she rejects stereotyped
notions of homosexual “traits and characteristics inherent in them-
selves” and states, “As an Anarchist, my place has ever been with the
persecuted. . . . I used my pen and voice in [sic] behalf of those whom
nature, herself, has destined to be different in their sex psychology and
needs.”111 She also attributes her rejection of the oppression of homo-
sexuals to her interactions with lesbians she met while in prison, along
with the writings of Edward Carpenter, Havelock Ellis, and Richard
von Krafft-Ebing.
Some scholars have speculated that Goldman was not only intel-
lectually committed to upholding an inclusive philosophy of sexuality,
but that she had engaged in a sexual relationship with a woman. In
her historical account of anarchist-feminism, Marsh notes that Gold-
man was a close friend of Margaret Anderson, a founder and editor of
The Little Review, a journal that featured avant-garde works of art and
fiction, including writings about women in same-sex intimate relation-
ships. Anderson believed homosexuality to be “a more normal form of
sexual behavior than heterosexuality” and “she and her friends repre-
sented the link between the anarchist-feminist idea of sexual liberation
. . . and the bohemian idea of sexual liberation.” 112 Based on a reading
of sustained personal correspondence, both Candace Falk (1984) and
Jonathan Katz (1992) speculate that Goldman had a brief romantic
relationship with Almeda Sperry, a prostitute and free-love advocate
who wrote a series of direct and vivid love letters to Goldman dur-
ing the time that Goldman’s romance with Ben Reitman was waning,
although the tone of the letters suggest that Goldman did not share
the same degree of intense feelings as Sperry.113 Thus, even as Goldman
associated with Havelock Ellis, a sexologist who treated female homo-
sexuality as a sign of inversion or taking on the opposite gender/sex,
it is possible that she differed with him on this point while applaud-
ing his and fellow colleagues’ attempts to dispel the popular notion
that homosexuality was a disease and a moral violation. Furthermore,
as noted above, any assessment of Goldman’s contribution (or lack
thereof ) to the emerging discourse on the rights of homosexuals should
50 TONGUE OF FIRE
recognize that the existing terminology that was available to her and
other activists to define and explain homosexuality was still somewhat
new and in the process of being redefined during her lifetime. In any
case, it is clear that she interpreted the emerging politics of homosexu-
ality through the lens of an anarchist-feminist philosophy that upheld
the freedom to love.
As sexuality and sexual behavior were being redefined by the dis-
courses of science, psychology, and political movements, the addition
of Goldman’s brazen and persistent female voice to the sea of male
sex “experts” marked an important shift toward establishing the pos-
sibilities for female agency. By conceptualizing individual autonomy
as an a priori “living force,” she defined agency—the aspiring, desiring,
ever-becoming individual—as the only means for women and men to
overcome the limitations of thought and behavior, including the dual-
istic notions of gender/sex, imposed by systemic authority. Goldman
advocated a broad vision of sexual freedom in a cultural setting where
sex was treated as pathology, women’s bodies were controlled by their
husbands and the masculine medical establishment, and heteronor-
mativity was compulsory. Her ideal of womanhood valued personal
autonomy, communal engagement, creativity, and sensuality.
Goldman’s identification of the source of oppression—both
women’s and men’s—was far reaching, too. The discourse of the sex
question as it is was debated during her lifetime reiterated public/pri-
vate and masculine/feminine constructs even as it questioned them.
While Goldman did not critique masculine dominance to the same
degree that she critiqued feminine acquiescence within the capitalism
system114—a critique that would have necessitated a solution directed
at men—she targeted authority in its totality and called upon both
women and men to take personal responsibility for freeing themselves
and their bodies from the “internal and external” forces that worked
against their health, happiness, and dignity. The closing statement in
the draft essay “The Element of Sex in Life” (n.d.) underscores her
stance on sexual freedom:
Goldman lived long enough to witness this new idea of sex begin to
take hold.
In Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (2012), John
D’Emilio and Estelle Freedman describe the cultural shift in sexual-
ity that unfolded by the 1920s: “[t]he new positive value attributed to
the erotic, the growing autonomy of youth, the association of sex with
commercialized leisure and self-expression, the pursuit of love, the vis-
ibility of the erotic in popular culture, the social interaction of men and
women in public, the legitimation of female interest in the sexual.”116
Goldman contributed to this shift by talking and writing about sexual-
ity, empowering her audiences to think of themselves as sexual beings,
and providing them with a framework for discussing sex in public. In
many ways, she was a predecessor to French existentialist Simone de
Beauvoir (1908–1986), widely recognized within second-wave femi-
nism for her book The Second Sex (1949), in explaining social attitudes
about sex and gender and theorizing the role of sexuality in women’s
psychological development. Both Goldman and de Beauvoir sought
to empower women to take command of their own bodies (a radical
idea in a culture where men controlled when, where, and how women
had sex) and achieve sexual fulfillment. Additionally, Goldman’s sex-
positive legacy is reflected in the Boston Women’s Health Collective’s
Our Bodies, Ourselves, a groundbreaking guide to women’s sexual health
and knowledge first published in 1971, and the Good Vibrations fem-
inist-identified retail sex shop established in San Francisco, California,
in 1977. Both of these organizations continue to operate today with
a mission focused on women’s sexual health and pleasure. And, in the
context of the 1990s third-wave feminism, Goldman became a symbol
of revolution and “girl power” in punk feminism and Riot Grrrl dis-
course.117 Her celebration of sexual freedom coupled with the anger
she directed at authority has staying power among activists. Although
her ideas were inevitably interpreted within the discourse of capital-
ism, she helped forge an opening for a non-normative sexuality and
public culture.
3
Sex, Labor, and the Public Sphere
We now see woman in that sphere for which she was originally
intended, and which she is so exactly fitted to adorn and bless,
as the wife, the mistress of a home, the solace, the aid, and the
counsellor of that ONE, for whose sake alone the world is of any
consequence to her.
—George W. Burnap, On The Sphere and Duties of Woman, 1848
53
54 TONGUE OF FIRE
York City among poor immigrant women in the Lower East Side.3
As she gained notoriety as an anarchist speaker, she eventually made
a living out of anarchism by charging fees for her lectures and for the
purchase of her monthly journal, Mother Earth, which cost ten cents
per copy or one dollar for a year subscription in 1906. Through these
wide-ranging work experiences, she came to identify the devaluing
of women’s labor and the work of laborers in general as rooted in an
unjust capitalist system. By addressing both private and public forms
of work, she drew attention to the ways in which capitalism sustained
relations of power in both the private and public lives of women. Her
model of womanhood rejected the separation of public and private
spheres by recognizing domestic work such as compulsory motherhood
as a public issue and a form of exploitative labor. Likewise, examining
the bleak conditions of women’s paid work, she diagnosed the negative
impact that grueling manufacturing work and tedious clerical jobs had
on women’s personal well-being, particularly their creativity and sexual
vitality. In other words, Goldman saw the public in the private and the
private in the public.
This chapter examines Goldman’s relationship with the labor
movement and her response to the labor conditions of women, particu-
larly the commodification of sex and reproduction. I demonstrate the
ways she interweaves public and private realms of life in her anarchist-
feminist conception of womanhood. By treating work in the context
of motherhood, the home, and the family as a form of labor worthy of
public recognition and debate, Goldman launched a critique of capi-
talism that continues to have relevance to debates about the value and
scope of women’s work.
The gradual expansion of women’s labor that took place during the turn
of the century to include work in both public and private arenas was
62 TONGUE OF FIRE
became important to the women’s movement and their entry into the
public sphere, with many uniting through unionization and engaging
in strikes in opposition to the poor working conditions. The United
Tailoresses’ Society, the Female Improvement Society of the City and
County of Philadelphia, and the Shirt Sewers’ Cooperative are just a
few examples of the unions representing female workers that engaged
in organized strikes as early as the mid-1800s.45
The differing experiences of middle- and working-class women
were manifested in the fragmentation within the women’s move-
ment. For working-class women and ethnic and racial minorities,
poverty—not the denial of voting rights—was the most significant
form of oppression.46 As discussed in chapter 1, working-class women
were drawn to radical movements because their needs would not be
addressed by obtaining suffrage alone; and, furthermore, “disorderly”
working-class women were “less bound by decorous norms of appro-
priate female behavior” compared to middle-class women.47 Goldman
herself believed that the working class had more freedom than the
middle class, for “they [the economically privileged] cannot put on
overalls and ride the bumpers to the next town in search of a job . . .
they have spent a lifetime on a profession, at the expense of all their
other faculties.”48 The next chapter thus examines how her working-
class and alien status created possibilities for rhetorical action and gen-
der/sex politics that differed from privileged women who were more
likely to participate in reform efforts like the suffrage movement.49
Goldman argued that the suffrage movement was shortsighted and
failed to adequately represent “working girls.” In her opinion, American
women misconstrued the ideal of liberation by narrowly focusing on
the “external tyrants” of universal suffrage and economic independence.
She reasons, “There is no reason whatever to assume that woman, in
her climb to emancipation, has been, or will be, helped by the ballot.”50
“True emancipation,” submits Goldman, is a personal transformation
in that it requires rejection of the “internal tyrants,” which are articu-
lated through religious and social conventions.51 These internal tyrants
thus include the limitations women placed on themselves by following
the social conventions of marriage and motherhood. She believed that
women only strengthened the “awful toll . . . to pay to the Church,
State, and the home” by equating suffrage with becoming better Chris-
tians, homemakers, and citizens.52 Instead, women needed to break
down these mental barriers and experience a new creative energy by
becoming openly sexually independent and assertive.
SEX, LABOR, AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE 65
every aspect of life. There are four general categories of women’s labor
addressed by Goldman’s speeches and writing: industrial and profes-
sional work, compulsory marriage, prostitution, and compulsory moth-
erhood. In each of these forms of work, she diagnoses the injustices
caused by a capitalist system that established inequality, commodified
women’s bodies, and inhibited women’s creative and sexual potential.
More than five million women were employed outside the home by
1900, working in factories, offices, and department stores;58 however,
they typically earned wages below the poverty level and were more
likely than men to be employed in temporary or seasonal jobs where
layoffs occurred frequently.59 While women’s participation in labor
strikes during the turn of the century is well documented, their voices
were marginalized when it came to union demands.60 Accordingly,
women’s entry into the public workplace, whether as factory workers,
secretaries, clerks, or stenographers, was not a sign of their liberation
but of the expansion of capitalism and of a docile workforce, argues
Goldman. That is, women could now be exploited as a form of cheap
labor by an unregulated and corrupt capitalist system—just like men
were being exploited. “Six million women wage-earners; six million
women, who have the equal right with men to be exploited, to be
robbed, to go on strike; aye, to starve even. Anything more, my lord?”
she proclaims in “Marriage and Love” (1910), an essay that addresses
the influence of capitalism on intimate relationships.61 She asserts:
Thus, she diagnosed the problems with women’s labor not only in terms
of inequality and exploitation, but the diminishment of their natu-
ral sexual drive. Furthermore, she associated the lure of prostitution
with sweatshop conditions in factories: “Girls, mere children, work in
crowded, overheated rooms ten to twelve hours daily at a machine,
which tends to keep them in a constant over-excited sex state. Many of
these girls have no home or comforts of any kind; therefore the street
or some place of cheap amusement is the only means of forgetting
their daily routine. . . . That is the first step toward prostitution.”64 The
conditions of capitalism, which caused excessive strain on workers’ bod-
ies and mental state, are incongruous with supporting healthy intimate
relationships, she reasons. Employing slavery and prison metaphors,
Goldman conceptualizes marriage as abusive domestic labor: “She
learns soon enough that the home, though not so large a prison as the
factory, has more solid doors and bars. It has a keeper so faithful that
naught can escape him. The most tragic part, however, is that the home
no longer frees her from wage-slavery; it only increases her task.”65 The
expectation to marry and bear children, of course, went hand in hand
even as increasing numbers of women gained employment outside the
home.
COMPULSORY MARRIAGE
The sole difference between her [the prostitute] and the mar-
ried woman is, that the one has sold herself into chattel slav-
ery during life, for a home or a title, and the other one sells
herself for the length of time she desires; she has the right to
choose the man she bestowes [sic] her affections upon, whereas
the married woman has no right whatsoever; she must sub-
mit to the embrace of her lord, no matter how loathsome this
embrace may be to her, she must obey his commands, she has
to bear him children, even at the cost of her own strength and
health; in a word, she prostitutes herself every hour, every day
of her life.71
race of women who could look liberty in the face.”75 For Goldman,
true womanhood refers to the fully emancipated woman who defiantly
refuses to succumb to any authority and who actively seeks to under-
stand and realize her sexual potential. Accordingly, Goldman rejected
the prevailing essentialist argument made by many suffrage advocates
that women’s moral superiority would make them valuable contributors
to politics. Her rejection of moral authority is likewise found in her
position on another form of women’s labor, prostitution.
PROSTITU TION
COMPULSORY MOTHERHOOD
to listen, I would do it. . . . I know that the girls will not come if it is
promiscuous, but if I could get them on their own grounds. . . . I am
more interested in young women who are starting out in life,” she com-
mented in a personal letter written to her friend and fellow anarchist
Agnes Inglis regarding a lecture on birth control.90
Challenging the attitude that women’s duty is to bear children,
Goldman argues in “Woman Suffrage” (1910) that independence is
generated by women who assert themselves as individuals, “not as a
sex commodity,” and “by refusing the right to anyone over her body;
by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them; by refusing to be
a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the family, etc.”91
Women should have “the absolute right to free motherhood,” she
declares.92 She defines the ideal emancipated woman in “The Tragedy
of Woman’s Emancipation” (1910): “Emancipation should make it pos-
sible for woman to be human in the truest sense. Everything within
her that craves assertion and activity should reach its fullest expression;
all artificial barriers should be broken, and the road towards greater
freedom cleared of every trace of centuries of submission and slavery.”93
The changes that emerged in labor and politics during Goldman’s
lifetime coincided with the struggle to realize public womanhood. The
division of public and private spheres was experienced differently for
working-class women—immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, and
the poor—who out of necessity labored and earned wages for other-
wise “manly” jobs such as rolling tobacco, shoe making, and farming.
Because working-class immigrant women such as Goldman were not
bound by the same rules of decorum and custom as were middle-class
women, they did not experience the stigma of improper behavior—
after all, they violated norms of womanhood by their birthright as poor
people. Thus, for working-class women, different possibilities existed
not only for redefining womanhood but reframing private issues as
matters of public concern.
By addressing the nature of women’s labor in a variety of con-
texts—industrial and professional work, marriage, prostitution, and
compulsory motherhood—Goldman drew attention to the ways in
which capitalism sustained relations of patriarchal power in both the
private and public lives of women. As an anarchist, she viewed women’s
liberation as inseparable from men’s; however, she also recognized that
women’s bodies were commodified differently. She cast women at once
as both victims and agents; that is, victims of a capitalist system that
74 TONGUE OF FIRE
75
76 TONGUE OF FIRE
entrance onto the public speaking platform began in 1889 upon lis-
tening to a stirring speech about the Haymarket martyrs delivered by
Johann Most, a prominent anarchist and editor of the German anar-
chist paper Freiheit. Upon meeting Goldman, Most was impressed by
her dynamic personality and encouraged her to become his protégée.
Idealistic and impressionable, Goldman moved from Rochester to the
Lower East Side of New York City, entered the social circle of the
anarchist movement and “the metropolitan intelligentsia,”11 and began
her training in the art of public speaking. Government reports on her
speeches indicate that in her early career as a public speaker, she spoke
in Russian, German, and Yiddish to primarily immigrant workers in
New York City, with her most ardent supporters being Russian and
Polish Jews.12 Her ability to speak in multiple languages was undoubt-
edly a cause for concern by government authorities who sought to cur-
tail her access to audiences. With few exceptions, as much as possible
she preferred speaking to audiences of both women and men in order
to expose anarchism to the masses.
Presenting herself as an unrelenting agitator, Goldman, in her per-
formance on the speaking platform, showed a dynamic and provocative
display of her conviction and passion. Far from being polite and deco-
rous, this “bitch of an anarchist”13 spoke forcefully and demanded to be
heard. Her rhetorical style was a performance of her self-defined role
as an agitator and was expressed through both verbal and nonverbal
communication. “I am passionate. When I begin to speak it does not
take me long to become warmed to my subject. I carry my hearers with
me. Orator! Bah! I am no orator. It is as an agitator that I wish to be
known,” Goldman told a reporter from the Detroit Journal: “I wish to
impel men [sic] toward the goal we seek—the goal that is flooded with
the golden light of liberty—the goal that we are approaching and will
reach in time as sure as dawn follows night.”14 Her “tongue of fire”15
delivery, as Voltairine de Cleyre once described it, involved the use of
her voice, facial expressions, and body, and was frequently exaggerated
in newspaper illustrations. “[S]he is a vigorous and venomous speaker,
and attracts attention, if not respect, wherever she is heard,” reported
the St. Paul Daily Globe in response to an occasion for which she was
arrested in 1893 for encouraging a crowd of unemployed workers in
Union Square, New York City, to go ahead and “take bread” if both
work and bread are denied.16 Commenting on Goldman’s remarkable
“ TONGUE OF FIRE” 79
You have no idea of the terrible strain I live under. I never get
up on a platform but I realize the safety of those 800 or more
people is in my hands; that in a sense I am responsible for it.
Let me advertise that I am going to speak on any social or eco-
nomic subject and as like as not there will be 150 uniformed
police in the hall. . . . [T]he sight of that corps is enough to
precipitate trouble from mere nervous strain. . . . Whenever I
80 TONGUE OF FIRE
She was especially concerned that some women would be less inclined
to attend her speeches, particularly when it came to lecturing on fam-
ily planning and birth control, which would be perceived as lewd and
illegal speech by Comstock standards.24 Regarding female audience
members, Goldman wondered, “How can a timid woman, who may
have come here to learn, be unconscious that she is in a hotbed of
danger?”25
Goldman promoted her ideas to audiences by crisscrossing the
United States on lecture tours. As noted previously, she also published
and sold a collection of her speeches and writings titled Anarchism
and Other Essays (1910) along with the anarchist journal Mother Earth
(1906–1917), the latter of which was a vital forum for anarchist phi-
losophy and activism beyond Goldman’s ideas. In her study of the rise
of the bohemian movement, Stansell (2000) remarks, Goldman was
“adept at techniques of publicity and self-amplification; she was pivotal
in the transformation of ideas and politics into spectacle and celebrity
and in using the space where the left and entertainment converged.”26
Goldman’s theatrical rhetorical style was a blend of heated attacks and
appeals to reason. This style reflected her Russian-Jewish immigrant-
worker identity, and it aided her mission of bringing anarchism to the
masses.
A REASONING AGITATOR
That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny.
One has but to glance over the statistics of divorce to realize
how bitter a failure marriage really is. Nor will the stereotyped
Philistine argument that the laxity of divorce laws and the
growing looseness of woman account for the fact that: first,
every twelfth marriage ends in divorce; second, that since 1870
divorces have increased 28 to 73 for every hundred thousand
population; third, that adultery, since 1867, as ground for
divorce, has increased 270.8 per cent; fourth, that desertion
increased 369.8 per cent. Adding to these startling figures is
the vast amount of material, dramatic and literary, further elu-
cidating this subject.32
She continues her indictment of marriage and appeal for free love by
citing various contemporary writers who had commented on the state
of romantic relationships, including novelist Robert Herrick, drama-
tist Henrik Ibsen, and sexologist Edward Carpenter. In other works,
she cites Peter Kropotkin, Michael Bakunin, Moses Harmon, Henry
David Thoreau, George Bernard Shaw, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and
Friedrich Nietzsche, among other progressive thinkers. Additionally,
she frequently contrasts social and political conditions in the United
States with other countries, such as Russia, England, New Zealand,
and Finland. Speaking and writing in facts and abstractions, Gold-
man does not divulge anything about her personal life in her public
advocacy with the exception of her autobiography published in 1931,
even though her unconventional sexual relationships served as a living
example of her model of true womanhood.
Goldman’s reliance on drama, literature, and emerging scientific
research about anarchism and sexuality to support her arguments was
an attempt to introduce and popularize European ideas in an American
setting. She also sought to expand the American anarchist struggle to
conjoin the activism of intellectuals and laborers. To encourage work-
ing-class activists to read and incorporate the ideas of the intelligen-
tsia into their activism, she delivered and printed several works on the
“ TONGUE OF FIRE” 83
A DANCING RHETOR
Many [p]eople have expressed surprise . . . that I who have for
so many years criticised [sic] the marriage institution, should
in the end have submitted to it. Invariably, they want to know
whether I have also changed my point of view held in the past
about the union between two people as entirely a private affair.
I cannot be too emphatic in my declaration now, as ever, I
am convinced that the institution of marriage as such can add
nothing whatever to the fundamental motives that bring men
and women together.42
suffrage and free love movements and the campaign for birth con-
trol.45 According to a newspaper report, Goldman delivered a lecture
in Toronto in which she advocated the new companionate marriage as
an alternative to the established institution. Companionate marriage,
she explains, is based on the principle that young couples postpone
marriage until they are “physiologically and psychologically best fit-
ted” and “with their parents consent, live and work and grow together
in their parents’ home.”46 Companionate marriage allows both women
and men to develop their sexual selves before getting married and to
avoid having children until they are absolutely ready. Moreover, she
explains that “easy divorce would be part of the scheme” so that indi-
viduals would not be forced to stay in an unwanted relationship.47 But,
by proposing a system of companionate marriage, she was no longer
advocating the anarchist ideal, which rejected marriage altogether in
favor of absolute sexual freedom; rather, she was calling for marriage
reform through the replacement of one institution with another. Thus,
even as Goldman advocated a radical philosophy of women’s autonomy,
at times she appeared to subscribe to traditional constructs and gender
roles. On the rise in popularity of companionate marriage, Rebecca
L. Davis (2008) argues that many free love advocates “tempered their
radicalism by describing monogamous marriage as the culmination of
heterosexual love. Instead of reforming marriage to improve sex, they
would reform sex to improve marriage.”48
A third subject in which Goldman can be seen to contradict her-
self is the use of violence to achieve the aims of anarchism. In “Anar-
chism is Not Necessarily Violence” (1907), she argues that although
anarchism does not inherently imply the use of violent methods, she
supports those who are impelled to use them:
A few years later, she reiterated this simultaneous sympathy for and dis-
association with those who use violence in “The Psychology of Political
“ TONGUE OF FIRE” 87
A RUSSIAN-JEWISH IMMIGRANT,
WORKING-CLASS WOMAN
within the discursive context of her class, ethnicity, sexuality, and lim-
inal citizenship. While the prevailing norms called for feminine purity
and domesticity, Goldman worked outside the home, rejected morality
and religion, had multiple lovers, and spoke in public with an authority
that was met with condemnation and challenges to her civil liberties.
In turn, she adopted a rhetorical persona that both internalized and
transgressed conventional constructs of femininity at a time when a
marked shift in the social geography of gender was unfolding. It was
from the standpoint of a Russian-Jewish working-class female immi-
grant that Goldman redefined gender and conceived her anarchist-
feminist ideology.
An analysis of the relationship between Goldman’s social identity
and rhetoric must inevitably acknowledge her roots in Russia. Gold-
man emigrated from Russia to the United States in 1885 at the age of
sixteen and, as a consequence, witnessed part of the rise of the Russian
women’s movement that had begun in the mid-1800s. A brief look at
the rise of the Russian women’s movement and Goldman’s reflections
on female Russian revolutionaries—many of whom were Jewish—sug-
gests that her persona was greatly influenced by the struggle of women
in her homeland. As working-class Jewish women from Russia and
other parts of Eastern Europe journeyed to the United States, they
experienced a new set of struggles related to their class, their foreign
origin, and the radical ideas they imported from home. These experi-
ences shaped their group identity and served as a springboard for the
formation of radical counterpublics.
Similar to American and European women, Russian women of
the nineteenth century did not have any status apart from the liveli-
hood of their husbands. An 1836 Code of Russian Laws states, “The
woman must obey her husband, reside with him in love, respect, and
unlimited obedience, and offer him every pleasantness and affection as
the ruler of the household.”63 A collective of bourgeois women initi-
ated the Russian women’s movement, which was aimed at expanding
their sphere to include access to a university education and profes-
sional career opportunities. A colony of radical activists developed and
centered around the University of Zurich, well-known throughout
Europe for its admission of female students. It was these female Rus-
sian intellectuals who formed a community in Zurich, Switzerland,
who spread the idea of women’s rights to working-class women in Rus-
sia. Although the attempt to include working women in the movement
“ TONGUE OF FIRE” 91
youth, and your energy after twenty years in Siberia. She would
look at me with her large and beautiful eyes, and she would
say “How did you manage to retain your spirit, your youth, and
your energy after twenty years in Siberia of America.”69
Just a few years before her death, Goldman reiterated her respect for
women of the Russian Revolution in an encomium in which she pro-
claims, “Russian women have participated in every form of revolu-
tionary activity and went to their deaths or to prison with a smile
upon their lips.”70 She expressed her admiration and profound respect
for these “heroic women” from both the intelligentsia and proletarian
class by noting their “[i]ngenious and daring” qualities, “outstanding
personalities,” “exceptionally generous spirit,” and “martyrdom.”71 Rus-
sian women “face hell itself for their ideal,” in contrast to American
women, argues Goldman.”72 These words reveal a strong affinity with
the struggle of Russian women revolutionaries as well as the struggle
of the working class. Goldman strongly identified with Russian-Jewish
women, in particular, who, like her, immigrated to United States in
search of freedom. She also saw Jews in general as the lifeblood of the
anarchist movement: “[W]hat would become of progress were it not
for the Jews?. . . [T]he bulk of our American radicals would positively
die of inertia and anaemia [sic], were it not for the Jews constantly
infusing new blood into their system.”73
Among early revolutionary groups, Jewish women were only sec-
ond in numbers to Russian women.74 Radical political leanings within
the community of Russian-Jewish women transferred to the United
States, particularly in terms of immigrant participation in anarchist and
socialist groups.75 Russian-Jewish women like Goldman faced many
obstacles arising from religious beliefs and customs, which in turn
fueled their desire to rebel. Goldman’s childhood was characterized by
the dominion of her father over the family and the pressure to submit
to an arranged marriage, both of which she rebelled against when she
emigrated to the United States.76 On the one hand, Goldman’s activism
can be seen as a reaction to the sexual and moral oppression imposed
by Jewish traditions. On the other hand, her Jewish identity served as
a source of empowerment for her intellectual development.
Within nineteenth-century Russian-Jewish culture, women could
not aspire to the important roles of rabbi and scholar as could their
“ TONGUE OF FIRE” 93
But this little Russian woman, with her thickened speech, her
good rolling ‘r’s, her disdain for rhetorical rules, her vehemence
of expression, her potent, unstudied postures, is the most inter-
esting woman I have ever met.
—San Francisco Call, April 27, 1898
97
98 TONGUE OF FIRE
Indeed, government officials and local authorities did fear that her
speeches would stir audiences to the point of igniting violence or other
unlawful behavior.
Goldman’s speaking events brewed controversy as she visited cities
across the country. One such event involved a pastor who invited her
to speak in his church, the People’s Tabernacle in Detroit, Michigan,
for the stated purpose of promoting understanding of antagonistic
views. A newspaper report on the incident with the sensational head-
line “Violent Anarchist in Christian Pulpit” noted that, “A large num-
ber of ladies took this opportunity of seeing what a real live anarchist
looks like.”10 Another story reported a crowd of “no less than 1,500
people being present, a fair majority of them being in accord with
the speaker.”11 As expected, Goldman delivered a speech denouncing
Christian religion and morality, which was promptly condemned by
church members. Some members resigned their membership, while
deacons called up the pastor to resign for allowing an “infidel to speak
102 TONGUE OF FIRE
she sacrifices her looks for books?” Indeed, Goldman’s appearance was
of great interest to consumers of popular news. The characterizations
of her body in the press tended to oscillate between ugly and beautiful.
haters. Miss Geldman [sic] viewed the ejection from her seat of honor
near a beer table and applauded the work of her unwashed brethren by
rapping the table with a mug of beer.”27 A story about her appearance
at a Labor Day picnic in Spring Valley, Illinois, claimed that she gave
a speech to “300 foreigners” proposing “[e]very anarchist child . . . is
to be baptized with beer” and that “[t]he anarchist woman added to
her popularity by treating her followers to liquor and drinking with
them.”28 Of course, national and international events fueled the mis-
trust of anarchists, particularly the bombing of Chicago’s Haymarket
Square during a labor demonstration on May 4, 1886; the attempted
assassination of Henry Clay Frick in 1892 by Berkman, Goldman’s
friend and one-time lover; the assassination of prime minister of Spain
Antonio Cánovas del Castillo in 1897 by anarchist Michele Angiolillo;
the assassination of President William McKinley by Leon Czolgosz in
1901; the rise of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the “Red Scare”
that coincided with it29—all of which came to be associated with the
official “chief ” of anarchists in America, Emma Goldman.30
While constructions of Goldman’s body were consistent with
depictions of male anarchists as coarse, violent, and criminally suspect,
constructions of her body were also inscribed with the feminine mys-
tique. She was a disorderly, unattractive, and yet a strangely beautiful,
enigmatic woman. Some descriptions raised intrigue about her physical
attractiveness and unfeminine behavior, especially earlier in her anar-
chist career. For example, an 1892 Pittsburg Dispatch article describes
her as “a gaily-dressed girl with golden hair, big grey eyes and a tall,
slight figure . . . smoking cigarettes . . . and swearing picturesquely
and luridly.”31 Conflating sex with power, on November 16, 1897, the
Detroit Journal headline and series of bylines read as follows:
She was small, plump; one could not in truth call her petite,
for she was too round and healthy looking. She wore a dress
of fuzzy brown stuff, the waist of which was made of the skirt
material decorated with fine satin striped silk. About the black
silk collar were two rows of beads, small, jetlike things, that
sparked when she would turn her head. The woman’s feet were
tiny, encased in kid shoes, and her hair, parted and brushed
over her forehead in a wave, was brown, and of silky softness.
She wore gold-rimmed eyeglasses, from which dangled a long
gold chain, and as she talked she idly fingered a vinegar bottle
that stood on the table. Her face was refined and unforgettable.
The mouth was its only homely feature, though the nose some
might have called too thick. The complexion was as clear as a
rose and the pink cheeks flushed and paled as she grew inter-
ested in her talk. The brow was fair and only two lines were
visible on its white surface. They ran up from the top of her
nose and might have been caused by her eyeglasses. Her eyes
were big and blue and languishing when in repose, but when
she waxed excited they flashed and sparkled like cat’s. This
woman was the famous Emma Goldman, the crown princess
of the anarchists of the new world.33
The same article also describes at length just how unattractive she is:
to sallow. Weak eyes, which are pale blue, watery blue is the
ordinary description. . . . Her mouth is large and sensual. There
is a lack of resolution in the weak upper lip, but this deficiency
is balanced by the curl of the lower lip, which falls so low that
it discloses her firmly-set teeth. This lip and the chin, usually
wrinkled with scorn, are the strongest details of a face that is
rather wooden in repose. . . . At her throat usually flashes the
FRAMING “ THE HIGH PRIESTESS OF ANARCHY ” 111
men: “Her word is law. She has conquered all by either her magnetism
or love diplomatically distributed among the men she wants as allies.”
“Are you a lover or simply a friend of Miss Goldman?” the reporter
inquired to one of her friends, Frank Keidler. The story continues, “He
only smiled in reply, and then commenced a long story about the supe-
rior accomplishments of the fair queen.”41
Several stories appearing in newspapers across the country between
1893 and 1908 identify Goldman as “wife”42 or “wife in spirit”43 of
Alexander Berkman and Berkman as the “husband”44 or “common law
husband”45 of Goldman. A May 20, 1906 story in the Washington Times
reveals that Berkman’s “little love secret has come out” for “the mys-
terious lady whom [he] addressed as E. Smith in his correspondence
[while in prison], proves to be no other than Emma Goldman, the
famous anarchist.”46 Days later, a May 25, 1906 Los Angeles Herald
story announced that the couple had married in Detroit upon Berk-
man’s release from prison, “[a]s the idea of marriage by forms of law is
repugnant to all anarchists, the contracting parties called no judge or
minister to read the service, but were united according to the tenets
of their belief.” What made the story even more sensational was the
claim that the “service” had been performed by Carl Nold, a mutual
friend who also served time in prison as conspirator in Henry Clay
Frick’s assassination. The story concludes by announcing that “Mr. and
Mrs. Bergman [sic] will make New York their home.”47 Two months
later, a reporter for the Albuquerque Citizen did a follow-up story on
Goldman’s views of matrimony, “[i]n view of the fact that she is a
bride, having recently married, in the anarchist fashion” to Berkman.48
Responding to the reporter’s inquiry, Goldman is quoted as challeng-
ing the “nonsense” notion that she is married to Berkman explaining,
“Anarchists do not believe in marriage. . . . Close living together of men
and women is injurious to affection. Their lives become commonplace
and monotonous. . . . Human nature craves variety in literature and
other affairs of life and so it is in the closer relations.”49 Still, another
story appearing in the Washington Times describes the reporter’s wit-
nessing of “the terrible pair of Reds” as they sat “on a park bench,
holding hands and breathing soft anarchist nothings into each oth-
ers ears.”50 Goldman’s publicized relationship with Berkman no doubt
added to the perception that she was “the most dangerous woman in
America,” as Berkman was well known for his multiple arrests, involve-
ment in bomb plots and a prison break out, in addition to his attempted
FRAMING “ THE HIGH PRIESTESS OF ANARCHY ” 113
Even when a story was only remotely tied to Goldman, she was pre-
sented as central to the narrative. For example, in a story with the head-
line “Tar and Feathers for Anarchist in San Diego” in the Hawaiian
Gazette on May 17, 1912, a large illustration of Goldman with a torch,
bomb, prison-cell window, and guillotine was depicted even though
the story was about an incident in which Ben Reitman was attacked
by an angry crowd—presumably the image of his comrade and lover
Goldman sells newspapers better.70
FRAMING “ THE HIGH PRIESTESS OF ANARCHY ” 115
Some reports illustrate just how closely she was tracked and
observed by reporters. Regarding her arrest and trial for incitement
to riot in Union Square, a reporter dramatically describes her appear-
ance in the courtroom as she “came in quietly, almost unobserved . . .
shrank into a corner of the ‘ladies box.’ . . . She was clad in black. She
wore a small hat with white flowers and a heavy veil, through which
her gold-rimmed spectacles glistened and her large blue eyes flashed.”71
On August 17, 1894, the day of her release from Blackwell’s Island
after serving time for inciting to riot for her Union Square speech,
an Evening World reporter observes as she left the boat: “She wore
the same black skirt, check waist and black straw hat which made her
famous last year. She also wore spectacles. The only difference in the
hat was that instead of the feather which formerly adorned it, a wreath
of flowers had taken its place. Emma boarded a Second avenue ‘L’ road
train and started downtown.”72 Realizing her release from prison was
cause for “a brass band and procession,” the story notes that authorities
discharged her two hours earlier than usual, presumably to thwart sup-
porters from greeting her.73 Two days later, on the evening of August
19, a large reception was held to celebrate her release with report-
edly some three thousand people in attendance. In its description of
the event, the Washington Times notes that Goldman’s tongue “wags as
volubly and viciously as before her imprisonment.”74
Goldman’s perceived ability to sway a crowd and inspire lawless
behavior is what made her a dangerous woman. Reinforcing the popular
stereotype of women as incessant talkers, a Spanish Fork Press story thus
introduces Goldman as a woman whose tongue the authorities cannot
stop despite “the entire secret service of the United States assisted by
the postal authorities and a score of city police. . . . Laws have been
made especially to deal with her and whole corps of detectives trained
to enforce laws. But neither espionage, threats or imprisonment have
served to check the fanatical activity of Emma Goldman, internation-
ally known as the ‘Queen of the Anarchists.’”75 In another example,
on August 19, 1893, in the Evening World, the headline and bylines of
a report on Goldman’s famous Union Square speech proclaim, “Stirs
The Reds. Emma Goldman Tells Them They Must Sweep the Land of
the Rich. Death and Blood the Motto. She Says They Must Not Be
Surprised ‘If Anything Happens To-Night’ [sic].” The report claims
that she “advised unemployed men of this city to break into stores to
116 TONGUE OF FIRE
supply their wants.”76 The Scranton Tribune admonishes that “it is again
time for ministers and moralists to lift warning voices against her rant-
ings, for she is uttering more incendiary sentiments than if she were
endeavoring to incite her followers to burn and plunder the cities of
the land.”77
The news stories associating Goldman with lawless behavior
resulted in a conflict between her right to a fair trial—particularly, the
presumption of innocence until proven guilty—and the freedom of
the press. She was tried in the press for her alleged complicity in the
assassination attempt of Henry Clay Frick on July 23, 1892, although
Berkman alone traveled to Pittsburgh and was convicted of the crime:
“Anticipating a bloody riot and the necessity for a great show of clubs
and stars, several members of the detective force paid 10 cents admis-
sion to Burbank [H]all last night and listened to a lecture on non-resis-
tance anarchy by Emma Goldman,” the Los Angeles Herald reported on
May 24, 1907.89 In another example, the New Ulm Review reported on
March 18, 1908, that Goldman had attended an anthropological soci-
ety meeting in Chicago while “thirty-five or forty ponderous police-
men, some in plain clothes, stalked in or remained just outside the hall”
and went on to describe how this “much dreaded woman” left the hall
because of the disturbance caused by of the presence of police.90 That
same year, the Norfolk Weekly News Journal declared:
On that day in June 1917, Goldman and Berkman were arrested and
indicted for conspiracy to violate the draft. It was also the day President
Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Espionage Act, which made it
a crime to promote the success of the enemies of the United States,
to interfere with conscription, or to encourage disloyalty—including
through the dissemination of written material.100 The New York Tribune
reported the next day that Goldman dressed in purple for the occasion
and “in her golden hair—not a gray hair shows despite her forty-eight
years—glistened gold-encrusted tortoiseshell combs.”101 Although as a
public spectacle, Goldman was not always taken seriously and accused
of self-serving egotism, the government considered her a major threat.
Her radical ideas of personal freedom and her feisty persona, however,
would be revisited and celebrated in the second and third waves of
American feminism.
CONCLUSION
123
124 CONCLUSION
In the notes, short titles are used for recurring citations. Works fre-
quently cited are identified by the abbreviations listed below, with a full
citation given for the first citation within each chapter:
131
132 NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
California Press, 2003 and 2004); Candace Falk, Love, Anarchy, and
Emma Goldman (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1984);
Vivian Gornick, Emma Goldman: Revolution as a Way of Life (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011); Leslie A. Howe, On Gold-
man (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000); Margaret Marsh, Anarchist
Women, 1870–1920 (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press,
1981); Theresa Moritz and Albert Moritz, The World’s Most Dan-
gerous Woman: A New Biography of Emma Goldman (Vancouver, BC:
Subway Books, 2001); Marian J. Morton, Emma Goldman and the
American Left: Nowhere at Home (New York: Twayne, 1992); Alix
Kates Shulman, To the Barricades: The Anarchist Life of Emma Gold-
man (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1971); Alice Wexler, Emma
Goldman: An Intimate Life (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984);
David Waldstreicher, Emma Goldman (New York: Chelsea House,
1990); Kenneth C. Wenzer, Anarchists Adrift: Emma Goldman and
Alexander Berkman (St. James, NY: Brandywine Press, 1996); Alice
Wexler, Emma Goldman: An Intimate Life (New York: Pantheon
Books, 1984); Alice Wexler, Emma Goldman in Exile: From the
Russian Revolution to the Spanish Civil War (Boston, MA: Beacon
Press, 1989).
11. Analyses of Goldman’s ideas, argumentation, and rhetorical style
include: Penny A. Weiss and Loretta Kensinger, eds., Feminist
Interpretations of Emma Goldman (University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 2007); Kathy E. Ferguson, Emma Gold-
man: Political Thinking in the Streets (Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield, 2011); Bonnie Haaland, Emma Goldman: Sexuality
and the Impurity of the State (Montreal, QC: Black Rose Books,
1993); Marsha Hewitt, “Emma Goldman: The Case for Anarcho-
Feminism,” in The Anarchist Papers, ed. Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos
(Montreal, QC: Black Rose Books, 1986), 167–75; Linda Diane
Horwitz, Donna Marie Kowal, and Catherine Helen Palczewski,
“Anarchist Women and the Feminine Ideal: Voltairine de Cleyre,
Emma Goldman and Lucy Parsons,” in The Rhetoric of Nineteenth
Century Reform and the Perfecting of American Society, vol. 5 of Rhe-
torical History of the United States, eds. Martha Watson and Thomas
Burkholder (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2008):
309–53; Vito Silvestri, “Emma Goldman: Enduring Voice of Anar-
chism,” Today’s Speech 17, no. 3 (1969): 20–25; Martha Solomon,
Emma Goldman (Boston, MA: Twayne, 1987; Martha Solomon,
134 NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
CHAP TER 1:
ANARCHIST WOMEN AND THE “SEX QUESTION”
3. Ibid., 10.
4. Judith Butler and Elizabeth Weed, introduction to Question of
Gender: Joan W. Scott’s Critical Feminism, eds. Judith Butler and
Elizabeth Weed (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011), 3.
5. Ibid.
6. Butler, Bodies That Matter, 10.
7. This argument is an extension of my prior work: Linda Diane
Horwitz, Donna Marie Kowal, and Catherine Helen Palczewski,
“Anarchist Women and the Feminine Ideal: Sex, Class and Style in
the Rhetoric of Voltairine de Cleyre, Emma Goldman, and Lucy
Parsons,” in The Rhetoric of Nineteenth Century Reform and the Per-
fecting of American Society, vol. 5 of Rhetorical History of the United
States, eds. Martha Watson and Thomas Burkholder (East Lansing:
Michigan State University Press, 2008), 309–53.
8. Carole S. Vance, “Pleasure and Danger: Toward a Politics of Sexu-
ality,” in Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, ed. Carole
S. Vance (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984), 1.
9. Vern L. Bullough, “The Development of Sexology in the USA in
the Early Twentieth Century,” in Sexual Knowledge, Sexual Science:
The History of Attitudes to Sexuality, eds. Roy Porter and Mikulas
Teich (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 308.
10. Vance, “Pleasure and Danger,” 7.
11. Sarah Stage, Female Complaints: Lydia Pinkham and the Business of
Women’s Medicine (New York: WW Norton, 1979), 64–65.
12. Linda Gordon, The Moral Property of Women: A History of Birth
Control Politics in America (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
2002), 106. Also see Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English,
Complaints and Disorders: The Sexual Politics of Sickness (Lon-
don: Compendium, 1974); Carol Smith-Rosenberg and Charles
Rosenberg, “The Female Animal: Medical and Biological Views of
Woman and Her Role in Nineteenth-Century America,” Journal
of American History 60, no. 2 (1973); Carol Smith-Rosenberg, “The
Hysterical Woman: Sex Roles and Role Conflict in 19th Cen-
tury America,” Social Research 39, no. 4 (1972); Sally Shuttleworth,
“Female Circulation: Medical Discourse and Popular Advertising
in the Mid-Victorian Era,” in Body/Politics: Women Discourses of
Science, eds. Mary Jacobus, Evelyn Fox Keller, and Sally Shuttle-
worth (New York: Routledge, 1990); Ann Douglas Wood, “‘The
146 NOTES TO CHAP TER 2
and suffrage leaders addressed labor issues. For example, see Ellen
Carol DuBois, “Working Women, Class Relations, and Suffrage
Militance: Harriot Stanton Blatch and the New York Women’s
Suffrage Movement, 1894–1909,” in One Woman, One Vote, ed.
Marjorie Spruill Wheeler (Troutdale, OR: New Sage Press, 1995).
However, the suffrage movement predominantly represented mid-
dle- and upper-class women, and this can be observed in the move-
ment’s rhetorical strategies. See Donna M. Kowal, “One Cause,
Two Paths: Militant vs. Adjustive Strategies in the British and
American Women’s Suffrage Movements,” Communication Quar-
terly 48 (2000): 240–56.
50. Goldman, “Woman Suffrage,” in AOE, 209.
51. Goldman, “Tragedy of Woman’s Emancipation,” in AOE, 221–22.
52. Goldman, “Woman Suffrage,” in AOE, 197.
53. Ibid., 206.
54. Ibid., 201.
55. Ibid., 207. Indeed, in 1870, the Men’s Typographical Union accused
Anthony of strikebreaking when she encouraged print shops in
Rochester, New York, to hire female workers in place of the men on
strike, and she was charged with running a non-union shop at her
paper, the Revolution. See “Biography,” Susan B. Anthony House,
Rochester, New York, http://susanbanthonyhouse.org/her-story/
biography.php.
56. “The Tragedy of the Modern Woman,” draft (n.d.), Emma Gold-
man Papers, International Institute of Social History, inventory no.
266, 21117, http://search.socialhistory.org/Record /ARCH00520/
ArchiveContentList (hereafter cited as IISH/EGP). Also archived
in the EGP microfilm collection, reel 52: original from IISH. As
noted earlier, my use of this document is limited to content that
does not overlap with the published essay “The Tragedy of Wom-
an’s Emancipation,” which Goldman included in Anarchism and
Other Essays (1910).
57. Emma Goldman, “Has Feminism Lived Up to Its Promise?” draft
(est. 1930s), in The Emma Goldman Papers: A Microfilm Edition, eds.
Candace Falk, Ronald J. Zboray, and Daniel Cornford (Alexandria,
VA: Chadwyck-Healey, 1991), reel 52: original from IISH (hereaf-
ter cited as EGP).
58. Foner, Women and the American Labor Movement, 257.
59. Leslie Woodcock Tentler, Wage-Earning Women: Industrial Work
156 NOTES TO CHAP TER 3
18. “Emma at the Bar,” The Evening World (New York), October 4,
1893, last edition, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn83030193/1893-10-04/ed-2/seq-1/.
19. “Rebuff for Anarchists,” Oregonian (Portland, OR), May 19, 1908,
Historic Oregon Newspapers, http://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/
sn83025138/1908-05-19/ed-1/seq-6/.
20. “Emma Goldman an Ideal Study in Contradiction,” St. Louis (MO)
Republic, September 12, 1901, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.
loc.gov/lccn/sn84020274/1901-09-12/ed-1/seq-4/.
21. “Stirs the Reds,” Evening World (New York), August 19, 1893, in CA,
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030193/1893-08-19/
ed-4/seq-1/.
22. Emma Goldman, “Woman Suffrage,” in Anarchism and Other
Essays, 3rd rev. ed. (New York: Mother Earth, 1917; New York:
Dover, 1969), 205, 207 (hereafter cited as AOE). Also see Gold-
man’s encomium to Russian women activists titled “Heroic Women
of the Russian Revolution,” manuscript (New York), September 18,
1937, Joseph A. Labadie Collection, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
23. “Emma Goldman’s Solution,” Sun (New York), May 2, 1909, in CA,
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030272/1909-05-02/
ed-1/seq-21/.
24. Goldman to Agnes Inglis, 18 September 1916, Joseph A. Labadie
Collection, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
25. Ibid.
26. Stansell, American Moderns, 138–39.
27. “A New Declaration of Independence,” Mother Earth 4, no. 5 ( July
1909) (New York: Mother Earth):137, HathiTrust Digital Library,
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015081709548;view=
1up;seq=126.
28. Goldman, “Anarchism: What It Really Stands For,” in AOE, 57.
29. Goldman, “Minorities and Majorities,” in AOE, 73–74.
30. Goldman, “Woman Suffrage,” in AOE, 195–96.
31. Ibid., 210.
32. “Marriage and Love,” in AOE, 228–29.
33. Goldman, The Social Significance of the Modern Drama (New York:
Mother Earth, 1910); “The Modern Drama: A Powerful Dissemi-
nator of Radical Thought,” in AOE, 241–71; “The Revolutionary
Spirit in Modern Drama,” excerpt from lecture, trans. by Louis
NOTES TO CHAP TER 4 161
47. Ibid.
48. Davis, “Not Marriage at All,” 1142.
49. Goldman, “Anarchism is Not Necessarily Violence,” excerpt from
lecture in police transcript, 6 January 1907, in EGP, reel 47: origi-
nal from the Immigration and Naturalization Service via FOIA.
50. Goldman, “The Psychology of Political Violence,” in AOE, 107.
51. Martha Minnow, Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion and
American Law (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), 238.
52. James Joll, The Anarchists, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1980), 167.
53. Buchanan, Studies in Feminisms, 14.
54. Ibid., 7.
55. Kathy E. Ferguson, Emma Goldman: Political Thinking in the Streets
(Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2011), 277–78.
56. Goldman, “Anarchism: What It Really Stands For,” in AOE, 75–76.
57. Ibid., 65.
58. Ibid.
59. Goldman, “Woman Suffrage,” in AOE, 211.
60. Alix Kates Shulman, introduction to Red Emma Speaks: Selected
Writings and Speeches by Emma Goldman, comp. and ed. Alix Kates
Shulman (New York: Vintage Books, 1972), 25.
61. Chávez and Griffin, introduction to Standing in the Intersection,
11–12.
62. Kathleen Canning, “Feminist History after the Linguistic Turn:
Historicizing Discourse and Experience,” Signs 19 (Winter 1994):
396.
63. Richard Stites, The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Femi-
nism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism, 1860–1930 (Princeton, NJ: Princ-
eton, University Press, 1978), 6–7.
64. Ibid., 153.
65. Barbara Alpern Engel and Clifford N. Rosenthal note that many
women and men considered the women’s liberation to be a mat-
ter of personal autonomy. See introduction to Five Sisters: Women
Against the Tsar (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975; Dekalb: North-
ern Illinois University Press, 2013).
66. Richard Stites, “Women and the Russian Intelligentsia: Three Per-
spectives,” in Women in Russia, ed. Dorothy Atkinson, Alexander
Dallin, and Gail Warshofsky Lapidus (Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press: 1977), 53.
67. Ibid., 60.
NOTES TO CHAP TER 4 163
CHAP TER 5:
FRAMING “ THE HIGH PRIESTESS OF ANARCHY ”
43. “Emma Goldman Wife in Spirit,” Washington (DC) Times, May 26,
1906, last edition, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn84026749/1906-05-26/ed-1/seq-1/.
44. “Telegraphic Touches,” Colfax (WA) Gazette, October 26, 1906,
in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88085460/1906-
10-26/ed-1/seq-1/; “Woman Well Called Queen of Anarchists,”
Spanish Fork Press (Salt Lake City, UT), June 25, 1908, in CA,
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85058245/1908-06-25/
ed-1/seq-5/.
45. “Berkman Arrested,” Alexandria (DC) Gazette, March 30, 1908,
in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85025007/
1908-03-30/ed-1/seq-2/.
46. “Berkman’s Helper is Emma Goldman,” Washington (DC) Times,
May 20, 1906, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn84026749/1906-05-20/ed-1/seq-5/.
47. “Bergman [sic] Weds Emma Goldman,” Los Angeles (CA) Her-
ald, May 25, 1906, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn85042462/1906-05-25/ed-1/seq-1/.
48. “Emma Goldman, Red, On ‘Women Under Anarchy,’” Albuquerque
(NM) Evening Citizen, July 18, 1906, in CA, http://chronicling-
america.loc.gov/lccn/sn84020615/1906-07-18/ed-1/seq-3/.
49. Ibid.
50. “Emma Goldman Wife in Spirit,” Washington (DC)Times, May 26,
1906, last edition, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn84026749/1906-05-26/ed-1/seq-1/.
51. For a biographical account of the lifetime relationship between
Berkman and Goldman, see Paul Avrich and Karen Avrich, Sasha
and Emma: The Anarchist Odyssey of Alexander Berkman and Emma
Goldman (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2012).
52. “Once in the Limelight,” El Paso (TX) Herald, August 29, 1917, in CA,
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88084272/1917-08-29/
ed-1/seq-6/.
53. “Queen of Anarchists,” St. Paul (MN) Daily Globe, Septem-
ber 3, 1893, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn90059522/1893-09-03/ed-1/seq-11/.
54. “Falls in Love with Emma Goldman,” New York Tribune,
March 17, 1908, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn83030214/1908-03-17/ed-1/seq-7/.
NOTES TO CHAP TER 5 169
55. “Ben Reitman is Breaking Out,” El Paso (TX) Herald, January 27,
1910, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88084272/
1910-01-27/ed-1/seq-10/.
56. “Claus Timmermann Pleads,” Evening World (New York), Septem-
ber 1, 1893, last edition, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/
lccn/sn83030193/1893-09-01/ed-2/seq-1/. Also see “An Anarchist
Convicted,” Evening World (New York), September 8, 1893, in CA,
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030193/1893-09-08/
ed-3/seq-1/.
57. “City Briefs,” Tacoma (WA) Times, January 15, 1912, in CA, http://
chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88085187/1912-01-15/ed-1/
seq-7/.
58. “Once in the Limelight,” El Paso (TX) Herald, August 29, 1917, in CA,
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn88084272/1917-08-29/
ed-1/seq-6/.
59. “Goldman and Most,” Evening Star (Washington, DC), October 3,
1901, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/
1901-10-03/ed-1/seq-4/.
60. “Emma Goldman Here,” Herald (Los Angeles, CA), May 16,
1898, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85042461/
1898-05-16/ed-1/seq-5/.
61. “High Priestess of Anarchy, Sneers Over Crime,” Chicago (IL) Daily
Journal, March 3, 1908, in The Emma Goldman Papers: Microfilm
Edition, eds. Candace Falk, Ronald J. Zboray, and Daniel Cornford
(Alexandria, VA: Chadwyck-Healey, 1991), reel 47 (hereafter cited
as EGP).
62. “Emma Goldman Raises a Row,” Kansas City (KS) Journal,
November 21, 1897, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn86063615/1897-11-21/ed-1/seq-2/.
63. “Emma Goldman to Go to Arizona,” Los Angeles (CA) Herald,
March 9, 1909, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn85042462/1909-03-09/ed-1/seq-2/.
64. “Emma Goldman Will Not Be Allowed to Speak,” Salt Lake (UT)
Tribune, March 15, 1908, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.
gov/lccn/sn83045396/1908-03-15/ed-1/seq-2/.
65. “Emma Goldman to Show Car Strikers How to Win,” Washington
(DC) Times, March 6, 1910, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.
gov/lccn/sn84026749/1910-03-06/ed-1/seq-2/.
170 NOTES TO CHAP TER 5
79. “The Real Foundation of ‘Czolgozism,’” The St. Louis (MO) Repub-
lic, September 16, 1901, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/
lccn/sn84020274/1901-09-16/ed-1/seq-10/.
80. For example stories see: “Emma Goldman Sought by Federal
Detectives,” St. Louis (MO) Republic, September 9, 1901, in CA,
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84020274/1901-09-
09/ed-1/seq-1/; “Eludes Detectives,” Minneapolis (MN) Journal,
September 28, 1901, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/
lccn/sn83045366/1901-09-28/ed-1/seq-1/; “Emma Goldman,
the Much Sought After Woman Has Been Located and Will
Be Arrested,” Hickman (KY) Courier, September 13, 1901, in CA,
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85052141/1901-09-
13/ed-1/seq-8/; “Searching for Emma Goldman,” Daily Journal
(Salem, OR), September 9, 1901, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.
loc.gov/lccn/sn99063956/1901-09-09/ed-1/seq-3/.
81. Richard Drinnon, Rebel in Paradise: A Biography of Emma Goldman
(New York: Bantam Books, 1973), 69.
82. “Eludes Detectives,” Minneapolis (MN) Journal, Septem-
ber 28, 1901, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn83045366/1901-09-28/ed-1/seq-1/.
83. “Emma Goldman Sought by Federal Detectives,” St. Louis (MO)
Republic, September 9, 1901, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.
gov/lccn/sn84020274/1901-09-09/ed-1/seq-1/.
84. “No Evidence Against Emma Goldman,” New York Times, Sep-
tember 13, 1901, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=
FA081EF83F5B11738DDDAA0994D1405B818CF1D3.
85. “Goldman and Most,” Evening Star (Washington, DC), October 3,
1901, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/
1901-10-03/ed-1/seq-4/.
86. “Hatches to Plot Murder,” San Francisco (CA) Call, August 23,
1902, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/
1902-08-23/ed-1/seq-1/.
87. “Woman Called Queen of Anarchists,” Spanish Fork (UT) Press,
June 25, 1908, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn85058245/1908-06-25/ed-1/seq-5/.
88. “Emma Goldman Did Not Speak,” The Evening World (New York),
April 10, 1901, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn83030193/1901-04-10/ed-1/seq-3/.
89. “Detectives Ready for Riot Calls,” Los Angeles (CA) Herald,
172 NOTES TO CHAP TER 5
101. “Emma Goldman and Berkman are Arrested,” New York Tribune,
June 16, 1917, in CA, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/
sn83030214/1917-06-16/ed-1/seq-1/.
CONCLUSION
1. Joan Wallach Scott, Gender and the Politics of History (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1988), 26–27.
2. Nancy A. Hewitt, introduction to No Permanent Waves: Recasting
Histories of U.S. Feminism (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press, 2010), 2. Also see Nancy A. Hewitt, “Feminist Frequen-
cies: Regenerating the Wave Metaphor,” Feminist Studies 38, no. 3
(2012): 658–80.
3. Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersec-
tionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color,”
Stanford Law Review, vol. 43 (1991): 1241–49. Also see Critical
Race Feminism: A Reader, ed. Adrien Katherine Wing (New York:
New York University Press, 1997).
4. Angela Davis, Women, Culture & Politics (New York: Vintage
Books, 1990), xiii.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
This bibliography includes works by and about Emma Goldman and her
contemporaries. It also includes the scholarly literature that informed
my analysis of Goldman’s speeches and writings. Excluded from this
list are newspaper articles, which are cited fully in the endnotes.
Ahrens, Gale, ed. Lucy Parsons: Freedom Equality and Solidarity. Chi-
cago, IL: Charles H. Kerr, 2004.
Asen, Robert, and Daniel C. Brouwer, eds. Counterpublics and the State.
Albany: SUNY Press, 2001.
Ashbaugh, Carolyn. Lucy Parsons: An American Revolutionary. Chicago,
IL: Charles H. Kerr, 1976.
Avrich, Paul. An American Anarchist: The Life of Voltairine de Cleyre.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978.
Avrich, Paul, and Karen Avrich. Sasha and Emma: The Anarchist Odys-
sey of Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press, 2012.
Beisel, Nicola Kay. Anthony Comstock and Family Reproduction in Vic-
torian America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.
Blankenship, Jane, and Deborah Robson. “A ‘Feminine Style’ in Wom-
en’s Political Discourse: An Exploratory Essay.” Communication
Quarterly 43 (1995): 353–66.
Bordo, Susan. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the
Body. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
Boswell, Ben. “Old Red.” Review of Living My Life, by Emma Gold-
man. Time (November 9, 1931): 69.
175
176 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dow, Bonnie J., and Mari Boor Tonn. “‘Feminine Style’ and Political
Judgment in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards.” Quarterly Journal of
Speech 79 (1993): 286–302.
Drinnon, Richard. Rebel in Paradise: A Biography of Emma Goldman.
New York: Bantam Books, 1961.
Duberman, Martin B. Mother Earth: An Epic Drama of Emma Gold-
man’s Life. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.
DuBois, Ellen Carol, “Working Women, Class Relations, and Suffrage
Militance: Harriot Stanton Blatch and the New York Women’s
Suffrage Movement, 1894–1909.” In One Woman, One Vote: Redis-
covering the Woman Suffrage Movement, edited by Marjorie Spruill
Wheeler, 221–44. Troutdale, OR: New Sage Press, 1995.
DuBois, Ellen Carol, and Linda Gordon. “Seeking Ecstasy on the
Battlefield: Danger and Pleasure in Nineteenth Century Feminist
Sexual Thought.” Feminist Review 13 (February 1983): 7–25.
Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Deirdre English. Complaints and Disorders:
The Sexual Politics of Sickness. London: Compendium, 1974.
Engel, Barbara Alpern. Mothers and Daughters: Women of the Intelli-
gentsia in 19th Century Russia. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1983.
Engel, Barbara Alpern, and Clifford N. Rosenthal. Five Sisters: Women
Against the Tsar. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975; Dekalb: North-
ern Illinois University Press, 2013.
Enstad, Nan. Ladies of Labor, Girls of Adventure: Working Women, Popu-
lar Culture, and Labor Politics at the Turn of the Century. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1999.
Evans, Sara. Born for Liberty: A History of Women in America. New York:
The Free Press, 1989.
Falk, Candace. Love, Anarchy, and Emma Goldman. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1984.
Falk, Candace, Barry Pateman, and Jessica M. Moran, eds. Emma Gold-
man: A Documentary History of the American Years. Vol. 1, Made
for America, 1890–1901. Berkeley: University of California Press,
2003.
———. Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years.
Vol. 2, Making Speech Free, 1902–1909. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2004.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Con-
struction of Sexuality. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 179
Other Essays, 3rd rev. ed., 213–25. New York: Mother Earth,1910;
New York: Dover, 1969.
———. “Voltairine de Cleyre.” In Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltair-
ine de Cleyre—Anarchist, Feminist, Genius, edited by Sharon Presley
and Crispin Sartwell, 29–44. Albany: SUNY Press, 2005.
———. “We Don’t Believe in Conscription.” Government transcript of
address (Harlem River Casino, NY ), May 18, 1917. In The Emma
Goldman Papers: A Microfilm Edition, edited by Candace Falk,
Ronald J. Zboray, and Daniel Cornford, reel 59 (original from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service via FOIA). Alexandria,
VA: Chadwyck-Healey, 1991.
———. “What I Believe,” In Red Emma Speaks: Selected Writings and
Speeches by Emma Goldman, compiled and edited by Alix Kates
Shulman, 34–46. New York: Vintage Books, 1972.
———. “Woman Suffrage.” In Anarchism and Other Essays, 3rd rev. ed.,
195–211. New York: Mother Earth, 1910; New York: Dover, 1969.
Gordon, Linda. The Moral Property of Women: A History of Birth Control
Politics in America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002.
Gornick, Vivian. Emma Goldman: Revolution as a Way of Life. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011.
Grosz, Elizabeth. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Bloom-
ington: Indiana University Press, 1994.
Haaland, Bonnie. Emma Goldman: Sexuality and the Impurity of the
State. Montreal, QC: Black Rose Books, 1993.
Habermas, Jürgen. Jürgen Habermas on Society and Politics: A Reader,
edited by S. Seidman. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1989.
Hayden, Sara. “Family Metaphors and the Nation: Promoting a Politics
of Care through the Million Mom March.” Quarterly Journal of
Speech 89, vol. 3, (2003): 196–215.
———. “Re-Claiming Bodies of Knowledge: An Exploration of the
Relationship Between Feminist Theorizing and Feminine Style
in the Rhetoric of the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective.”
Western Journal of Speech 61 (1997): 127–63.
Hewitt, Marsha. “Emma Goldman: The Case for Anarcho-Feminism.”
In The Anarchist Papers, edited by Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos, 167–
75. Montreal, QC: Black Rose Books, 1986.
Hewitt, Nancy A. “Feminist Frequencies: Regenerating the Wave Met-
aphor.” Feminist Studies 38, no. 3 (2012): 658–80.
186 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
abortion, 3, 27, 41, 127 74, 89, 91, 128; and men, xviii, 6,
agency: Goldman’s conception of, 15–16; as political philosophy, 2,
50; sexual, 36–39, 124; theorizing, 14–22, 26, 50
89, 129; women’s, 7, 32–33, 54, 74 “An Anarchist Looks at Life,” 94,
Albuquerque Evening Citizen, 98, 123
100, 112 anarcho-feminine style, xix, 13, 77
Alien Sedition Act, 79 Anderson, Margaret, 49
American Civil Liberties Union, 12 Anthony, Susan B., 65, 126
anarchism: and feminism, xiii, appeals to general truths, 81, 83, 89
14–23; and freedom of speech, 19, Asen, Robert, 5
100; Goldman’s definition of, 36, Ashbaugh, Carolyn, 10, 13
46, 61, 88; Goldman as spokes- audience: access to, xiii, 3–4, 22, 102,
person for, xi, 12, 120; and sexual 118, 120, 121; and counterpublics,
agency 36–39; and women, 6–7; 5–7; empowerment of, 51, 83,
and violence, 13–14, 86–87 88–89; Goldman’s target, xii, 19,
Anarchism and Other Essays, xii–xiii, 72, 76–80, 87; as promiscuous, xii,
xvii, 12, 46, 47, 80 4, 132n3
“Anarchism is Not Necessarily Vio- Austin, Kate Cooper: anarchist-
lence,” 86 feminist ideas of: 14, 17, 18, 19;
“Anarchism: What it Really Stands biography of, 8
For,” 21, 32–33, 36, 59, 80, 83, 100 Avrich, Paul, 9
anarchist-feminism: and audience,
12–13, 77; as counterpublic, 7–8, Beisel, Nicola, 30
21–22; definition of, 14–16; Gold- Berkman, Alexander: deportation of,
man’s approach to, 32–36, 72, 12; and Henry Clay Frick, 40, 56,
193
194 INDEX
rejection of, 7, 15, 20, 87; Gold- Living My Life, xiii, 42, 46, 58, 63,
man’s critique of, 33, 55, 58, 88, 71, 116
95 logical argument, 78, 81, 87, 88, 95
intellectuals, 12, 60–61, 81–83, 90, Los Angeles Herald, 111, 112, 119
125 Love, Anarchy and Emma Goldman,
International Institute for Social 42
History, xvi
intersectionality, xix, xvii, 77, 89, 96, Man Cannot Speak for Her, 76
126, 128 marriage: and anarchist-feminism,
intimacy: as social expression, 29, 16, 18; as compulsory labor, 9,
37, 39; deprivatization of, 39, 128; 67–70, 72; as prostitution, 17, 20,
Goldman’s conception of, 38, 46, 40, 70–71; as slavery, 67. See also
49, 70 companionate marriage
Intimate Matters: A History of Sexu- marriage equality, xi, 3, 126
ality in America, 51 “Marriage and Love,” xvii, 17, 25,
38, 47, 66, 68, 82
Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, Marsh, Margaret, 4, 9, 10, 12, 16,
48 18, 49
“Jealousy: Causes and a Possible masculine power, 34, 40, 50, 54
Cure,” 42 masculinity, xvi, 2, 5, 17, 20, 27, 32,
Jewish identity. See Russian-Jewish 34, 35
identity maternal imagery, 84, 88
Jones, Mary Harris “Mother,” 84 Mathaei, Julie, 62
Joseph A. Labadie Collection, xvi Matthews, Glenna, 22, 54
McKinley, President William, 12,
Katz, Jonathan, 48, 49 87, 106, 108, 116–18
Kelly, Florence Finch: anarchist- medical establishment, 19, 27–28,
feminist ideas of, 14, 16, 18, 20, 29, 37, 50, 123
21; biography of, 9–10 Mencher, Melvin, 10
Kensinger, Loretta, xv menstruation, 27, 28, 95
Kerstner, Jacob, 85, 111, 113, 119 metaphor: economic, 69; prison
67–68; prostitution, 68, 85; slav-
labor: exploitation, 3, 54, 63, 66, 67; ery, 68–69, 83
gendered division of, xviii, 53, 67, Michel, Louise, xvii, 48–49
68, 72; working-class in contrast middle-class women: and anarchism,
to middle-class, 60, 62, 64, 73, 76, 6; and gender roles, 62, 64, 68,
124–25; women’s wage-earning, 73; Goldman’s critique of, 60, 64;
54–55, 63, 66–67, 94 the public sphere, 54, 62, 63–64,
labor movement: activism, 12, 124–25; and rhetorical style, 75,
56–58, 94, 118; Goldman’s rela- 76
tionship to, 55–56, 58–59, 61 Miller, Howard, 8, 14
Liberty, 10, 15, 16 Minnow, Martha, 87
198 INDEX
“Minorities Versus Majorities,” 81 in, 3, 14, 19, 40, 59, 78, 104; urban
modernism, 77, 83 life in, 21, 39, 63, 68. See also
monogamy, 11, 42 Greenwich Village
morality: anarchist-feminist rejec- New York Times, 38
tion of, 17, 22, 30; Goldman’s cri- New York Tribune, xi, 113, 121
tique of, 38, 43–45, 47, 71, 95; and New York World, 97, 98, 104, 117
social purity movement, 29–30 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 33, 81, 82
Morton, Marian J., xv Norfolk Weekly News Journal, 105,
Most, Johann, 78, 113 119
Mother Earth, xii, 9, 12, 21, 55, 59,
60, 80, 84, 102, 120 oppression: anarchist-feminist
motherhood: as compulsory, 55, response to, xiii, 7, 128; causes of,
72–73, 84, 88, 125; as feminine 4, 50, 58, 60, 89; and counterpub-
instinct, xv, 67, 72; and women’s lic formation, 4–6; of homosexu-
oppression, 31, 64; as voluntary, als, 45–46, 49
29–30 Out in Public: Configurations of
Mothers and Daughters: Women of Women’s Bodies in Nineteenth-
the Intelligentsia in 19th Century Century America, 74
Russia, 93 ownership. See property
Murray, Robert K., 120
mutual cooperation, 6–7, 14, 20–21, Pacific Commercial Advertiser, 99
34 Palczewski, Catherine H., 8
“My Attitude to Marriage,” 68, 85 Parsons, Albert, 10, 11, 13
My Disillusionment in Russia, xiii Parsons, Lucy, anarchist-feminist
My Further Disillusionment in Russia, ideas of, 13, 17, 18, 20; biography
xiii of, 10–11
passion, 18, 20, 33, 44, 69, 124
negotiation: of gender/sex norms, patriarchy. See gender/sex norms
xix, 32, 75, 88, 95, 125; of philo- performativity, xvii, 26, 74, 76–79,
sophical dichotomies, 34, 87, 89 84, 95–96
neo-classical rhetoric, 87 Philadelphia Public Ledger, 119
“A New Declaration of Indepen- Piepmeier, Alison, 74
dence,” 80 Piess, Kathy, 39, 71
New Enterprise, 109, 120 Pittsburg Dispatch, 100, 106
new (“yellow”) journalism, xix, 102, pleasure: Goldman’s conception of,
103, 118, 121. See also popular press 37–38, 46, 51, 74, 128; masculine
New Ulm Review, 119 regulation of women’s, 27, 38, 74,
New Woman (as social construct), 128; and women’s agency, xii, xiv,
xiii, 4, 22, 74, 124. See also public 18, 22, 26, 29, 39. See also sexual
womanhood danger
“The New Woman,” 34, 47 Pleasure and Danger: Exploring
New York City: Goldman’s activities Female Sexuality, 26
INDEX 199
popular press, xvi, 98, 100, 101–104. rape. See sexual violence
See also new journalism Red Scare, 12, 106, 120
positive liberty, 33. See also indi- Red Scare: A Study in National Hyste-
vidual autonomy ria, 1919–1920, 120
poverty: and class struggle, 11, 56, Reitman, Ben, xv, 42, 49, 113, 114
66; conditions and women, 6, 31, religion: Goldman’s critique of, 33,
56, 64, 66, 70, 72; Goldman’s cri- 64, 81, 95, 101; and oppression, 2,
tique of, 58–60, 70, 72, 125; and 30, 123
women’s agency, 64, 73; stereo- reproductive freedom, xii, 19, 22, 29,
types of, 105 54, 125. See also sexual freedom
pregnancy: medical establishment rhetorical persona, 77, 84, 90, 94,
regulation of, 27–28; and women’s 96, 100
health, 18, 41; unwanted, 11, 27, rhetorical style, 13, 76–78, 80, 84,
72, 74, 128 96, 125
A Price Below Rubies: Jewish Women Rhetorics of Motherhood, 84
as Rebels and Radicals, 93 The Rise of Public Woman, 22, 57
private sphere. See public-private The Road to Universal Slaughter, 59
binary Roggenkamp, Karren, 102
property: Goldman’s critique of, xiii, Roosevelt, President Theodore, 19,
9, 21, 33, 42, 58, 60, 65; women 81, 118
and, 66, 3, 68 Russian-Jewish identity, 11, 26, 60,
prostitution: Goldman’s critique of, 80, 90–95
17, 20, 40–41, 67, 69–71; as meta- Russian-Jewish social customs, 11,
phor, 68, 85; and working-class 92–93
women, 39, 70 Russian Revolution of 1917. See
“The Psychology of Political Vio- Bolshevik revolution
lence,” 13, 86 Russian women revolutionaries, 79,
public-private binary, 5, 32, 53–55, 90–94
73–74, 98, 123
public good, 6, 7 Salt Lake Herald Republican, 104,
public legitimacy, 29, 76, 95, 96, 126 108, 111
public sphere. See public-private same-sex marriage. See marriage
binary equality
public womanhood, 22, 54, 73, 98, same-sex relationships. See
120, 125. See also New Woman homosexuality
puritanism. See morality San Francisco Call, 97, 98
Sanger, Margaret, 31, 76, 84
A Queer History of the United States, Sartwell, Crispin, 9
45 Schauer, Amelia “Lizzie,” 38–39
Scott, Eveyln, 47
race. See ethnicity/race Scott, Joan Wallach, 123
radical rhetoric, 87 Scranton Tribune, 116
200 INDEX
violence, 13–14, 86–88. See also masculine control of, 19, 28–29,
sexual violence 72
voluntary association. See mutual women’s wages: men’s control of, 6,
cooperation 68; as unequal to men’s, 56, 63, 66,
126. See also equal pay
Warner, Michael, xvii, 5 women’s work. See domestic labor
Washington Times, 112, 115 and paid labor
Weber, Brenda R., 98 Woodhull, Victoria, 98
“We Don’t Believe in Conscription,” working-class women: and gender
14 roles, 26, 27, 39, 41, 76; Gold-
Weed, Elizabeth, 5, 26 man’s identification with, 60; in
Weiss, Penny A., xv the public sphere, 5, 62–63, 73;
Wexler, Alice, xv, 42 and radicalism, 6, 64; and rhetori-
Whitman, Walt, 47, 51 cal style, 64; sexual independence
Wilde, Oscar, 46 of, 71, 73–74
Williamson, Mily, 103
Wilson, President Woodrow, 121 Yarros, Victor, 16
“Woman Suffrage,” 25, 73, 83, 88 yellow journalism. See new
Women, Culture & Politics, 129 journalism
women’s bodies. See female body
women’s health: Goldman’s advo- Zittlow, Kate Rogness, 7
cacy of, 17–18, 31, 43–44, 51, 67;