DISCUSSION
As
a therapeutic social movement, the Washingtonian Movement originally
focused its attention on drunkards themselves rather than on changing
the sociopolitical situation; this was in contradistinction to the emergent
temperance-prohibitionist movement which became strongly politicized.
The Washingtonians placed strong emphasis on the acceptance of social
practices that had previously been rejected by the drunkards and heavy
drinkers. While it is true that if all drunkards had been convinced
and converted there would have been a major shift in the social practices
of the period, effecting such a major social change was not the manifest
intent of the Washingtonians when the movement began. This major shift
in social practices was more or less latent in the beginning and only
became evident during the course of a close association with the temperance-prohibitionists.
One
of the striking characteristics of therapeutic social movements is that
the demand for change is focused on the individual, who must reform
if he is to be "cured." Thus, the Washingtonians were inner-directed,
while the temperance-prohibitionists were outer-directed. If the term
"discontent" is used in a general way, it could be said that
in a therapeutic social movement the person is discontented with himself
rather than society and accepts the blame or responsibility as his own.
Put another way, the person "protests" his own behavior, his
own inner condition, the way that he perceives that he is perceived
by others and, if there is to be a change, adopts a method for securing
satisfaction of his protests about himself. Clearly, one of the elements
of the "cure" is his awareness of how others perceive him,
his acceptance of others' perception of him as his own perception of
himself and his awareness that there is a way to bring himself into
conformity with the norms that he has accepted. However, many persons
are unable to choose the therapeutic strategy which logically best fits
their own situations and, consequently, never do achieve a "cure"
or a satisfactory solution to their protest about themselves. The case
of alcoholism is notorious in this respect, and the core element of
self-help cures (such as Washingtonianism) rests on persuading the alcoholic
that he can alleviate the symptoms and arrest the alcoholic condition.
The key lies in persuasion, and the drunkards and heavy drinkers of
the time of the Washingtonian movement more readily accepted the argument
of the Washingtonians that "it works for me and it should work
for you" than the exhortations of the temperance-prohibitionists.
That
this self-help approach can be the basis of a successful therapeutic
social movement is evidenced by the wide acceptance and influence of
Alcoholics Anonymous. But the Washingtonian Movement, a therapeutic
social movement based on essentially the same principles, "failed"
in the 19th century, and I have attempted to explore the significance
of the temperance-prohibitionists in the "failure" in Paterson
and Newark, New Jersey. This is not to suggest that there were not other
factors that contributed to the decline of the Washington temperance
societies. In large measure, the Washingtonians and the temperance-prohibitionists
agreed on the importance of self-help in the "cure" of alcoholism,
although they did differ in ways that will not be discussed in the present
essay. Where they were in conflict was on the issue of reliance on moral
suasion as opposed to political (or state) intervention. The consequence
of these different commitments was that the Washingtonians were concerned
about drunkards for their own sake they were therapeutic - while the
temperance-prohibitionists wanted to change the political system - they
were a political reform movement, although they had a strong concern
for the destructive effects of alcohol on individuals and their families.
In
recent years there has developed what may be called the "organizational
approach" to the analysis of social movements. Those who advocate
this approach suggest that we abandon any special consideration of social
movements, that there is simply organizational behavior. As McCarthy
and Zald (56) point out, the organizational approach to the study of
social movements emphasizes both the societal support and constraint
of social movement phenomena. It examines the resources that must be
mobilized, the links between social-movement organizations and other
groups, the dependence of social-movement organizations on external
support for success and the tactics used to control or influence social
movement organizations by those external to it. The present study of
the Washingtonian temperance societies of Paterson and Newark has used
an organizational approach. While from time to time it has been necessary
to engage in the analysis of the ideologies of Washingtonianism and
prohibitionism, this has been incidental to what happened to the Washington
Temperance Benevolent Societies themselves. I do not suggest that the
case studies of two societies in two communities are definitive; rather
they should provide scholars with the basis for future research. They
should also provide the basis for additional research into a central
issue in the study of social movements - the study of the opposition;
sometimes the sponsors and friends of the nascent movement also turn
out to be a part of the opposition.
