Phase Three: Trying on an Investigative Lens-option one

After analyzing Hapgood's "Vanishing Virtue" and No Tears for My Youth, I found some very interesting sentiments concerning both crime and virtue. I feel that oftentimes people associate virtue with what is established as being correct and moral rather than abiding by their own methods of morality. She saw that when individuals lacked courage, they lacked the ability to be their own person. In "Vanishing Virtue," she points out that one must have "the daring of the gun-man, the defiance of laws by successful politicians and the fortitude and self discipline of the early monks" in order to be courageous (1). She also attributed these attributes to virtue. Her friend John Jackson was a communist trying to stand up for what he believed in. However, when he spoke on issues concerning the unjust treatment of his fellow workers and also the unjust treatment he received from the police and the vigilantes, he was once again arrested and had his life threatened for being Communist. Though he was simply trying to support his views and explore the ideas of what it could mean to be treated equally, he was punished by individuals of "virtue" who claimed him immoral because he was a Communist. This brings into question exactly who can be considered virtuous and what crimes can be considered just. Was it fair that he was punished for holding a peaceful speech simply because he was Communist? Did those police officers and vigilantes really meet the characteristics of a person that could be considered virtuous and courageous? It seems unlikely.

Likewise, Hapgood also explores these ideas of crime and virtue in No Tears for my Youth. Sacco and Vanzetti, the two individuals on trial, speak of their cases and plead that they are still not guilty of the crimes that are charged against them. They rightfully explore the divide between the poor and rich that separates them from death and potential freedom, realizing that if they were rich, they would most likely not be sentenced to death: "I know that the sentence will be between two classes...the oppressed class and the rich class and there will always be collision between one and the other. That is what I am here today, for having been of the oppressed class. Well, you are the oppressor" (No Tears 2-3). The reader begins to realize that like the Jackson case in "Vanishing Virtue," this case also resembles one in which those individuals in the upper class appear virtuous, and therefore feel righteous in establishing what it means to commit a crime. Following this idea, Vanzetti calls attention to the fact that this war they are in is not a war that is creating any of the benefits that the "virtuous" promised: "All that they say to you, all that they have promised you, it was a lie; it was an illusion; it was a cheat; it was a fraud; it was a crime. They promised you liberty. Where is the liberty?...(No Tears 5). I feel like Hapgood is concentrating on the notion that crime and virtue are defined solely by those individuals in power at the time. The individuals being punished might not be guilty of anything other than going against the grain of what is socially acceptable. We must take into consideration that just because an individual is a minority, it does not mean they are going to commit a crime.

I feel that Hapgood uses several very effective rhetorical strategies to explore the ideas of crime and virtue. I feel that she definitely develops an emotional appeal to the audience by exploring the deeper relationship she has with the individuals in the text. This makes us feel more connected to them and therefore more willing to hear their side of the story. Also, she uses very vivid desciption to depict the scene at hand. This makes the audience feel that they can see both the speech from the bench and the trial occurring. This feeling of connectedness makes us more open to the text and the ideas being discussed. Hapgood utilizes these methods extremely well to develop her interpretation of crime and virtue.