.

American musical theater experienced a revival during the 1980s that has no end in sight. The most popular musical comedies that have enjoyed this renaissance were originally hit shows of the 1950s and ‘60s. In the last few years, marquees across the land have touted show titles such as “Annie Get Your Gun,” “South Pacific,” “The King And I,” “My Fair Lady,” “Oklahoma” and “Li’l Abner.”

I recently had the opportunity to be a part of a production of “Li’l Abner.” This return to a theatrical role, on my part, came almost exactly fifteen years after my last previous appearance on stage. During the intervening time, I spent most of my professional life teaching students the verities of sociological theories and procedures. Suddenly, I found myself with a unique opportunity to practice the very lessons I preached.

It should be noted that during my long hiatus from the stage, I forgot almost all of my previous (twelve years of) training, instruction and experience. There is much truth to the adage: “if you don’t use it, you lose it.” The first couple of rehearsals made me painfully aware of how much I’d lost. This sense of loss was further complicated by the fact that the character scripts we actors were given were of the “George Lucas-style” -- each character script contained only his/her part and a five or six word cue. In all of my previous plays, I memorized the entire script. The inability of being able to see all of the parts together made learning my role, and its context within the script, a lot more difficult. Without a full grasp of the entire play, learning the proper “character” became a challenging task I was determined to master. And I did, but the real story here is not my small accomplishment; it is “Li’l Abner.”

The sociologist Erving Goffman provided our discipline with a basic understanding of the “dramaturgical” process of role analysis. He noted that in our relations with others, we play many different roles which depend upon the context and expectations brought to each situation by the individuals involved. In this way, the various “Front Stage” roles of an individual can be analyzed in much the same way we would examine the performance of an actor on stage. If you will, he suggested we examine Life As Art (1).

On the other hand, there is also great merit in reversing this process so that we may explore the metaphor of Art As Life. In this way, the fluffy, mindless humor of “Li’l Abner” represents a dimension of our American culture and values that clearly warrants close examination. Above all, “Li’l Abner” is a morality tale of simple good and simple evil. Let us examine some of the major characters in this play to see what they say about our values. Emile Durkheim (2) noted: “for us to become agents of an act it must interest our sensibilities to a certain extent and appear to us, in some ways, desirable.” Behavior reflects its cultural antecedents; especially in a morality play, such as this.

The play centers around Abner Yokum. He is a big, strong, handsome, older adolescent who has the social maturity of a gregarious nine-year-old. Clearly, Abner has not discovered sex and is therefore the most atypical teenager in the land -- and the darling of every Victorian Grandmother. Abner’s total innocence is so appealing that he seems the ideal image of goodness. His charm and gullibility are so naively alluring that he represents an idealized standard of basic American virtue. He is the symbol of honesty that Americans love and cherish.

While Abner is the picture of innocence, Daisy Mae is the compleat Dogpatch young woman. She is the very image of wisdom, patience, charm and beauty. Clearly, she knows what she wants (Li’l Abner) and has acquired the patience and cunning skill to catch him in the Sadie Hawkins Day Race. She is a very mature young woman who possesses all of the classic American wifely virtues. Her fundamental good sense and sweetness makes her such an attractive and endearing character that most American adult males in the audience are likely to wish they were Li’l Abner just so they could be caught by Daisy Mae.

Marrin’ Sam is a hustler whose indispensable role is to marry men to the women who catch them on Sadie Hawkins Day. Since Sam’s primary economic success is dependent upon his annual wedding ceremonies, he is a man on the make, inspiring and motivating maiden and men into the joys of wedded bliss. Sam becomes, therefore, a major character because he provides continuity in the form of a Reverendly foil for each of the other characters to balance off of and define their own roles.

Earthquake McCoon has some of the best lines in the whole play. He is worldly wise, rich (by local standards) and a major force to be reckoned with. He is a Dogpatch citizen who made it big in the outside world as “The World’s Dirtiest Wrestler.” With his fame and fortune, he has come back to Dogpatch to marry and settle down. His choice of Dogpatch maidens is Daisy Mae. What’s more, he has a plan that could very well bind her to him, despite her girlish objections (and clear preference for Abner).

The incarnation of real evil represented in this play is the character of General Bullmoose. General Bullmoose is a symbolic representation of all of the greed and cruelty that most Americans associate with giant business conglomerates and multinational corporations. The inspiration for the character of General Bullmoose was the 1953 retort of General Motors President, Charles E. Wilson, who, when asked (during confirmation hearings for his nomination as Secretary of State) if he could make a decision that was adverse to the interests of his company but in the interests of the United States, replied, “Yes, sir; I could. I cannot conceive of one because for years I thought what was good for General Motors was good for our country, and vice versa. The difference did not exist” (3).

Bullmoose, this play’s general of industry, has a single-minded obsession with wealth. It is this compulsion which makes him determined to acquire the rights to Yokumberry Tonic. When Abner refuses to sell the rights, Bullmoose plots his murder without compunction. The ends justify the means. Since Bullmoose’s objective is money, and money is good; then any means of acquiring wealth is moral. In Bullmoose’s mind, the more you have the better it is, and absolute heaven, of course, would be to have it all. Needless to say, this leads to his undoing.

As improbable as all of the characters in this play are, the role which strains credibility most is Evil Eye Fleagle. This funny little green man asks us to suspend reason and believe that he can cast a spell on people that controls their behavior. This hillbilly voodoo, called a “whammy,” is more powerful than hypnotism and is absolutely irresistible. Through the offices of Available Jones, a local Sadie Hawkins Day hustler, Fleagle is introduced to General Bullmoose. He quickly becomes Bullmoose’s primary agent for gaining control of Abner Yokum.

These disreputable characters, when supported by a full cast of nearly fifty other roles, sequentially work their way through two acts and a lot of songs. The plot, itself, is incredibly weak. Indeed, one of the great attractions of this play is the timelessness of many of its songs. Music provides the dynamic zest which takes us from the improbable through the impossible to the down right miraculous. What more, we love it!

The play opens innocently enough with a typical Dogpatch day that quickly becomes atypical when a “Cornpone” meeting is called. At this meeting, Senator Jack S. Phogbound is introduced to the strains of McCoon’s left-handed adulation: “There is no Jack S. like our Jack S!” Phogbound proceeds to inform the residents that the government is going to evacuate them from their homes, so that Dogpatch can become a new Atom Bomb test site, thereby saving Las Vegas from the terrors of radioactive fallout.

There is a catch. Dogpatchers would be dispersed throughout the whole country to that horrible world of work. Moreover, Sadie Hawkins Day would be no more. The only way to avoid this catastrophe would be to find something in Dogpatch that made it necessary to the country.

A hurried search of Dogpatch turns up nothing valuable, or even remotely “necessary.” Then the prospect of cheap booze in the form of “kickapoo joy juice” backfires. Indian Joe’s fire water so sears the tonsils of the government agent that his screams for water elicit Mammy Yokum’s “Yokumberry Tonic.” With one swallow, the government man is suddenly transformed into a Li’l Abner look-a-like, and Dogpatch suddenly becomes quite necessary.

The cost of this salvation becomes quite high. News of the “miracle” properties of “Yokumberry Tonic” reaches the outside world. Abner becomes an instant celebrity; he even visits the President (he might have even slept in the Lincoln Bedroom). On an impulse of simple-minded patriotism, Abner promises the President that he will give “Yokumberry Tonic” to the country. This magnanimous generosity would soon lead to his great peril.

With “all of the money in the world” at stake, General Bullmoose sets his sights on “Yokumberry Tonic.” Like any good military strategist, he plans his ruthless acquisition tactics with care. Make no mistake about it, Bullmoose is absolutely determined to get control of “Yokumberry Tonic.” One way or another, he will succeed. If he cannot buy the rights; murder is not beyond his kin. When Abner rebukes his offer of a million dollars for the rights to “Yokumberry Tonic,” Bullmoose begins his plot to knock off Abner. He enlists his sexy secretary into his scheme. Appassionata vonClimax vamps across the stage with campy sultriness, but she alone is not enough to seduce the innocent Abner.

The “whammy” wielding green man, Evil Eye Fleagle is recruited and the final plan is formalized. Fleagle will cast a “whammy” on Abner during the Sadie Hawkins race. Appassionata will then catch him. Once she is married to Abner and the ownership of “Yokumberrry Tonic” is safely registered in both names as “community property,” Abner will be disposed of.

The diabolical excesses of Bullmoose’s plan are further exaggerated by his condescending disregard for all of those beneath his elevated social position. This archetypal Capitalistic villain manifests an ignoble persona. Conflict Theory is thus proclaimed through this mechanism of social antagonism. Indeed, Karl Marx and C. Wright Mills would both approve of the bourgeois cartoon drawn of this theatrical protagonist. Bullmoose represents both the folly of the upper classes and their abusive power over massive bureaucracies. Of course, Georg Simmel would also point out that the positive outcome of this conflict would ultimately reaffirm the fundamental values of the community’s social order (4).

The plot circuitously wends its way to Bullmoose’s Ballroom. But, unbeknown to the General, Mammy Yokum has conjured a vision and seen his nefarious plan. With haste and dispatch, Mammy mobilizes a hillbilly army of Dogpatchers to rescue the reluctant Bridegroom from the evil plans that the clueless Abner is totally unaware of. Abner shows every indication of being the naive innocent to the very end. And when he rebuffs Daisy Mae’s warning, his fate has the ring of immediate doom.

Since Fleagle’s truth whammy will only work when the victim is under the influence of alcohol, Bullmoose plans to toast the Bride-to-be with Champagne. Once Abner has tasted that sweet bubbly, Fleagle will go into action with his “whammy.” Unable to resist the truth, Abner will quickly part with the formula for “Yokumberry Tonic. After Abner’s usefulness is over, Fleagle’s “suicidal sports car whammy” will put the poor lad out of his misery -- and conveniently out of Bullmoose’s hair.

Alas, best laid plans oft go astray. McCoon thwarts Bullmoose’s sinister design by making the “truth whammy” backfire onto Bullmoose. Because he is now under the spell, the gory details of this foul plan pour from his own lips as Mammy Yokum provides the prodding inquisition.

Dogpatch is not safe, however. The government test results come in. “Yokumberry Tonic,” that great elixir of muscle mass and bulging biceps has a dastardly side-effect: it renders one sexually impotent (and you thought steroids were a new idea!). The chemical cause of Abner’s childish innocence is now revealed. Suddenly, neither the government nor Bullmoose want “Yokumberry Tonic,” after all. With no reason to be considered “necessary,” Dogpatch is again to be evacuated so that a new Atom Bomb can be tested, just as originally planned.

Of course, Dogpatch is saved and Abner and Daisy Mae are united for a blissful eternity. The real hero of this improbable salvation is none other than Jubilation T. Cornpone, the worst General of the Confederate Army, and the founder of Dogpatch. It seems that the ungangly statue of him in Cornpone Square is a National Shrine -- and nothing can be more necessary than that.

With my apologies to Al Capp and all of those responsible for this play, the story line is incredibly absurd. To the extent that Marshall McLuhan’s observation, “the medium is the message” is valid, the real story of “Li’l Abner” is in its songs.

As Max Lerner noted in AMERICA AS A CIVILIZATION, the American musical show is our country’s popular opera. As with traditional operatic forms, dialog is kept to a minimum and the basic story is developed musically. The catalog of musical expressions found in “Li’l Abner” runs the full range of forms: solo, duet, ensembles, dances, production numbers, orchestral pieces, etc. Moreover, there is a judicious use of reprise (encore verses) complete with key changes to heighten tension and build emotions to a climatic resolution. The overall effectiveness of the music and dance is outstanding. Together they serve to develop, tantalize and sustain the story line. We are musically massaged with its irresistible toe tapping impulses into an acceptance -- indeed an involvement -- with this story.

The costumed characterization of these roles further lend them to our acceptance -- not because they represent human nature as it is, but precisely because they represent human nature as we wish it could be. Yet these down-home characters are so obviously unreal that there is very little within this play to suggest a functional analysis of a viable social system (Talcott Parsons, forgive us) (5). Indeed, its forte is an overdrawn comic simplification of the hillbilly life. Yet this basic interdependence of behaviors etched here have such a ring of truth that we believe Robert Merton would approve of their responses to these “Differential Opportunities” (6).

The real beauty of “Li’l Abner” as a vehicle of communication and understanding is its American universality. It easily reaches across four generations of Americans, galvanizing them into a reaffirmation of the basic cultural values of our society.

The legitimate theater possesses a unique advantage over most of the other forms of communication because it is the most interactive. The live stage offers a distinct advantage to performers because spontaneous audience reactions often fuel the actors to greater levels of performance achievement. The very intensity of this response bears testimony to the universality of “Li’l Abner” as a reflection of our American ethos. The fact that we played to overflow houses every performance underscores the significance of this vehicle as a standard of American culture.

To the extent that Art Reflects Life, “Li’l Abner” still sounds the bell of idealism and faith that fills a resonant chord in the heart of Americans. The simple appeals of goodness, innocence and charm that radiates from “Li’l Abner” is reflected by the effervescent audience responses to our performances.

In the post-Watergate world of political chicanery, dirty tricks and cynical disillusionment, the charm of “Li’l Abner” seems to melt the reserve of even the most dour skeptic. We long for such reassuring affirmations of our fundamental faith in human goodness. Our current dissatisfactions with inflation, unemployment, threats of thermonuclear war, high crime rates, declining standards of living and all of the other forms of malaise which plague our lives are likely to lead us to ask: where are you now, Abner Yokum? We need you so much!?!

As an expression of how Art Reflects Life, “Li’l Abner” is a resounding affirmation of the goodness of life. As a simple morality play, there is a little of Abner Yokum and Daisy Mae in each of us. We love them precisely for the very same reasons we love ourselves. We can, therefore, see “Li’l Abner” as a “Looking glass” reflection of the inner values of our culture. And, just as Charles Horton Cooley observed, so long ago, the shared values that we communicate so personally in our intimate relations have a primary influence on affecting our personalities and lives (7).

Above all, “Li’l Abner” gives us an opportunity to reflect upon our own souls; to see within ourselves the hero we perceive in him. Perhaps we can carry with us his simple heroism of honesty, courage and faithfulness. We could all use some of that spirit within our hearts.

So, as we toast Abner and his virtue, we do so with a full cup of “Cornpone’s Romanticizing and Passionizing Potion.” Mammy Yokum’s suggestive label for plain creek water becomes the most powerful of all elixirs through the miracle of the self- fulfilling prophecy, catapulting any of us -- just as it did Abner -- into a life of successful achievement and self-worth. The “will to believe” is once again affirmed as the most essential of our basic human needs (8).

When all of the theatrical veneer is tripped away, we are what we do. Abner Yokum has shown us the beauty and strength of that vulnerable openness to others that we too often fear. There is room for all of us to be more like Abner in accepting our own source of inner strength and virtue. He even showed us the way: only believe. Above all, we must believe in those values which focus and enhance our lives with love and trust.

There you have it. “Li’l Abner” is still an outstanding theatrical success. After all of these years, this play still stirs us because Abner Yokum pulls so strongly at out heart strings -- because he is the soul of pure goodness. Would we not do well to follow this example?

.

.

.

(1) The Dramaturgical approach of Erving Goffman is based upon the assumption that most of what we do in life is act out our ritualized habits. Goffman developed a strategy for interpreting these behaviors by applying theatrical techniques of performance analysis. Among his insightful strategies is the observation that an individual’s “Front Stage” role is primarily shaped by social expectations and desires. An individual’s role performance will therefore be substantially different from their “Back Stage” self which reflects their natural, relaxed behavior when they let their hair down among a few true friends. The “Front Stage Self” represents the roles an individual affects because of his/her concern for the opinion of others. Therefore, our social roles are chosen and performed with some degree of conscious choice and certain goals in mind. In this respect, it is not in the least unfair to assume that even though our ultimate motivations lie buried deep within our subconscious, there is a conscious purpose for our chosen roles and dramatic zeal.

(2) Emile Durkheim conducted the first major systematic sociological studies. His first study was the now classical analysis of European suicides. He then followed that up with a brilliant analysis of Religion; later he studied deviance. In all of this research, he steadfastly maintained the view that “nothing exists without a reason.” He consistently sought to find those reasons and what they contribute to human societies. In this way, he was capable of many genuine insights into the motivations which lead to human behavior and the reasons why our social institutions develop reciprocal interdependencies. In this way, every single behavior must fit (or, at least, appear to the individual to fit) within the fabric of their culture and network of human expectations. The quote cited here is taken from: Coser and Rosenberg, Sociological Theory, New York: Macmillan, 1969. p.106.

(3) This quote is taken from: Irish and Prothro, The Politics Of American Democracy, 2nd. ed., Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1962. p.48.

(4) Conflict Theories of social stratification share a few basic assumptions, although they manifest themselves in a variety of different applications. The one premise that is most universal to all Conflict Theories is that whenever the most significant values of a human society are not equally distributed throughout that society some groups of people will come to possess more of these resources than other individuals. This very inequality of distribution inevitably leads to a rivalry between social groups based upon this process of unequitable distribution. Therefore, where stratification exists, conflict within that society is inevitable as a mechanism of social change.

(5) Talcott Parson is the premier American Functional sociologist. His monumental analysis of social institutions and their bases of reciprocal interdependence is a classical masterpiece of the use of social paradigms (models). In the play “Li’l Abner,” we see so little of the ordinary lives of these characters that we cannot infer very much about the nature of their social institutions. Those insights were left for a sequel.

(6) Another highly regarded Functionalist is Robert King Merton, who developed a major theory regarding the causes of social deviance. He believes that everyone needs and wants to be successful. In a highly stratified society, however, not everyone has an opportunity to become successful by performing the behaviors that social institutions encourage and reward. When people are denied (or believe they are denied) the opportunity to become successful through socially sanctioned means they will adapt their behavior to fit the limited opportunities they perceive to be available to them. The most typical patterns of adaptive behavior Merton characterized as: conformity, innovation, ritualization, retreat, and rebellion. It is important to understand that regardless of the specific means of behavior one might display (even if thought by social institutions to be unseemly), these behaviors are a response to the limiting influences already existing within society. Therefore, the source of all social deviance exists within society itself and not within the individuals who merely do the best they can with the limited opportunities they’ve got.

(7) The “Looking-Glass Self” theory of Charles Horton Cooley describes a three step process by which people develop a sense of their own unique “self.” Basically, we: see other people react to us, think about the meaning of these reactions, and develop a feeling about ourselves as human beings. Cooley also noted that not everyone has an equal influence on others and he distinguished the intensity of two major types of associations by terming them “primary groups” and “secondary groups.” The intensity of personal communications within a primary group provides a strong basis for individuals to reflect some of the specific traits of those within the group which most vividly complement their values and personality.

(8) The “Self-Fulfilling Prophesy” is one of the major sociological contributions to our understanding of human behavior. This concept is based upon the W. I. Thomas Theorem: “If men define situations as real; they are real in their consequences.” Essentially, this concept explains the human propensity for finding what we are looking for. There is a technical qualification for the establishment of a valid Self-fulfilling prophecy beyond mere coincidence, or chance: the outcome must actually be caused by the behavior of the individual(s) involved, and it must not be something that would have happened anyway.

Here is an example. The 1973 American belief in Johnny Carson’s flippant prediction of an impending shortage of toilet paper, produced a widespread popular conviction of its validity. The corresponding hoarding behavior among a substantial portion of the shopping population resulted in this changed state of behaviors (remember, normal buying patterns of consumption would not have created a shortage) produced an actual shortage of toilet paper in this country.

In some truly perverse circumstances, the perpetrator of the self-fulfilling prophecy justifies his behaviors with the self-serving rationale: “see, I told you so!” Yet, all along it was this very initiator who was responsible for making this prediction come true. In the case of Li’l Abner, his “will to believe” is all the justification he needs to find instant maturity and the passionate love that comes with caring about another person more than one’s self. When Abner realized that Daisy Mae meant more to him than anything else, he was ready for love.

.

Go To Introductory Sociology Page