This article examines the pervasive and vehement antijazz crusade of the 1920s as a significant cultural phenomenon that reveals profound anxieties about race, modernity, and social order in post-World War I America. It argues that the widespread condemnation of jazz music by medical authorities, religious leaders, social reformers, and public intellectuals functioned as a proxy war against the rapid social transformations of the Jazz Age, with the music serving as a potent symbol for broader fears regarding racial integration, sexual liberation, and the erosion of Victorian morality. Through analysis of primary source discourse from the period, this article categorizes the antijazz rhetoric into three interconnected frameworks: the medical-pathological, which framed jazz as a neurological and public health threat; the religious-moral, which condemned it as a catalyst for sexual deviance and civilizational decline; and the racial-eugenic, which expressed explicit fears about the “Africanization” of American culture. Ultimately, this article contends that the antijazz movement was not merely about musical preference but represented a concerted effort to police cultural boundaries and maintain established social hierarchies during a period of unprecedented demographic and cultural change.

Introduction: The Sound of Social Anxiety

The 1920s in America witnessed not only the explosive popularity of jazz music but also an equally intense cultural backlash that positioned this new musical form as a threat to civilization itself. This antijazz crusade, voiced from pulpits, medical journals, newspaper editorials, and women’s club meetings, constituted a significant discourse of social fear that reveals more about the anxieties of the established white Protestant order than about the music it condemned. As jazz migrated from the segregated spaces of Black communities to become the soundtrack of speakeasies, dance halls, and eventually radio broadcasts, it became a lightning rod for conflicts over changing racial dynamics, evolving gender roles, and the very definition of American culture.

The antijazz movement emerged at a historical moment characterized by profound dislocation. The aftermath of World War I, the mass migration of African Americans to northern cities, the cultural shock of the first sexual revolution, and the unprecedented urban growth all contributed to a sense of traditional values under siege. Jazz, with its undeniable African American origins, its syncopated rhythms that seemed to bypass intellectual comprehension in favor of physical response, and its association with illicit activities in Prohibition-era America, became the perfect symbol for everything that threatened the established social order. This article analyzes the antijazz crusade not as a footnote to Jazz Age history, but as a central cultural battle that laid bare the racial, moral, and psychological fault lines running through American society.

The Medical-Pathological Framework: Jazz as Neurological and Physiological Threat

A striking feature of the antijazz discourse was its appropriation of scientific and medical language to pathologize both the music and its participants. Physicians, neurologists, and social hygienists lent their authority to the crusade, framing jazz as a genuine threat to public health and mental stability.

Neurological Degeneration and Primitivism: Prominent medical figures published articles in reputable journals arguing that jazz’s rhythmic properties had damaging effects on the nervous system. Dr. E. Elliot Rawlings, in a 1922 article for the Medical Review of Reviews, claimed that jazz music produced “a toxic and poisonous effect upon the brain and nervous system.” This rhetoric drew upon popular understandings of the nervous system as a finite resource that could be depleted by overstimulation. The complex polyrhythms and syncopation of jazz were characterized not as artistic sophistication but as neurological chaos, overwhelming the brain’s capacity for orderly processing. This framing often contained barely concealed racial coding, linking the music’s “savage” rhythms to a regression to primitive mental states. The fear was that jazz could literally reverse human evolution, breaking down the civilized cortex’s control over the primitive brainstem.

Moral Contagion and Social Hygiene: The language of public health and hygiene was frequently deployed against jazz. Social reformers, particularly those involved in the anti-vice movements, described jazz as a “moral contagion” spreading from urban centers to corrupt the heartland. The proximity of bodies in jazz dances like the Charleston and the Black Bottom was depicted as a breeding ground for both moral and physical disease. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, of cereal fame and a leading health reformer, categorized jazz dancing as a form of “moral leprosy.” This medical-moral framework allowed critics to present their aesthetic and social objections as scientifically validated concerns for the nation’s biological and moral fitness. The association of jazz venues with alcohol consumption during Prohibition further strengthened this connection in the public mind, positioning jazz clubs as laboratories of physical and social pathology.

The “Jazz Pathology” of Youth: A particular focus of medical anxiety was the effect of jazz on adolescents. Numerous articles in educational and psychological journals speculated that jazz’s excitatory effects could lead to nervous exhaustion, attention deficits, and moral desensitization in the young. The flapper, with her kinetic dancing and rejection of decorum, was often pathologized as a victim of “jazz psychosis,” a hypothetical condition characterized by hyperactivity and moral indifference. This generational concern reflected broader fears about the rebellion of youth against Victorian social controls, with jazz serving as both the soundtrack and alleged catalyst of this rebellion.

The Religious-Moral Framework: Jazz as Sin and Civilizational Decline

Perhaps the most vocal opposition to jazz came from religious leaders across the theological spectrum, who condemned it not merely as entertainment but as a active force for moral and spiritual decay.

Theology of the Body and Sexual Morality: Conservative Protestant clergy were particularly disturbed by the physicality of jazz dancing. Sermons with titles like “Jazz and the Devil” and “The Downfall of Civilization” proliferated throughout the decade. The Rev. Dr. John Roach Straton of New York’s Calvary Baptist Church emerged as a leading crusader, declaring jazz to be “a symptom of the moral decay that is eating its way into the heart of our civilization.” The specific movements of jazz dances—the isolated hip movements, the close partner contact, the abandoned flailing of limbs—were interpreted as unmistakably sexual and therefore sinful. This represented a direct challenge to centuries of Christian teaching that positioned controlled, modest bodily movement as a sign of grace and morality. The jazz body was unregulated, expressive, and openly sensual, making it a threat to the entire moral economy of conservative Christianity.

Jazz as Apocalyptic Signifier: Beyond specific moral concerns, many religious figures interpreted the jazz craze through an apocalyptic lens. They saw in its popularity a sign of end-times decadence, drawing explicit parallels with the fall of Rome. A 1922 editorial in the United Presbyterian stated, “The music is sensuous, the embracing of partners—the female only half dressed—is absolutely indecent; and the motions—they are such as may not be described, with any respect for propriety, in a family newspaper.” This rhetoric framed jazz not just as bad music but as a symptom of a civilization in its final stages of moral collapse. The fact that jazz was often performed in and associated with venues that flouted Prohibition laws further cemented its identity as fundamentally lawless and anti-authority, positioning it in direct opposition to religiously-informed social codes.

Catholic and Mainstream Protestant Responses: While the most colorful denunciations came from fundamentalist Protestants, concern about jazz’s moral influence was widespread across religious groups. Catholic diocesan newspapers regularly published warnings about the dangers of jazz dancing, often focusing on its threat to the virtue of young women. Even more liberal Protestant denominations, while avoiding the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric of their fundamentalist counterparts, expressed unease about jazz’s association with what they termed “animalistic” behavior. The Federal Council of Churches, a leading ecumenical organization, commissioned reports on the social effects of jazz, reflecting the depth of institutional concern.

The Racial-Eugenic Framework: Defending the Color Line

While often coded in the language of medicine and morality, the most profound source of anxiety about jazz was its racial origin. The antijazz movement cannot be separated from the broader context of 1920s nativism, Jim Crow segregation, and the eugenics movement.

Primitivism and the “Africanization” of Culture: The racial subtext of much antijazz rhetoric was unmistakable. Critics frequently described jazz as “jungle music,” “savage,” and “barbaric,” deploying a familiar colonial vocabulary that associated Blackness with pre-civilized states. An editorial in the New York Times in 1921 fretted that “the qualities of jazz are those of the Negro, and we are making the Negro our model.” This fear of “Africanization” was not merely about musical taste but reflected deep-seated anxieties about racial purity and the integrity of white, Western cultural identity. The musicologist Henry Cowell, though later a supporter of experimental music, initially expressed concern that jazz represented “the triumph of the primitive negro spirit over the sophisticated white.”

Eugenics and Racial Degeneration: The eugenics movement, which enjoyed widespread scientific and popular support in the 1920s, provided a pseudo-biological framework for opposing jazz. Prominent eugenicists like Madison Grant, in his influential 1916 book The Passing of the Great Race, argued that the intermixing of superior and inferior races would lead to civilizational decline. From this perspective, jazz was dangerous not merely as a cultural product but as a biological threat—a sonic virus that could break down the innate racial characteristics of white Americans. The music’s perceived power to stimulate the body and lower inhibitions was framed as a direct attack on the racial integrity and self-control that eugenicists associated with Nordic peoples. The popularity of jazz among white youth was thus seen as a form of racial betrayal that could have catastrophic genetic consequences.

Immigration and Nativist Anxieties: The antijazz crusade intersected with the period’s intense nativism, culminating in the restrictive Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924. Critics often linked jazz not only to African Americans but also to Jewish composers and bandleaders in Tin Pan Alley, and to the immigrant populations who populated urban dance halls. The Ladies’ Home Journal, a bastion of middle-class white Protestant values, published numerous articles warning that jazz was destroying American tradition and encouraging “alien” influences. This fusion of anti-Black racism with anti-immigrant sentiment made jazz a potent symbol for everything that threatened the vision of an Anglo-Saxon America.

The Institutional Crusade: Legislation, Education, and Alternative Culture

The antijazz sentiment was not confined to rhetoric; it manifested in concrete institutional efforts to suppress or contain the new musical form.

Legislative and Municipal Action: Various municipalities attempted to ban or restrict jazz performance. In 1921, the city council of Zion, Illinois, outlawed jazz performances entirely. More commonly, cities passed ordinances regulating dance halls or banning specific dances deemed too suggestive. In 1922, the Literary Digest reported that jazz had been banned by symphony orchestras in Atlantic City and by the music supervisor of public schools in Kansas City. While these efforts were often piecemeal and ineffective, they demonstrated the seriousness with which the establishment viewed the jazz “menace.”

Educational Censorship and Alternative Programming: Music educators were on the front lines of the antijazz campaign. The Music Supervisors’ National Conference (now the National Association for Music Education) devoted significant conference time to the “jazz problem” and promoted “better music” as an antidote. Schools across the country implemented programs to steer students toward classical music and away from jazz, which was characterized as aesthetically inferior and morally corrosive. This educational effort represented an attempt to shape the musical taste of the next generation as a bulwark against cultural change.

Women’s Clubs and Cultural Uplift: Federated women’s clubs, particularly those with predominantly white, middle-class membership, became important organizational bases for the antijazz crusade. The General Federation of Women’s Clubs passed resolutions condemning jazz and organized educational campaigns about its supposed dangers. These efforts were framed as part of a broader project of “cultural uplift” and the protection of home and family. The activism of these clubs illustrates how the defense of traditional gender roles became entangled with opposition to jazz, which was seen as encouraging precisely the kind of female sexual agency that threatened the patriarchal family structure.

Conclusion: The Unstoppable Rhythm

By the end of the 1920s, the antijazz crusade had largely failed in its objective to eliminate the new musical form. Jazz had not only survived but had evolved into a more sophisticated art, influencing the Broadway stage, the concert hall, and the burgeoning swing movement that would dominate the 1930s. Its critics, however, did not simply disappear; their anxieties would resurface in subsequent moral panics over swing, rock and roll, and hip-hop.

The significance of the antijazz movement lies in what it reveals about the psychology of cultural change. The intense hostility directed at jazz was fundamentally a response to the modernization of American society—to urbanization, to changing racial dynamics, to the new visibility of women in public life, and to the emergence of a commercially driven mass culture that challenged traditional sources of authority. The medical, religious, and racial arguments against jazz, however sincerely held, functioned as cultural weapons in a struggle over American identity.

In the end, the failure of the antijazz crusade demonstrated the limitations of moral and cultural policing in a modern, media-saturated democracy. The body proved more powerful than the sermon; the rhythm more compelling than the regulation. The crusaders understood correctly that jazz was more than music—it was the sound of a new social order taking shape, one whose values of individual expression, cultural hybridity, and physical freedom they found profoundly threatening. In attacking the symptom—the music itself—they missed the deeper historical currents that made jazz both possible and necessary. The rhythmic backlash of the 1920s thus stands as a poignant case study in the inevitable failure of attempting to legislate culture against the tide of social transformation.

---