Deconstructing the Social Through (and within) Rhetoric

This week, I was introduced to the discipline of rhetoric, which in simpler terms, involves the art of persuasion, speaking well, and expressing clearly (Booth 6). As a student of sociology, I have often discussed the role of public address in socio-political movements, but it was interesting to examine how persistent social constructs are found in both everyday (micro) and public (macro) speech patterns and delivery themselves. In the context of power structures, I want to attempt to understand how the social inspires rhetoric, and how rhetoric reproduces the social. And so, in this reflection I attempt to connect social constructs to thematic tools found in Hitler’s rhetoric, with particular reference to The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle by Kenneth Burke.

After reading the articles this week, I found that I was most attracted to the concept of manipulating social phenomena to assert power and establish domination. In The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle, Burke discusses the rhetoric used by Hitler when addressing himself, Jews, the German people, and the idea of the German nation. Hitler actively used socio-religious values to shape his rhetoric in a way that directed the German population in a favourable direction, so it is important to investigate the two most prominent ways that this was done: inborn dignity, which relates to race, and gendered power structures, which relates to gender. Interestingly enough, both of these social constructs have been heavily shaped by religion.

For centuries, religion and scripture have been used to define, or at least implement, social norms surrounding race. In the centuries leading up to the racialized Atlantic Slave Trade, Christian perceptions and representations of race depicted Jesus and other religious figures as being noble white men, whereas devilish creatures and sin were associated with the colour black and darkness. These ideas justified the eventual oppression and enslavement of millions of African people, as the slave owners were only “obeying God’s word” and doing what was “inborn” and “destined” for their race and better for the world at large. Relating this back to Hitler’s rhetoric, he mimics this approach to inborn dignity by asserting that the Aryan Germans have a religious duty to conquer the “racial inferiors” and restore peace to the country (Burke 202). He refers to his personal ambitions to do this as obedience to God’s will, thus furthering the idea that his plans stem from religious purity rather than political gain, and enabling him to scapegoat the Jewish people of Europe for more reasons than one.

The second tool that Hitler’s rhetoric employs is the gendering of power structures (Burke 195). Although gender norms have consistently existed since the beginning of time, they became particularly defined with the emergence of Christian rulership, as ideas of Virgin Mary and Eve created dichotomies that dictated women’s behaviour. Furthermore, they established power dynamics between men and women that placed men in positions of social domination and women in positions of subordination. Men were often bestowed with the duties of guiding the women in their lives and making difficult decisions for the family, whereas women were expected to comply and maintain their family honour by upholding socio-religious values. According to Burke, Hitler was inspired by this power imbalance when he referred to the masses as feminine, and asserted that they desired to be led by a strong male. And because they were feminine and unable to make decisions as men would, they had to be careful because they could either be “wooed” by good men (i.e. Hitler) or “seduced” by evil ones (i.e. Jews). By choosing to gender the German people as feminine, he emphasized their need for a strong, dominating leader that could make the tough decisions, and enabled himself to ascend to this position.

Without directly likening Hitler’s rhetoric to that of present-day leaders, I find that the use of inborn dignity and gendered power structures is particularly important to my understanding of modern-day socio-political phenomena, especially with reference to slogans and publicly available comments made by presidential candidates leading up to the 2016 US presidential elections. For instance, “Make America Great Again” fascinates me, as it heavily implies ideas of white inborn dignity and ownership over the US. The way that the red “MAGA” hats and merchandise are widely distributed and nationally understood to represent a certain set of values is extremely interesting. I find that the connection between the Republican party and conservative, often pro-Christian, values allows Republican candidates to draw upon religious scripture and/or ideals to persuade the people into re-establishing the “pure”, “good” America, and links back to both Hitler and other leaders’ provocation of religious responsibility during propaganda and public speaking.

Finally, while I am aware of policies and discourse that impact gender minorities, I would be interested in investigating how gendered power structures play a role in the rhetoric surrounding day-to-day political power. How is America described by political candidates? Is America weak and subordinate, or strong and persistent? “Make America Great Again” implies that the nation was once a dominating presence (almost empire) in the world, and needs to be restored to its former glory through a bold and relentless leader (sounds familiar!). How did Hillary Clinton draw on gendered power structures, and how was it perceived? I would imagine that due to implicit biases that prevent women from being seen as equally powerful to their male counterparts in influential positions, her rallying speeches may not have had the same momentous effect. How does Trump use gender in his rhetoric to assert the “strongman personality” in speeches and public addresses? I’ve noticed that he uses a lot colloquial language to express the idea that he is strong, smart, wealthy and a great leader, which is interesting because it makes his comments even more accessible to the general reader.

All in all, further exploration of these questions can lead to a better understanding of the American people and the rhetoric that was required to win them over, enabling us to better parallel the relationship between social issues and rhetoric of modern-day politics with that of the 20th century.