Jan
20
Circuituitous
Posted by: Brian | January 20, 2009 | Comments Off on Circuituitous
Eva Peron’s article no doubt fits under the category of those political speeches that are written with the intention of uniting “a people”, but only result in the exposition of custom-made fictitious divides. The amount of sentiment stirring within her language supports an “us vs. them” mentality which is further supported by the nature of the words she chooses, a nature that undeniably refers to extremes. These extremes arrive in the form of either symbolic nouns or antonyms, Peron, in her attempt to create boundaries, recruits all sorts of ‘loaded’ jargonincluding “sun”, “sky”, “shadows”, “clouds”, “flying”, “fire”, “flag”, “blood”, “snake”, “vultures”, “toad”, “nightingale”, “enemies”, “joy”, “loneliness”, and the clinchers “hate” and “love”. In her quest to unify, she blatantly exludes certain people from her definition of the “infinite race of the people” which undermines her primary objective. She speaks of the “vanity” and “pride” of those that oppose the views of her husband (and her views as well), and yet for the entire article she entrenches her differences from the ‘typical politician’ by praising herself and her husband (Isn’t that one of the most famous “tricks of the trade”?). It was very challenging to derive any sort of substance from the text when she performs in the very same manner she accuses her opposition of behaving. In terms of initial impressions, her (presumably speaking) style is circuituitous, with constant loopbacks (reminiscent of Sarah Palin, no?) to topics that I believe insults the intelligence of “the people” since the majority of her topics evoke an emotional response, more so than a logical one. The redunancy encountered is best highighted when she speaks of “my authentic truth” (insert a wry smile, or a snort of irony here).
In comparison, Borges’ article was unconventional and greatly anticipated to complement and neutralize all the devices that Peron recruited to identify herself with a “people”. Thankfully his article delivered, providing a believable account of the “humble” that Peron refers to and doesn’t provide a solid description of, as well as revealing the divisive nature of Peron’s definition of the “people” through an interpretive account. Borges’ ability to envision the life of an Argentine in great detail magnifies the flaws within Peron’s speech. The subtle commentary that he applies in such instances as “I didn’t figure on was that member of the oppposing team, healthy patriotism. All I could think of was the Monster and that the next I would see him smilin’ and talkin’ like the great Argentine worker he is” as well as “What a thing togetherness is!” appealed to my fondness of irony.
