A Dialectical Approach to Hitler’s Rhetoric

With reference to Bakhtin’s Discourse in the Novel and Burke’s The Rhetoric of Hitler, I would like to discuss the duality of approaches noted in both these texts. The most recent class periods have revolved around discussion pertaining to language, the implications, and its utilitarian aspects across a range of spectrums.

Bakhtin’s approach in regards to language discusses discourse in the novel, in addition to the novelistic whole. He refers to “form and content in discourse” as being one, and that we must understand “verbal discourse as a social phenomenon,” (Bakhtin 259). Bakhtin argues for the stylistic purposes of language and goes as far as to say “that to create a style is to create a language for oneself,” (598). He places much emphasis on his own rhetorical triangle, which is meant to evoke to speaker, hero and listener, therefore providing a sort of cross over area in which the intended audience and speaker collide, (Bakhtin 596). In accordance to his rhetorical triangle, certain aspects and characteristics that are manifested by the said triangle can be seen when Burke discusses in The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle. Because of Hitler’s endeavors, he has been forcefully demonized by history, but what we cannot neglect is the fact that the man was an incredible orator and rhetorician during a time when the German people were severely lacking morale. Hitler’s influence spoke volumes of the German condition, and although his motives for action were less than worthy, even inhuman, as a rhetorician he contributes historically more to “our gratification than to our enlightenment,” (Burke 191).


Similarly, we have Burke who explains and elaborates on the attention-provoking process that he used to gain the following of the Aryan populous. As Burke explains, within the general process of the unification device, it was further compartmentalized into four categories. Burke himself talks about “Hitler’s fury at the dialectics of those who opposed him when his structure was in the stage of scaffolding,” (Burke 199). His major attack was on the “parliamentary” and the way that Germany was being governed at the time, ultimately he was convinced he could do a better job than anyone else out there, and through the use of rhetorical strategies and groups of German minorities as scapegoats, he possessed the ability to do so, and to easily manipulate the German population to his advantage, (Burke 199). When looking at the manner in which Hitler spoke of religion, he shaped and manipulated his words as a text in order to better serve his sphere of influence over his audience. Furthermore, some of the compartments of Hitler’s unification devices include inborn dignity, projection device, symbolic rebirth, and commercial use, all according to Burke. Hitler used all of these devices within the unification process he was carrying out for an Aryan Germany.

To tie the argument together, as Bakhtin states with accordance to dialogue, we must acknowledge the three components it involves: equal parts listening, speaking and influencing. Hitler’s discourse and dialogue was presented in such an attractive and heroic manner to the Aryan race that they could not think of anything better to do than to immediately join his following; his words were that powerful, and that striking that a nation practically rejoiced and gave into his spell immediately, considering that they were on the winning side, of course. Burke continues to say that "the more uniformly the fighting will of a people is put into action, the greater will be the magnetic force of the movement and the more powerful the impetus of the blow" meaning that as soon as the morale of the Aryan Germans was regained they immediately became a fighting force full of purpose they previously lacked, (Burke 193). In the end what Hitler’s reasoning manifested itself into was the fact that the Aryan race was naturally the superior breed of human, while everyone else was sub-human or insignificant to the point that their death did not matter and/or they should be sterilized in order to stop contaminating the rest of the respectable population.

Lastly, one of Bakhtin’s approaches to language deals greatly with regards to the intention of it, as well as the implications of language. Therefore, in the eyes of Bakhtin Hitler’s use of language would have involved a significant amount of style, intention, and nonetheless execution. As an orator, Hitler was unstoppable. How else would he have re-unified Germany? The public was desperate following the Weimar Republic, and had nothing going for them, and were looking for a hero. Therefore, Bakhtin’s rhetorical triangle comes into play, where Hitler was playing both the role of the hero and the speaker, and the German public was playing the role of the listener. His skills as a rhetorician were so compelling that he managed to convince a whole country that his ideas were just, and fair, and correct. Through this process, as Burke states, Hitler could “spontaneously turn to a scapegoat mechanism, by conscious planning, perfect symmetry of the solution towards which he had spontaneously turned,” (211). In the case of Germany, the scapegoats became the Jews, the gypsies, the mentally ill, and the other minorities who did not fit the Aryan typeset of human. Undoubtedly, we can look at Hitler’s contributions historically as a rhetorician and conclude that his actions were admirable in moving the public to action, and unifying a nation that was on the decline; however, his motives and reasoning and action plan for doing so caused one of the greatest human diasporas of all time and forever impacted the world.

-Valeria Vargas Caro