In The Rhetoric of
Hitler’s “Battle” Kenneth Burke outlines why he believes Hitler’s
rhetorical campaign was pivotal for his rise to power. The most effective
aspect of his campaign is the deliberately crafted relationship between Aryans
and Jews. Burke discusses this opposition in depth, pulling many ideas from
Ong’s fictionalizing process of an audience. The other reason for Hitler’s
success, according to Burke is the manipulation of the time and place. What I
mean here is that Hitler was extremely effective at taking advantage of the
negative situation German society was facing. After being decimated in World
War I and now facing economic downturn, the German people sought relief. Burke
claims this relief was found in the form of Hitler’s “medicinal rhetoric.”
Burke’s two aspects of analysis are undoubtedly vital for Hitler’s success, but
Burke neglects the humanistic aspects of the German people, which Hitler played
on so well.
Before
Hitler rose, German society was in shambles. The way Burke characterizes it and
from a historical perspective, the people had no common bond, besides despair.
As humans we have a need for a purpose, a goal, some sort of driving force that
gives us meaning. This is what the
Germans lacked, and Hitler recognized it. He presented his philosophy, which
essentially gave the German people a goal by working together against the
“Jew.” I put this in quotations because the people are not uniting against an
actual nation of other people but rather a complex idea of them, one created by
Hitler in order to unify his people.
Now
that being a part of the group again emotionally satisfies the people, they
begin to question the reason why. Here is where Hitler’s argument is quite
genius, he bases his hatred of the Jews on one of the most basic human
struggles good versus evil. The German people obviously wanted to be good as
opposed to evil, perpetuating a vicious cycle. As people we find some moral
consolidation in fighting evil, imposing justice, all that good stuff.
Sometimes we are too caught up in our own pursuits to question if they are even
the right ones. Hitler manipulated human nature to the degree that good and
evil became nothing but a label.
I really like that you make the distinction that rather than the German people uniting against an individual people(the "Jew), it is an idea crafted by Hitler as a unifying tool. I think this craftiness in his rhetoric is really interesting and although it is used in a sinister way here of course, it is used often in rhetoric in general, even though it may not be intentional. It reminds me a little bit of the way tragedies can unify people, and although the sinister tones have evaporated in this rather than Hitler's way, often times such events can have a unifying effect and cause as a catalyst for change; many people will not act until they feel they must. I think Hitler with his use of a scapegoat attempts, and succeeds, in engaging this emotional response and justifying his own actions through rhetoric only. It's amazing to me that Hitler achieves all of this through rhetoric. I also like that you use the phrase "good versus evil". By characterizing the Jews as the "evil" and the persecution of them as "good", Hitler is able to gain support and loyalty of the German people.
ReplyDelete