It is common knowledge that Adolf Hitler was an extremely persuasive and effective writer and speaker. He led people to do unthinkable and repulsive acts under the guise that our society was plagued by an undesirable race that needed to be removed. In Burke's "The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle" it is obvious that Hitler manipulated language to essentially brainwash his followers. Hitler's intentions gave the words he used new, sinister meaning that they may not have taken on before his employment of them.
In Bakhtin's "Discourse in the Novel" words are given meaning through the speaker or writer's intentions. Words mean and convey different messages at different times because of the person, their intentions, and the time in which the words are utilized. I'd like to explore this phenomena through Hitler's rhetoric and use of language in his manipulation of his followers.
Bakhtin states that, "various tendencies (artistic and otherwise), circles, journals, particular newspapers, even particular significant artistic works and individual persons are all capable of stratifying language, in proportion to their social significance; they are capable of attracting its words and forms into their orbits by means of their own characteristic intentions and accents, and in so doing to a certain extent alienating these words and forms from other tendencies, parties, artistic works and persons" (Bakhtin 290). In a nutshell, a person (such as Hitler) can manipulate words to mean exactly what they need them to mean at any given time. Hitler manipulated words to convince people that what he was doing was just. It was the only way to save society. The words he used may not have meant what he meant, though, if they were used by someone else for some other purpose.
An example of this would be Hitler's use of symbolism to communicate why the Jews were an inferior race. Hitler states that, "by purely associative connections of ideas, we are moved into attacks upon syphilis, prostitution, incest, and other similar misfortunes, which are introduced as a kind of “musical” argument when he is on the subject of “blood-poisoning” by intermarriage or, in its “spiritual” equivalent, by the infection of “Jewish” ideas, such as democracy" (Burke 195). The images Hitler uses to symbolize the repulsiveness and his abhorrence for Jews aren't something someone would normally associate with negatively appropriating a race. Hitler uses STD's and other sexual taboos in association with Jews in order to create a dirty, inferior image in the mind of his followers. He therefore manipulates the language to convey his message in a way that may not have been done before and may not have been done since he did it.
Bakhtin states that, "every socially significant verbal performance has the ability— sometimes for a long period of time, and for a wide circle of persons— to infect with its own intention certain aspects of language that had been affected by its semantic and expressive impulse, imposing on them specific semantic nuances and specific axiological overtones" (Bakhtin 290). I think its appropriate that Bakhtin uses the word "infect" here, because it is exactly what Hitler does and is insinuating with his sexual symbolism. Hitler 1. is infecting his followers with intentions that he has assigned to language and 2. is implying that Jews are infectious and contagious, that they are "blood poisoning". This proves that all words and forms are "populated by intentions" (Bakhtin 293). The words Hitler employed in his writings and speeches agains the Jews were charged with his own personal intentions. People today would not find it meaningful to compare Jews to STD's but at the time of Hitler's reign, it may have made more sense because Hitler made sense of it through his language.
It amazes me that anybody felt okay about joining the Nazi party. But then again, after looking more critically at Hitler's message with Bakhtin in mind, it is easier to see how someone would be able to stand behind Hitler. Hitler's words worked in his favor during his epoch. He was a powerful rhetorician and a master manipulator of language, which was likely one of the major reasons he was successful in the first place. It explains why anyone follows any extremist party. Words are manipulated easily and given meaning by those in charge of them. In this way, anyone can be powerful and persuasive.
Hey Jordan,
ReplyDeleteI think that you gained - and provided me with - a noteworthy perspective in looking at Hitler’s philosophy while keeping in mind Bahktin’s philosophy that words can be manipulated to mean exactly what an agent wants them to mean at any given time. Without this concept, Hitler’s words would have meant nothing. They would not have moved so many people to the nauseating actions that they did during the Nazi era. As you said, Hitler certainly used symbolism and imagery in order to communicate his message. In addition to that, I think that this is significant evidence of Hitler fictionalizing, or creating, his audience. Without his strong language, he would not have been able to create the strong-willed membership that he did. Basically, because Hitler had the rhetorical skill to manipulate his words to mean precisely what he wanted them to, he was able to create an audience that accepted and trusted his words as the ultimate truth. While I don’t agree that it is easier to see how someone would be able to stand behind Hitler after looking at these texts, I do agree that it was because of his powerful manipulation of rhetoric and language that he was able to create his following.
- Sarah Davis
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteYou’ve applied Bakhtin’s theory on the meaning of language and people’s ability to populate it with their own intentions really well to Hitler’s battle according to Burke. And I think you’re absolutely right to argue that without his use of rhetoric and his ability to ‘manipulate’ language to mean something it otherwise wouldn’t, he would not have been able to create such a large and loyal Nazi party to support his genocide. The example you pointed out of equating the Jews to some kind of infection is a powerful one. He also used other techniques in order to turn the Jews into a symbol of everything he thought was bad in the world. He made them into scapegoats for countless German troubles—for example, blaming their economic struggles on Jewish moneylenders.
What I found interesting was your argument that Hitler manipulated language in a way that nobody had before or has since. Granted, he is the most well-known and probably the most talked about perpetrator of genocide in today’s society—especially in the media—but I don’t think he invented this kind of manipulation of language. And I don’t think he was the last to do it, either. It takes a certain level of manipulation (I would hope) to get a whole nation, or at least an entire party, to stand behind mass killing, and there have been several other genocides both before and after Hitler’s time. The Ukrainian genocide (or Holodomor famine), although it’s still argued whether it can legally be defined as genocide, happened under Stalin’s soviet government in the early 30s. Benito Mussolini is also thought by historians to have attempted genocide during two different wars in the 30s. And the Armenian genocide was perpetrated by the Turkish government in 1915. My argument here would be that all of these governments, whether led by a single man or as a collective, had to manipulate language in the same way Hitler did in order to get people to consent to mass killing. Hitler’s genocide had one of the largest death tolls that I’m aware of, and perhaps that’s why he’s more well-known than those other men.
I think that if Bakhtin and Burke were to put those other perpetrators under the same kind of scrutiny that has been applied to Hitler, they would find that all of them populated words with their own meanings and intentions, and manipulated language to create a particular meaning where it did not exist before. (Although it’s true that whether or not their rhetoric was as effective as Hitler's is a different story.)
-Jessica Gonzalez