Social Discourse: Burke and Bakhtin

Social discourse is speech or text communication that involves a social element. A social type of discourse is communication that has a social purpose or some kind of distinctively social aspect. Bakhtin says “language provokes social discourse” (259-61). This is exactly what is talked about in Burke’s “Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle.” Hitler is working to persuade his people (the Aryans) that Jews were people that should not be allowed to live on earth. Hitler does this specifically through social discourse and he also uses style and content which he realizes are important when trying to connect with or persuade an audience to do or think a certain thing.

Bakhtin and Burke both were concerned with the aesthetics of writing; “Bakhtin understands language as a potentially aesthetic medium” (595).These aesthetics being, tone, style, and how specific words can be phrased. “Style is language, so to create a style is to create a language for oneself (Bakhtin). In his speech, Hitler did exactly this. He created his own style of speech in order to persuade the Aryans. Bakhtin thought that having a more enlightened sense of style and even a smoother tone when speaking may be compelling to an audience and therefore get them to agree more with what the speaker is trying to convey or persuade the audience of. “Language combines form and content” (259). Bakhtin wants to make sure that “stylistics is not so private, i.e., we don’t just access the novel from the author’s point of view but we can access it from a social point of view” (259).

Hitler connects with his audience from a social point of view with the idea of Unity; “The symbol of a common enemy, the Prince of Evil himself, men who can unite on nothing else can unite on the basis of a foe shared by all.” (193). this statement could not be truer. Unity is a main ingredient when trying to start a movement like Hitler. Sure, there may be things that people relate to that they like, but even today, so many people get along through both disliking someone or something. For example, as Florida State University students, we all have a united dislike towards the University of Florida. We are unified through this disliking. Another example involves people we communicate with socially. If you are at a social function and get to talking to someone about someone, something, or a certain situation, and you both mutually dislike the certain thing you are discussing, this can bring you closer together. That person could even convince you to dislike whatever they dislike if you already didn’t or vice versa; and this is what Hitler was essentially trying to accomplish. Although the idea of getting along through a common enemy is terrible, it is how things work out sometimes, especially socially. Hitler wanted the Aryans to unite as a group and come together on the hatred of Jews. Hitler had “unifying step 1, the international devil materialized, in the visible” (194). Burke states that, “once Hitler has thus essentialized the enemy, all proof henceforth is automatic” (194).

Sexuality is another way in which Hitler connects with his audience socially. According to Burke, sexual symbolism runs through Hitler’s book. For Bakhtin, “dialogue” is not just a static model of speaker making utterance to listener” but where “three elements of the dialogue speak, listen, and influence each other equivalently” (596). Burke states that “The masses are feminine. As such, they desire to be led by a dominating male. This male, as orator, woos them—and, when he has won them, he commands them” (195). Burke is discussing how Hitler uses sex to woo and persuade his audience. He portrays the Jews as villainous and says that “the rival male, the villainous Jew, would on the contrary, “seduce” them. If he succeeds, he poisons their blood by intermingling with them” (195). Hitler was trying to make a point by using sex. He was trying to convince his people to believe that the Jews intermingling with the Aryans would make the Aryans become “dirty” or “impure.” Hitler was very smart in using sex as a means of persuasion because even still today, sex is a main ingredient in persuasion for many things.

“Hitler’s Battle” is exasperating, even nauseating; yet the fact remains: If the reviewer but knocks off a few adverse attitudinizing’s, and calls it a day, with a guaranty in advance that his article will have a favorable reception among the decent numbers of our population, he is contributing more to our gratification than to our enlightenment” (191).