The Death of Hitler?

When I read through the Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle, I wanted to treat it just as I have treated every other text we've read before. I wanted to read it with a clear head; I wanted to search diligently for key terms and important concepts. But I found that with this particular piece it was a great challenge. I could not divorce myself from my feelings of great discomfort as I read the words on the page. The excerpts Burke included were Hitler's words. The words of a man who orchestrated the death of millions, who pushed for genocide. Burke was analyzing the rhetoric of an evil man, and I was not able to do the same calmly or comfortably.

After I read the piece, my mind immediately went to Foucault and Barthes. They argued for the death of the author. I would obviously agree with them in this case if they were speaking in the literal sense. But they (Foucault in particular) were speaking of the function of the author, the role that an author's social identity played in their text. They wanted to push back against the tyranny that this role lead to; they wanted to give more power to the reader of the text. And while I can certainly get behind that goal, I find that the issue becomes complicated when we apply it to Hitler and his work. Should we exclude his identity (and the power and fear associated with it) to get a better grasp of his writing? Should we kill Hitler? Or should we acknowledge his author-function? Should we keep it intact with his work?

These are not simple questions, and I am unsure if there is a real answer to them. But they are questions that I posed to myself, and I hope to at least examine them, even though I may not come to a clear-cut solution. We must start by acknowledging the importance of reading through Hitler's "Battle." Burke says that it may "exasperating, even nauseating, yet the fact remains: If the reviewer but knocks off a few adverse attitudinizings and calls it a day, with a guaranty in advance that his article will have a favorable reception among the decent members of our population, he is contributing more to our gratification than our enlightenment." If we do not study Hitler's work, we will never come to truly understand how he was so persuasive in his arguments. Without that understanding, how will we defend ourselves from similar rhetoric in the future?

And so, despite our discomfort, we must work to better our understanding by studying Hitler's Battle. This much I am certain about. My uncertainty begins with my attempts to ignore my discomfort, to study the text at a purely analytic level. In doing this, I believe I am trying to remove Hitler's author-function from his work. I am trying to ignore the terror that his identity evokes in me, trying to view him as I would any other rhetorician. Perhaps if this were possible for me, I would gain a better grasp of Burke's analysis. But I'm not sure I believe that. I think that Hitler's author-function plays a vital role in my study of his work. His discourse swayed countless people. He was convincing, and while we must study his methods to determine why this is the case, I think it is imperative that we remember the evil of his actions, the evil inside of him. His power plays an important role in his rhetoric.

And so, in this particular case, I think we must let the author live. We must acknowledge his author-function, and study the role it plays in his work.