The Pen is Mightier than the Sword

The title of this post may be a cliche, but it is extremely relevant when reading Burke's analysis of Hitler's rhetoric. Burke is relying to his audience, the importance of understanding the power in language. To understand why a piece of rhetoric "worked" (or proved powerful) places agency in the hands of the audience (or reader). Analysis is our tool to understanding and dissecting an author's powerful use of language. This allows us to understand why the rhetoric worked the way it did. This is crucial because without this understanding, we the audience can be swayed by rhetoric without knowing why. Is there anything more dangerous than that? To counteract this, and prevent it  in the future, we can dissect rhetoric and understand its affect; so that we may have the agency to decided whether or not it should affect us the way the author intends it to.

Burke bravely ventures into Hitler's rhetoric to analyze and dissect it. He does so to gain understanding into the power of rhetoric, to gain agency through this understanding; "and let us watch it, not merely to discover some grounds of prophesying what political move is to follow Munich [...] let us try to discover what kind of "medicine" this medicine-man has concocted, that we may know, with greater accuracy, exactly what to guard against if we are to forestall the concocting of similar medicine in America" (191). Burke is giving us vital information. Analysis of rhetoric is the lens to understanding its power and affect. We must study it for our own benefit. Although Burke does not reference agency directly, he is giving us a way of gaining agency.

What symbols and associations did Hitler draw on to make his rhetoric powerful?
Within itself, language carries the weight of previous associations, symbols and meanings. Hitler understood this. He used this to carefully construct his rhetoric to play off the preexisting conditions within language; "Hitler found a panacea, 'a cure for what ails you' [...] that made such sinister unifying possible within his own nation. And he was helpful enough to put his cards face up on the table, that we might examine his hands" (192).

In this examination, Burke allows us to see what Hitler drew upon-concepts already existing in language, that already hold weight and meaning. He manipulated this language to eventually manipulate people. Burke points to examples of this: "every movement that would recruit its followers from among many discordant and divergent bands, must have some spot to which all roads lead. [...] Hitler considered this matter carefully, and decided that this center must not be merely a centralized hub of ideas but a mecca, geographically located" (192). Hitler also used another symbol from language: "if a movement must have its Rome, it must also have its devil [...] the symbol of a common enemy" (193). This is what Hitler played upon to unite people against Jews. As a psychology major, I have also seen this concept as the in-group versus out-group. He created an in-group, the Aryan race and put all others in the out-group. This is also present in Burke's analysis, the dominating male (the orator) leads or woos the group, and turns the Jews into the villainous outsider who seeks to seduce the group (195). Hitler turns Jews into the scapegoat (and out-group).

Interestingly enough, Burke shows us that Hitler reveals his motives within his text. We can trace his antisemitism, seeing where it came from. He uses his personal motives strategically, "and thence we move, by one of those associational tricks which he brings forth at all strategic moments, into a vision of the end of the world" (198). Hitler does this by stating that reason won out, again creating his in-group and out-group, those opposed to him are labeled as irrational, as he stands for reason (199).

Through Burke's analysis of Hitler's rhetoric, we (the audience) are enlightened. We learn we must analyze the power of language and rhetoric, we must understand why they were/are powerful so that we can have the agency to not be affected by rhetoric that seeks to manipulate us. We must look behind the swaying power of language so we may stand against it.