Burke Analyzes Mein Kampf

In analyzing “Mein Kampf” Burke has observed a process of unification as employed by Hitler in his rhetoric. This process of unification has multiple steps and different aspects or parts. Initially discussed is how Hitler chose Munich to serve as “the one unifying center of reference for all” within his movement (Burke 192). Another part of his process of unification was “the symbol of a common enemy,” because “men can unite on the basis of a foe shared by all.” (Burke 193). Burke analyzes this vilification of Jews as “the materialization” of a religious pattern... one terrifically effective weapon of propaganda,” (Burke 194).

Is Timing All That Matters in Rhetoric?

Does it really matter what we say, or how we say it, as long as the timing is right? While it’s easy to assume that a great orator, politician, writer, or rhetor can simply enchant their audience by the weightiness of the words, it’s interesting to ponder the possibility that perhaps all that matters is timing. Would it not be more effective to deliver a speech on protecting the environment after an oil-drilling catastrophe has just occurred? Don’t you think a politician would have much more success in a speech for gaining support for military action just after terrorist attack? Surely, there must be a certain amount of consequence placed on the actual content, for if the content does not pertain precisely to the audience, constraints, and exigence, the rhetorical effort would fail. However, if the rhetor does not take into account the timing, then he/she may be setting himself/herself up for failure.

The theory of Rebirth and the Stigma of Rhetoric.

           Hitler's Mein Kamph is a book of hate speech, false information, and skilled rhetoric. The horrific ideology of the book makes it difficult to applaud in any respect; however the effective rhetoric of the text is difficult to ignore. What is particular about this text is that while the words themselves are cruel, they are not what makes this text so difficult to deconstruct in the same respect as other classic pieces of literature. It is the atrocious actions these words provoked that makes this text so painful to read. Knowing about the history surrounding the book makes it even more chilling because the persuasive speech becomes clear. When at the receiving end of this rhetoric, you begin to see the manipulative capabilities of rhetorical speech. How the simple use of language can manipulate a group of people in a time of grief and economical distress to do something so immoral and outside their realm of typical behavior. The Mein Kamph is filled with many rhetorical devices but its most notable strategies is it's use of rebirth messages. A rhetorical device that is commonly viewed in a negative light and continues to promote the stigma of the term 'rhetoric'.

              Using messages of rebirth is controversial because it is often understood as a manipulative tactic. Its appeal to the damaged and distressed encourages many to view it as taking advantage of the weak. Its popular use in the Mein Kamph is a strong force that promote the stigma against 'rhetoric' as a practice. The economic downturn Germany was experiencing allowed for Hitler's words to be even more powerful. The promise of wealth and an end to their struggles; made many listen and follow him. The issue with rebirth messages is that they are often fueled by desperation; however this does not mean they are solely used for manipulative purposes. This understanding of 'rebirth' is incredibly flat and lacks dimension. Rebirth messages are not simply methods of taking advantage of the weak; there uses are far more ranged. In an attempt to develop a more dimensional understanding of the idea 'rebirth' I tried to search for other uses of the device.
                 Churches were one of the first examples that came to mind when considering institutions that apply the idea of rebirth to their work. This idea of allowing member to be 'born again' and 'cleaned of their impurities' are attributed with joining the institution. This use is not necessarily guided by a certain motive. Many claim religious institutions use this rebirth metaphor for reasons of support. To bring action to these words, many even perform baptisms. A ceremony that depicts the inflicted person emerging from water; a universally acceptable symbol of life.  Rebirth is also found in commercial practices. Weight loss products are notable example. They utilize the idea of rebirth; by promising their customers a new life and better health. They use rhetoric for wealth and camouflages their monetary desires as genuine good intentions. This use of rebirth is usually what is being recognized when the 'rebirth' rhetorical device is being criticized. Many fail to think of its applications in addiction support groups. The idea that there can be a new beginning; is often a very effective technique in aiding recovering alcoholics. This practice is different from the previously mentioned uses because it fails to accomplish anything for the rhetorician in question. The idea of rebirth can be incredibly powerful and the misuse of this power has led many to reject its application entirely. I think its important to understand the rhetorical devices functioning in the Mein Kamph and specifically understand how they function. To understand them separately from the horrible events that occurred and study devices apart from their typical application. The Mein Kamph is a book that has been rightfully demonized but it is important to separate the hate speech from the persuasive techniques. This book is possibly one of many great historical examples of rhetoric being used 'for evil' which makes it incredibly easy to demonize the practice entirely. I think it is crucial to understand rhetorical devices as separate beings and to cognitively detach them from their applications. It is crucial to understand rhetoric as the medium of conflict and not the enemy because without this understanding it is impossible to have a fighting chance. 

Untitled

Why it works.
When we think about Hitler and The Holocaust, or genocide in general it is difficult to believe or imagine how something like that could happen so easily.  Hitler’s actions are without a doubt heinous. The magnitude of atrocity is difficult to even image, all of it happened almost too easily. How could an agenda so hideous come into being? Hitler gained power and following because in the end its all about how you paint the picture.

Control and Destroy

In Mikhail Bahktin’s  “Discourse in the Novel,” he discusses how the language used in novels can provoke social discourse (Bahktin 259-61). Though this was argued to describe how language in a novel can create the characterization, the psychological backgrounds, the setting, the politics, behaviors, ethnicities, etc., that is utilized to compose a fictional setting, this concept truly allows readers to better understand the article “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle” by Kenneth Burke.

Hitler and the Power of Symbol/Language

   Adolf Hitler is a name we've become familiar with for many years. In 1933 he published his manifesto Mein Kampf and the reactions it received once it reached the states were, in truth, not the greatest. It eventually reached the hands of literary theorist and rhetorician Kenneth Burke. After reading this, Burke publishes his book review entitled The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'. Before explaining the review, he notes how besides the fact that 'Battle' was "exasperating, even nauseating" that overall this would result in something disastrous. He recognized that this was essentially a manipulation of religious paradigms for political propaganda.
   Published in the late 30's, 'Battle' was, in short, a way to fully understand the true meaning of Hitler's manifesto. He breaks down each concept that Hitler explains. Before going further, however, it's important to note that Burke first states, "Men who can unite on nothing else can unite on the basis of a foe shared by all" (193). This statement perfectly exemplifies Hitler's first concept, which was that there is a common enemy. Essentially this was his use as a scapegoat as well. Burke explains that "this materialization of a religious pattern is, I think, one terrifically effective form of propaganda in a period where religion has been progressively weakened by many centuries of capitalist materialism" (194).

Hitler and rhetoric

In Burke’s essay “the Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle” he speaks of how Hitler was able to use his agency as a rhetorician in order to persuade a society to participate in one of the largest mass genocides our world has ever seen. Burke speaks of Hitler’s book drawing attention to the many types of rhetoric he used to persuade his audience. He writes about the inherent sexual nature of Hitler’s writings saying that “the masses are feminine, as such they desire to be lead by a dominating male, the male as orator woos them. (Burke, 195)” This made me think back to the first unit of the semester, where we spoke about agency and agent. Specifically, Campbell’s writings on agency in her essay “Agency: Promiscuous and Protean.” In Campbell’s essay she writes about how an individual creates agency when they stand up and speak on behalf of a group. She goes on to write that instead of defining a group through essentialism, we should define them by how they work in relation to external forces.

The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle through the lens of The Third Wave

Kenneth Burke said that the majority of Hitler's war was won not through weaponry, but through the control of the mind. ("...the efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy(Burke, 193)") It seems like a pedantic thing to do, but Hitler had recognized that his war needed an enemy and a cult mindset, so he would have to create one. Similarly, California schoolteacher Ron Jones found it difficult to teach to his class how Hitler was so easily able to bring people together, so he began a program for them to follow called "The Third Wave". 

The Key to Success

Throughout this class we have been researching Rhetoricians for the good of society. We have found new ways in which we can look at and interpret language, along with new ideas to think about them. These rhetoricians have the power to come up with theories and relay them to the rest of society. They have the power to make us think a certain way about language, and so far, this power has been used for good. When we look at Hitler, it's the opposite.

Hitler, the group dynamic, and the common enemy.

Burke handles criticizing Mein Kampf in a very objective and methodical manner. This feat is somewhat impressive considering the negative emotional attachment people have to Hitler and Nazis in general. He examined Hitler's quest to control Eastern Europe through the eyes of a rhetorician and skilled orator and finds that Hitler's success depended upon his ability to scapegoat everyone but the Aryans and set up a binary opposition of qualities amongst his group and their “opponents”. Burke argued that this piece of the scheme's puzzle was the most crucial to set down right. This idea of unification, both geographically and ideologically, is what sets movements going forward. Burke even fittingly quotes Hitler in his essay: “the efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy.” (Burke, 193)

Burke also mentions that Hitler was helped out by the fact that Germany was economically struggling before his reign. The people were desperate for an answer and Hitler answered their questions convincingly enough to rally a nation of poor (and as a result, gullible) around a common enemy. In effect, Burke mentions that Hitler's antisemitism was ramped up to complete this image of a binary opposition where there was none, the definition of the illogical practice of scapegoating.

Furthermore, as it relates to the term heteroglossia, Hitler's reign and style of warmongering unified not only Germany, but did so by unifying the enemy in the eyes of his German people. Hitler wanted to limit the number of voices/opponents in order to hype up the power of the non-Aryans in the eyes of his own Germans. By making the Jews seem like this big, bad unified force, their “threat” was taken more seriously throughout Eastern Europe, effectively making the “problem” seem big enough for Germany to do something about it on a national, genocidal scale.  

The Power of Public Speaking

Starting off, to be honest, I’ve always seen Hitler in a negative way because of what his image was for a “perfect” race of people, and the horrible things done to millions (or billions) of Jews on his behalf. However, I have since learned and cannot deny, that he was an extremely brilliant military man, and one of the most charismatic orators in history. So is the power of rhetoric; so is the power of language.

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.

Applying Langue and Parole to Bakhtin’s “Discourse in The Novel”

Last class I had the task of defining what the terms “langue” and “parole” meant, and then apply them to the context of our reading for the day, which was Bakhtin. Unfortunately, I didn’t have as deep an understanding of Bakhtin’s theories at the time, so I couldn’t go as in depth with the words as I had wished. But now, after a more thorough reading, I can relate the definitions of the words to Bakhtin’s description of the novel in his paper.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, langue is akin to linguistics, in that it is that acceptance of a greater system of language within a speech community. I related this to understanding the general grammar of language, like when learning Spanish from a textbook. Parole, on the other hand, is the use of day-to-day language. It’s affected by our society and culture and isn’t bound by the constraints of langue, or the acknowledgement of a set language. And parole in turn affects langue. Changes in the use of language change our perception of how an actual language is used, and therefore our idea of langue. Both terms seem to refer to evolving entities. But while the parole evolves rapidly, langue experiences a slower process of evolution. It evolves with parole, when new words, changes in grammar, and other parts of language become widely accepted and acknowledged.

Bakhtin says “the novel can be defined as a diversity of social speech types (sometimes even diversity of languages) and a diversity of individual voices, artistically organized” (262). For Bakhtin, the novel is a manifestation and materialization of parole. It is the language and grammar that individuals use day-to-day, inscribed onto a piece of paper. The great influence of many voices, ideas, and aspects of language like grammar, syntax, and lexicon all funnel into the making of a novel.  Bakhtin says, “this internal stratification present in every language at any given moment of its historical existence is the indispensable prerequisite for the novel as a genre” (263). Another way of saying this is that our “parole”, our everyday use and modification of language, affects how we write and what we write.

Novels are therefore a product of parole, which in turn can affect our language, our acceptance of the structure of a language. They are a symbol of the present culture. But they are also a symbol of the state of parole at a certain point in time. They are a discontinuation of its evolution.

Encourage. Unify. Destroy.

     Many times, we talk about the rhetoricians who pushed society forward and used their theories and uses of rhetoric for the good of society and philosophy. What we tend to forget is the power these rhetoricians carried; we forget this because power has been associated with a negative connotation as of late. Hitler had power. He controlled an entire region. He convinced a nation that killing millions of people was for the good of society. He was the perfect example of a successful rhetorician. This thought can make some uncomfortable. We would like to to look at Hitler and only categorize him as a monster and a cult leader. The truth is, he advocated for peace. "I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator: By warding of Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work, (italics his)" (Burke 198). 

The Battle of Binary Oppositions

Adolf Hitler came into power during a time when the people he was leading desperately needed a source of hope. The country of Germany was in shambles, and his words provoked citizens to feel as if a difference could be made. Many were rather enchanted by his words—spoken or written—and followed his messages clearly. Hitler is one of the best examples when discussing how the use of rhetoric can lead to power, and Kenneth Burke explains this idea well in The Rhetoric of Hitler’s “Battle.”

Examining Hitler's "Medicinal" Rhetoric

Burke quotes Hitler as saying "...the efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy(Burke, 193)". This quote is eerily accurate in his manipulation of rhetoric toward the German people against the Jews. It is difficult after reading this to dispute that Hitler's main goal in persecuting Jews was to unite the German people through a hatred of another people.

Placing Hitler's "leader-people" construction in Bakhtin's speaker-listener-hero model

Kenneth Burke spares no praise for Hitler’s sheer rhetorical effectiveness in “Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle’.” Deriding what he sees as a sort of timid laziness  in the way writers dissect Mein Kampf, he begins with a defense of his choice to analyze these strategies differently from the moralistic preaching-to-the-choir methods of the typical reviewer, by mere virtue of opportunity. “He was helpful enough to put his cards face up on the table…Let us, then, for God’s sake, examine them,” he analogizes, in 1939 (191).

Brilliant Application of Rhetoric

Burke examines the way in which Hitler applies rhetoric in his attempt to rid his nation of Jews.

Before I begin to break down the ways in which he uses rhetoric brilliantly, but for the wrong reasons in my opinion, we must begin at the core of the motivation. Burke says that Hitler had a “spontaneous rise of his anti-Semitism” on page 197, but this statement is contradictory. Hitler explicitly explains how he came to gradually hate the Jews. Hitler’s hate spurred mostly from the way in which, the way they lied with ease and frequency. He says “One did not know what to admire more: their glibness of tongue or their skill in lying. I gradually began to hate them.” (p. 197) I feel that his encounter with the Jews, and the misery he encountered in Vienna propelled him into a state of rage. In rhetorical practices, the message to the audience must be clear. Hitler was clear in his dislike for the Jews. He was also clear that if they continued to poison his beloved Germany she would become victim to prostitution, syphilis, bad democracy and ‘anything else of thumbs-down sort”.

Hitler and Heteroglossia

It’s a strange feeling knowing that Mikhail Bakhtin, Kenneth Burke, and Adolph Hitler were all, for lack of a better word, contemporaries. Discourse in the Novel was published at roughly the same time as Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, (1934-1935) to give a sense of perspective. In addition, Kenneth Burke published The Rhetoric of Hitler’s "Battle" in 1939, one of many critics to do so in the wake of the unabridged Mein Kampf’s translation.

Symbolic Action

In our recent discussions with language, we have become aware of the uses of language that go beyond signification. Rhetoric, and the language which encompasses it, has the ability to persuade. We know this by now. However, when reading The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle it is a slippery slope we enter when discussing the effectiveness of his rhetorical strategies; we like to discuss the consequences of Hitler's "Battle", rather than how and why Hitler was so effective in his doings.

HItler's Battle

Burke analyzes the Hitler’s powerful use of rhetoric to direct the attention of his audience in such a way that their ignorance combined with openness to his words allowed him to use well crafted speeches to make the public understand something in a way that was conducive to Hitler’s plan for power. One way Hitler does this is to direct attention towards the problems in Germany, such as economic strife, and once he had constructed a sympathetic frame, convince the people that has was the “cure” for this “disease”. (Burke, 193) Hitler thrived on textbook racism by asserting superiority over the Jews, that they are “different” that they are not like the rest of the Germans and thus a divide was struck and power was in his hands.

Burke, Kenneth. “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle’.” In The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action, Third Edition. Berkeley: U of California P, 1973. 191-211.

Hitler the Emotional Puppeteer

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.

Where We Start, Where We End Up

Locke, Lakeoff & Johnson, and Derrida faced off in our class and their ideas and works were put face to face. This post will examine one question from the face-off and delve into the origins of their ideas. All authors claim that the idea came first and the word came after. Where they take it, is inherently different.

Adolf Hitler: an Artist of Rhetoric

In his analysis of Adolf Hitler's writing, Burke recognizes Hitler as a master rhetorician. After all, he was able to create an enemy and convince an entire country to hate that enemy enough to go to battle under his lead. In order to understand how Hitler does this, we must understand Burke's own theories of rhetoric. In his "Definition of Man", Burke identifies man as a symbol using animal, an inventor of the negative, separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy, and rotten with perfection. In "Equipment for Living", Burke claims that art is a strategy and we use strategies in order to explain and make sense of our environment. Burke proves that Hitler seemed to have understood all of this in his "Battle".

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.

Hitler's Language and Style

                   On Tuesday in class we discussed how Bakhtin's theory of what language is capable of found various ways to unpack it. We brainstormed a number of ideas that we felt Bakhtin could have came up with how language functions. For example, some of them are, how language can define a time period and has intentions and accents. Burke's essay The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle shows some of what Bakhtin was talking about.

                 Burke starts off basically telling us that Hitler used his words to persuade people and to belief that what he was saying had some truth. There was one quote that says "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" (Burke 193).   In  my opinion this quote mean that people can basically agree to disagree, that way they are still finding common ground to know that they all can not come together on something that  they agree on; but they can come together to understand that they all have different mindsets. Hitler refers to the Aryans and Jews a lot saying that the Aryans are constructive and the Jews are destructive. He also felt that he had in order for the Aryans to be constructive and prosper as a whole he had to destruct the Jews. (Burke 204) If Hitler has been a little bit smart he could have used language as a different tool to transform Jews from destructive to constructive that way he would have had more people agreeing to his words.
                 
             As I continued reading Burke's text I realized that Hitler was a bit talented in the way he persuaded his audience through his speeches. His main aspect was involving the movement of unity, connecting with them and the use of symbolism. " The more uniformly the fighting will of a people is put into action, the greater will be the magnetic force of the movement and the more powerful the impetus of the blow,” (193). I personally agree because the more people you have fighting for a purpose the greater acknowledgement of that impact will be noticed, and hopefully change comes about. However, it initially starts with the speaker and the tools that the speaker uses to influence the audience. There are live example of such today. The marches we do to show that Black Lives Matter, someone said something wrong or right to make majority of African-Americans unite for one cause, one purpose and stand up for the African- American race, since it isn't as valuable to other races. 

             Both Burke and Bakhtin show how and what language is capable of and using Hitler was the perfect example because from his speeches and persuasion came actions, powerful actions at that. Anyone can say words but when your words moves your audience it is caused by your hand gestures, your tone of voice and even small things like your eye contact. Martin Luther King was also someone who gave influential speeches and cause his audiences to move to action. 

The Power of Hitler's Rhetoric

Burke points out that Hitler’s influence over his followers is a product of a powerfully mastered understanding of rhetoric and its use. Hitler “swung a great deal of people into his wake” and cast an even greater deal out, all by manipulating language and effectively molding the people’s understandings of words and concepts to his liking (Burke 191).

The Plurality of Language and Its Effect in Hitler's Campaign

Being that this is a blog space, I will confess that upon first reading Bakhtin’s “Discourse in the Novel”, I was nothing short of lost. Even after class discussion and several analyses by my peers, I still felt incapable of synthesizing Bakhtin and what he stood for. His essay seemed to bounce around all over the place. However, with gained confidence, and a 3^rd reading, I have finally come to discover what I believe to be a centrality among all of his assertions about language: plurality. I was able to identify the numerous roles and characteristics that Bakhtin argues of language, and ultimately I propose that they all revolve around a certain plurality. According to his “Discourse in the Novel”, in language there is a plurality in styles, a plurality in intentions and views, a plurality of agents, and last, a plurality in voices and dialogues. It is the plurality of each these aspects that Bakhtin argues will contribute to the creation of new styles, new views, new agents, new voices, and overall, new language, ideas that I will further unpack in “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle’”.

The Rhetorical Experience of Language

Baktin postulates that language creates reality, and we know that language attaches meanings to words. Burke postulates that Hitler was able to be successful in his use of language with Mein Kampf, because he was able to find a “cure” with his words and then formulate his rhetorical performance and persuasion around that “cure” (Burke, 192). In my opinion, and this opinion is probably not too far off, but I think that language needs to have a purpose and rhetoric is what makes language what it is. I know that culture and society and other factors are what made us associate meanings with words (Baktin), but I think that in order for language to achieve what it needs to achieve, the rhetorical performance attached to the utterance of the word is what makes the language successful.

Winning the People: Hitler's Rhetoric

As much as Hitler’s “Battle” is a horrific and vicious account, it is rhetorically efficient, particularly because of the variety of rhetorical techniques he uses. For example, he utilizes pathos through Mein Kampf, in which he describes his “struggle.” Besides this, he uses “performances” of a common enemy, projection device, unifying voice, commercial use, symbolic rebirth, and inborn dignity. These tropes make the readers want to agree with Hitler, in a matter of speaking, because they relate to what he says.

Credibility, Gratification, and Enlightenment

I feel that he has a connection with Burke's "The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle" and the overall purpose of rhetoric. Aristotle says that rhetoric is the "art of persuasion." When it came to Hitler, he persuaded a nation to take up arms. Both of them agree on the idea that whatever language is used, should be used to evoke emotion in the reader or listener rather than for the gratitude of another. In the beginning of Burke's essay, he is saying that if a person knows that their speech will be viewed well no matter what, that person writes "more to our gratification rather than our enlightenment" (190).

Hitler is regarded as one of the greatest speech givers of all time. How else could he have led Germany out of their depression and into World War II? The article speaks of unity around an idea. During his time in power, Hitler was able to convince his armies that they were doing work to stop their enemies. By "uniting on the basis of a foe shared by all" (191),  Hitler would be able to lead those who heard him. He would convince them because he himself believed it. Hitler would have no plan if no one followed him. His words were meant for enlightenment.

Hitler would not be the first to exemplify this idea of it being important that rhetoric is for enlightenment. Other leaders like John F. Kennedy, Jesus of Nazareth, and even any talk show host can use rhetoric for enlightenment towards others.

But, one can easily fall out of this and write for gratification instead of for the audience's enlightenment. This reminded me of a scene from one of my favorite movies: 22 Jump Street [Go to 1:25 and view.]

By the teacher saying "I have tenure," he automatically destroys his credibility. Using "tenure" as an excuse is almost equivalent to a Mom saying, "Because I said so." Also by saying this, he illustrates that he may not there because he wants to teach, but for another reason. Therefore, his work is only for the gratification of a other, not for the enlightenment.

Now while the teacher does say that questioning him is the basis of the course and gets excited about that, the talk about tenure kills his credibility.

Credibility is what Hitler had when he came into power due to the people knowing him from Mein Kamph. Also, being in a position of power will give anyone credibility. Hitler was able to take that credibility and unite the German people around a common idea, "a common enemy" (191).

Therefore, credibility is linked directly to gratification and enlightenment.

Language in the Eyes of the Artist

In David Hume's essay, Moral and Political, he wrote, “Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them." This means that the meaning of beauty is subjective and it is open to different ideas and interpretations depending on the experience of the individual. The same concept can be applied to the theory of language. According to John Locke, “the imperfection of words is the doubtfulness or ambiguity of their signification, which is caused by the sort of ideas they stand for" (817). The ambiguity and doubtfulness that come from the words are caused by the different ideas that the words can stand for. Therefore, the meaning of language is always up for interpretation and it varies in meaning depending on the artist (writer) and the audience (reader).

Mikhail Bakhtin focuses more on stylistics and characterization of language. He says that genres are developed from stylistic modifications, which derive from individual acts and artistic movements. On page 259 he suggests that stylistic approach is a ”private craftsmanship" meaning that the text is uniquely crafted by the writer depending on his style of writing. This goes in accordance to Locke's theory of language that words are only signs of internal conceptions of ideas (818) or "names" we apply to ideas. Signs are culturally derived which means that one word or sign can have a different meaning depending on the region in which it is being utilized or the significance that is given to it by a group of individuals.

Later Locke goes more in depth mixed modes, which includes simple and complex ideas. He said that complex ideas are “formed by the connections among simple ideas”. To understand the concept of simple and complex ideas he uses an example of the words sham, wheedle and banter. Locke explains that words fit the idea that someone makes them stand for. The mind makes up names, which stand for a collection of ideas. Words like sacrilege or murder hold a significance that could never mean the same on their own. The significance of words such as names that are not intelligible is recognized as simple ideas.  

Language just like beauty is subjective. What some might think is beautiful others might now and some might understand the significance of a word differently than somebody else.  Beauty and Language have so many different meanings, some are simple but for the most part, they are complex words to define. Language can be a group of words or symbols that hold a special meaning to one group of people but this is always subject to change dependent on its intended purpose or the style of the language. In one of her books, Margaret Wolfe Hungerford wrote, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Therefore, beauty should not be defined by the socially constructed definitions that have given beauty a predisposed significance. Just like beauty, language should not be limited to one narrow understanding but rather extended to an endless degree of meanings and interpretations.  

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. “Discourse in the Novel.” The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981. 259-331, excerpted.

Locke, John. “From An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, Second Edition. Ed. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 814-827.

Hitler's True Meaning

            When thinking about Hitler and rhetoric I feel that they go hand and hand.  Hitler was very successful even though it was with bad intentions of persuading the masses and making people believe him and his ways.  Hitler was able to recruit individuals and bring them into his cause.  He did this by “ recruit its followers from among many discordant and divergent bands, must have some spot towards which all roads lead.  Each man may get there in his own way, but it must be the one unifying center of reference for all.  Hitler considered this matter carefully and decided that this center must be not merely a centralizing hub of ideas, but a mecca geographically located towards which all eyes could turn at the appointed hours of payer.” (Burke 192) By creating this mecca in Munich Hitler created “ division of the attention of a people, and always is concentrating it on a single enemy.” (Burke 193)  By doing this Hitler was able to create a stronger soldier by giving the weak and unstable characters knowledge that there are various enemies that will make them doubt their own cause.  By doing this Hitler was able to make the masses find themselves and support him.  Hitler was able to persuade the masses using his rhetoric and appealing to the masses.  He did the same thing with sexual symbolism.

            By appealing to sexual symbolism he says that Jewish individuals are the rival male.  He says that as Germans the males must desires to dominate the females and when the “villainous jew” (Burke 195) seduce them and if he succeeds he will poison the blood by intermingling with them.  This Rhetoric is very smart on his part because he is drawing on the emotional aspect of his followers and by doing this he is able to persuade them to hate the enemy, which in return makes them follow his concepts and ideas.  The “patterns of Hitler’s thought are a bastardized and caricatured version of religious thought.”( Burke 199)

            When he brings up the flaws of his enemy and appealing to his audience he is able to take the “greater one’s internal inadequacies the greater the amount of evils one can load upon the back of the enemy.  Gives a semblance of reason because the individual properly realized that he is not alone responsible for his condition” (Burke 203) and that by uniting as one they can solve these problems.

The Power of Language + Nazi Rhetoric

The anti-Semitic rhetoric of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP during the decade preceding WWII illustrates the conception of how language defines a time period and how it also promotes social discourse. The racist vitriol propagated by the Nazi party was rhetoric implemented to shift and manipulate an already prevailing prejudice. (History of Anti-Semitism in Germany) Anti-Semitism predated Nationalist Socialist rhetoric and it’s quite fascinating as well as disconcerting how they were capable of manipulating a popular worldview in order to acquire mass appeal and support. It’s a strong demonstration of how “socially significant world views have the capacity to exploit the intentional possibilities of language through the medium”. (Bahktin 290) Considering how the mainstay of National Socialist campaigning was based strongly in propaganda, the part itself even created their own publications about the artistry and strategy involved in propaganda and all that it encompasses.  

Hitler's Philosophy As A Novel

After reading Bakhtin’s “Discourse in the Novel” and Burke’s “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle’”, I came to the conclusion that Bakhtin’s philosophy of language is highly relatable to Burke’s thoughts on “Battle” when the metaphor of a novel is used to examine Hitler’s philosophy.

Bakhtin & Hitler's Language

 In  Bakhtin’s Discourse in the Novel, he talks about how language is a verbal art that is based on both “Form and content in discourse are one, once we understand that verbal discourse is a phenomenon,” (259). Based on the author’s style of a novel, the reader is able to interpret the novel from not just the author’s perspective but from how the author has created this form of style. Bakhtin states how, “dialogue is no static model of speaker making utterance to listener concerning hero. The three elements of the dialogue speak, listen, and influence each other equivalently,” (596). He also states how the combining of language and style is present in the novel, "Such a combining of languages and styles in to a higher unity is unknown to traditional stylistics;... among language that is present in the novel,"(263).

Nothing of Language is Original

Imagine, the invention of the bicycle. The bicycle could not have been invented without the invention of the wheel. The invention of the wheel too was facilitated by the invention of something before it, and so on. The point is, one thing is completely dependent of the other. Each invention is linked to another and cannot exist without the other. No one idea, or invention in this case, is original. Each is bound by a theory that came before it, and whatever comes after it, will be bound by that same theory or idea. Similarly, no aspect of language is original. 

Differance in Hitler's Rhetoric

Jacques Derrida's concept of differance comes from the idea that the meaning of words is grounded in their difference from other words. The signification of words is not innate knowledge to us. Rather, we learn and create meaning for words by knowing what they don’t mean. Hitler created a definition of his Aryan nation in much the same way. Kenneth Burke argues that Hitler, especially through the symbol of the common enemy and the idea of inborn dignity, creates the same kind of antithesis between the superior and the inferior—that is, between the Aryan race and all others. In this way, Hitler created a rhetorical argument that defined their Aryan nation by what they were not. In other words, they came to know who they were by first knowing who they were not.

Hitler's Language

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.

Blogging with Bahktin

To discuss the significance of Bahktin's theories in blog form is most appropriate; the language systems that Bahktin claims are "dialogic" become manifested in a "physical" or "visible" form when one engages in the culture of blogging. Blogging, as a form, is ripe with heteroglossia. That is, the nature of the structure of a blog is only useful if its content complements its innate tendency for dialogue, response, and  a melding of belief systems, language systems, and creative processes and ideologies. "Form and content in discourse are one, once we understand that verbal discourse is a social phenomenon - social through its entire range and in each and every of its factors, from the sound image to the furthest reaches of abstract meaning." (Bahktin, 259) This idea, according to Bahktin, has influenced our inherent separation of style and content, a separation in writing that should not and cannot be made. When it comes to blogging, the idea of discourse between language systems and utterances is "personified" even "exaggerated" in its complete form, reinforcing both Schuster and Bahktin's assertions to expand our definition of language and style as an ever changing discourse that calls upon itself, others, and the "system" itself for defining.

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.

Altering Perception Through Lingual Association

In his essay Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle, Kenneth Burke systematically breaks down, and at times commends, the strategic language used by Hitler in his verbal dissemination of Jewish people in his book Mein Kamph. Burke breaks down the dismissive notion that Hitler chose Jews as his scapegoat out of pure calculation, instead reasoning that his disdain for them came from a real place of displaced anger and frustration. Through out his book Hitler persistently criticized Jews as the inferior race and juxtaposed them with the inherently superior “Aryan” race; consequently manifesting an associative meaning between “Jew” and “devil”.

Bakhtin and Burke

In Bakhtin’s essay Discourse In The Novel, Bakhtin’s discusses how language has the power start social discourse. Bakhtin also states that style is language. These two key factors and many others correspond with Burke’s explanation of, Hitlers Mein Kampf, and why it was such a powerful speech, in his essay The Rhetoric of Hitler’s “Battle”. To understand how Burke connects Bakhtin’s  theory of language and style, one must understand how Bakhtin’s thought of language. 

Bakhtin and Locke: The Imperfections of Language

In book III, An Essay to Human Understanding, John Locke mentions that language is compromised of flawed and imperfect words. He believes that, ““easy to perceive what imperfection there is in language, and how the very nature of words makes it almost unavoidable for many of them to be doubtful and uncertain in their significations;” thus meaning that we must consider the nature of the word before understanding the importance (Locke 817). Similar to Locke, Bakhtin indirectly believes that, “language is thus fundamental not only to learning, but to mind; it both creates and is created by human intelligence” (Schuster 598). Both of these theorists prove that words may be interlaced with different meanings, but we are responsible for deriving our own meaning based on our experiences.

Language as Appropriation and Corruption

“He was helpful enough to put his cards face up on the table, that we might examine his hands. Let us, then, for God’s sake, examine them” (Burke 192).

This quote taken from Burke’s “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle’”, provides the perfect cohesion of both his and Bakhtin’s arguments on understanding literature. Both express distaste for those who cling to examining literature based on limited, pre-set ideas that fail to grasp the extent of language’s implications within works. For Burke, it is the “inattention” of the “hasty reviewer”; for Bakhtin, it is the “divorce between an abstract ‘formal’ approach, and an equally abstract ‘ideological’ approach” (Burke 191, Bakhtin 258). Both examine language’s influence in terms of power, and more specifically how the merging and effective appropriation of ‘languages’ is capable of swaying an entire society to an unspeakably horrendous outcome.

A Dialectical Approach to Hitler’s Rhetoric

With reference to Bakhtin’s Discourse in the Novel and Burke’s The Rhetoric of Hitler, I would like to discuss the duality of approaches noted in both these texts. The most recent class periods have revolved around discussion pertaining to language, the implications, and its utilitarian aspects across a range of spectrums.

Bakhtin’s approach in regards to language discusses discourse in the novel, in addition to the novelistic whole. He refers to “form and content in discourse” as being one, and that we must understand “verbal discourse as a social phenomenon,” (Bakhtin 259). Bakhtin argues for the stylistic purposes of language and goes as far as to say “that to create a style is to create a language for oneself,” (598). He places much emphasis on his own rhetorical triangle, which is meant to evoke to speaker, hero and listener, therefore providing a sort of cross over area in which the intended audience and speaker collide, (Bakhtin 596). In accordance to his rhetorical triangle, certain aspects and characteristics that are manifested by the said triangle can be seen when Burke discusses in The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle. Because of Hitler’s endeavors, he has been forcefully demonized by history, but what we cannot neglect is the fact that the man was an incredible orator and rhetorician during a time when the German people were severely lacking morale. Hitler’s influence spoke volumes of the German condition, and although his motives for action were less than worthy, even inhuman, as a rhetorician he contributes historically more to “our gratification than to our enlightenment,” (Burke 191).

Was Hitler’s Language In Style?

Language is used as the tool through which ideas are spoken, conveyed, and signified. However, it holds power beyond these simple terms, and is used to perform several other tasks, such as shaping a particular social discourse. Through Bahktin’s, “Discourse In the Novel,” we are presented with the idea that a particular style used in language can effectively shape the means through which persuasion and rhetoric can be deemed as effective. The speaker is expected to personalize a tone and style representative of his own in order to connect to a specific audience on a unified level.