Fourth Edition, November 2011
ENL 257: Best Essays in Rhetorical Theory
1st Place Winner
Rhetoric: The Language of Action
Matt Tota
When we think of war or unrest, we often picture stern-looking soldiers holding Kalashnikovs, frenzied dissidentsmarching through streets, and armytanks lumbering into war-torn cities. Such images come to mind because we are concerned only with theseaspects of the equation. In other words, we do not bother with what occurs in the abstract: We care about the answers circled on the chalkboard, not the work scribbled around it. But before the soldiers collect their rifles, protestors take to the streets, and tanks enter the warzones, there is rhetoric, language that calls individualsto arms, galvanizes nations, and shapes movements through the power of persuasion. Because wars and protests do not simply materialize from the ether, and behind every soldier or dissident is an ideology, powerless without rhetoric.
In 2003, the power of rhetoric led America to invade Iraq, initiating a bloody campaignthat, though waning, continues today. It began when then president, George W. Bush, connected our rising fear of terrorism to Saddam Hussein’s despotism. This strategy entailed connecting one thing with another as a means to further discourse. Roderick Hart and Suzanne Daughton remark in their book Modern Rhetorical Criticism, that this brand of rhetoric functions like a math equation: “Rhetoric operates…like a kind of intellectual algebra, asking us to equate things we had never before considered equitable” (16). When we see something in relation to another, even if there is no clear connection, we often react differently than if the connection had not been made, especially when dealing with subjects that stimulate pathos. To garner support for his war, Bush equated terrorism – something all of America both despises and fears – to Iraq and its oppressive leader. Though the two subjects had close ties, there was no hard evidence linking Hussein to terrorist activities. For added appeal, Bush stated that “experts” had unearthed caches containing weapons of mass destruction in secret locations throughout Iraq, used, he argued, for terrorist activities. Hart and Daughton note that such comparisons “are the workhorses of persuasion” (16). Bush aimed to convince both congress and the American people that a war against Hussein’s regime was necessary to protect America against terrorism. And his linkage, formed as an emotional appeal, worked flawlessly. He ultimately gained widespread support. Indeed, other countries – 35 nations in total –were persuaded by rhetoric to supporthis plea for war. It did not matter, of course, that there were no weapons found in Iraq. By that time, Bush’s rhetorical bombshad already flattened most of Baghdad. Rhetoric played a crucial role in laying the groundwork for war, and language came before the Humvees and the tanks.
As mentioned before, rhetoric excels in fosteringthe ideals that inevitablylead to action, be it toward war or peace, good or evil. It leads with words and impregnates minds with ideas, whichare exceedingly more powerful than actions. But it is rhetoric that carries ideas on its back, lugging them into fruition. “Grand ideas, deeply felt beliefs, and unsullied ideologies,” Hart and Daughton remark, “are sources of power…none of these factors can be influential without a delivery system, without rhetoric” (18). In the end, these “sources of power” are what trigger nations, even individuals, to wage wars or support causes. A rhetor’s potential to sway minds is determined, in part, by his ethos, which varies by audience. What does this mean? Well, the line between an “unsullied ideology” and a sullied one becomes harder to discern. What we perceive as sullied ideologies will invariably differ from whatother nations consider sullied. Rhetoric is, of course, blind to taboos. The rise of Al Qaeda’s perceived “holy war” against the United States, for example, was fueled by Osama Bin Laden’s crooked ideologies. Video after video depicting his psychotic rants, comprised of hate speech and bogus accusations, appealed, specifically, to poor, hopeless, Arab youths, some of whom, persuaded by his rhetoric, joined his jihad without giving any thought as to what they were joining. His ideals initiated Al Qaeda’s rise to power, providing the organization with vital men and funds to pursue their misguided war. Bin Laden stood as a figurehead for the organization and his followers viewed him as a hero because of his powerful rhetoric. He managed to take an idea and turn it into one of the most feared organizations on the planet simply through speeches and appeals. As he is now dead, there are questions as to how strong Al Qaeda will be going forward without his rhetoric.
I would like to focus, now, on a specific aspect of rhetorical power known as symbolism. In fact, if you examined rhetoric under a microscope, you would see symbolism as its nucleus. In The History and Theory of Rhetoric, James Herrick calls a symbol “a form of psychological power,” remarking further that “symbols and the structure of human thought are intricately connected” (19). Indeed, symbols dictate the way we perceive ourselves in relation to the world around us. A rhetor employs symbolism in order to changethe dynamic of his discourse. Because a symbol abandons preconceived notions and timeworn theories and stands for something greater – more abstract – than what it represents, this tactic is effective in connecting people of varying backgrounds to one ideology. Symbols, therefore, hold more power than rigidly structured ideas, which tend only to appeal to certain groups.
Of course the ultimate goal of rhetoric is to, as Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee remark in Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, move “people to action” (23), which requires not just symbolism but every other weapon in the rhetor’s arsenal as well. During the 1960’s, for instance, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,one of the greatest American rhetors, spearheaded the social war against racism, moving thousands of people to march against inequality. Dr. King was indeed a master of language; his speeches were extraordinary examples of style, employing the artful use of words, instead of force, peace instead of violence, to persuade.Ancient rhetoricians knew all too well about the power of language and were using words to stimulate action long before Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech(one of the greatest examples of rhetorical style).Crowley and Hawhee point to an ancient rhetorician called Gorgias, who instructed young minds on language’s persuasive power: “Gorgias went so far as to say that language could work on a person’s sprit as powerfully as drugs worked on the body” (23). Moreover, the rhetor noted that “language could bewitch people” and “jolt them out of their everyday awareness” (2). Dr. King had to “jolt” Americans into altering their racist treatment of black people by forcing them to abandon erroneous ideologies of the past. Thus, he geared his speeches toward reshaping white America’s racist suppositions, drawing more and more individuals to his cause. For Dr. King, rhetoric functioned like a microphone, in that it amplified his discourse, helping it to reach more minds. It worked, also, like a mirror in that it showed white America its dark side. Once they saw the evils of racism, they changed their ways and marched toward a better outlook. Dr. King’s control of rhetoric was the primary reason why the civil rights movement was as a success.
Finally, the most intriguing aspect of rhetorical power is the way it empowers marginalized or subjugated individuals, all of whom lack or, in some cases, are stripped of a voice to speak out against their mistreatment. In truth, it only takes one person’s rhetoric to incite a revolution, and, after thousands of years, the formula for dissent has remained relatively unchanged. It begins, generally, with an ideology – typically that of the controlling class – that rules over the lower classes. That is, it dominates all other ideologies, keeping them marginalized. Herrick notes, however, that the controlling ideology can actually bring in significant ideologies– what he calls “unexamined ideologies” (20) – out of obscurity. What is rhetoric’s role in all of this? It essentially acts to assist the oppressed in developing their unexamined ideology. Usually, it is at this point when the tumult begins .The government in power reacts with attempts to quell the uprisings. But Herrick argues that its attempts to suppress the newly empowered voices often have the opposite effect: “When rhetoric is employed to advocate ideas, but its capacity to test ideas is subverted, the reign of the unexamined ideology becomes a real possibility” (20). The subversion is seen in the government’s actions against the dissidents. In other words, think of the oppressed group as hydra’s heads: You cut off one and two more spring up behind it. The unexamined ideology gains more power every time the controlling government attempts to squash it. Eventually, the revolution succeeds in overthrowing the powers that be. We saw this process in Egypt, where Hosni Mubarakwas ousted because, over many years, he kept the ideology of the people suppressed. The protestors’ rallies grew stronger and stronger every time he tried to subvert their rhetoric. This example displays that anyone, regardless of social standing, can harness rhetoric’s power.
In sum, we should not toss rhetoric aside as powerless empty-talk to focus solely on the images appearing on the nightly news. We must always remember that rhetoric is the reason behind all action, similar to how every flame requires a spark. Rhetoric holds more power than the gun or the sword because it controls the men wielding both. Dictators, moreover, may believe they are in power; they may look at the peons below them as worthless, yet those peons, though they may never have wealth, will always have rhetoric. Thus, they will always have the power to rise against their oppressor and demand their respect. So, it is time we refocus our attention on language and embrace the power it possesses – time to arm ourselves with words, not weapons, and alter our understanding of persuasion.
Works Cited
Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee.Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Studies. 4th ed. New York [u.a.: Pearson, 2004. Print.
Hart, Roderick P., and Suzanne M. Daughton. “The Rhetorical Perspective. “Modern Rhetorical Criticism.4th ed. Pearson, 2005. 1-20. Web.
Herrick, James A. “An Overview of Rhetoric.” The History and Theory of Rhetoric: an Introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.1-25. Web.