Deconstrutionalism and Structuralism Trace

In the post, I'd like to trace Burke's implicit use of structuralism and deconstructionalism.

Structuralists maintained that a set of conventions govern language. These conventions are determined by binaries and the difference between  them. Bedford uses the example of a stoplight.  If a stoplight is assigned the color "red" as a symbol, then its opposite, in this case green, takes on the opposing meaning. Green's relation to red determines its meaning. In this sense, green's meaning is derived from red's assigned meaning.

Burke explains how Hitler symbolizes the Aryan and Jewish peoples into such binaries, giving the process the name the "projection device": "The 'curative' process that comes with the ability to hand over one's ills to a scapegoat, thereby getting purification by dissociation....if one can hand over his infirmities to a vessel, or 'cause', outside the self, one can battle an external enemy instead of battling en enemy within" (202). According to Richards and Ogden, a symbol causes a thought or reference to manifest in a person's mind. The Jewish people became the symbol which called to reference the ills suffered by the Germanic people. The Aryan people were too symbolized in a similar fashion, except they came to symbolize superiority. Burke explains that Hitler accomplishes this symbolization by claiming the Aryan blood has certain natural, inherent qualities that predisposes the Aryan race to survive more successfully than others. Hitler uses a kind of "supreme truth" (nature) to support his symbol. This follows structuralism in that a "supreme truth" gives way to the Aryan race's supposed superiority and the Aryan race gives way to the Jewish people's supposed inferiority. His symbolization creates a hierarchical relationship.

This hierarchical structure, too, tells a reader how to read Hitler's Mein Kampf. To view the Jewish people as Hitler views them, they must first be convinced that the Aryan race is superior to all races. Therefore, this idea must be introduced first in Hitler's text, and ideas on inferiority must follow sequentially.  Structuralism governs both the conceptions behind and framing of Hitler's text. Burke shows how this hierarchical relationship works in his critique through the example of  a "son" figure who confers "omnipotence" onto his father. The "son" holds the "father" responsible for all good or for all bad. If the "good" father makes an error, however, his omnipotence deconstructs. If the "bad"father performs a good act, his "badness" deconstructs.

Burke shows that when Hitler's binaries of the "superior" race and "inferior" race are pitted against each other, they deconstruct: "It is not hard to see how,as  his enmity becomes implemented by the backing of an organization, the role of "persecutor" is transformed into the role of persecuted, as he sets out with his like-minded band to 'destroy the destroyer'"   (215). Hitler's claims of persecution lead him to persecute the Jews and transform them into the persecuted. The roles shift in a cyclical fashion. After the war is ended, the Germanic people could perhaps claim to be the "persecuted" once again. This demonstrates deconstructionism in that no role is stable. There is no set definition from which all roles derive. No natural order truly claims that one is forever persecuted  while the other is forever the persecutor. As a result, these binaries cannot maintain the principles of structuralism. Depending on the frame, the persecuted becomes the persecutor or vice versa. Burke thus demonstrates how Hitler uses deconstructionism to employ his ideas ("destroy the destroyer") but does so within the frame of structuralism.