The fact that he makes a remark concerning the "present state of the world," is interesting because it shows how directly reliable this article is towards our world today. This idea of unity that Burke presents is in contrast to "Hitlerism" in the sense that unity achieve on a deceptive basis is working against unity. For he explains that while it does form a group of people together, it gradually works towards an impending "calamity", as Burke describes. The laws that Hilter and his members put together is described to be found by his use of rhetoric and how the German were susceptible due to "he was offering a world view to people who had no other to pit against it." This concept of law is also noteworthy because laws are set in place by people choosing to create a ideal society and shape the personalities and habits of the people. Hitler, with his use of rhetoric shaped this society and put together these laws according to his personality. Can this kind of incident happen today? Directly, no. Indirectly, definitely yes. The world of politics is tricky and the different personalities in America today class against each other and have created these various political parties such as the Democratic and Republican party. As Burke has noted, all nations desire unity for it is a attractive mindset for it denotes brotherhood and a sense of acceptance within a community. Can America ever be fully united? I don't think so, the various discourses that go in contrast with each other allows for much conflict. The idealized complete unity, seems to be deceptive, for Hitler only accomplished this through deceptive means and is described not to be unity at all. In conclusion, a paradox is formed. In my opinion, complete unity can never be attained.
February 19, 2012
Hitlerism and it's Presence Today
I just want to start off my blog post by a very interesting remark by Kenneth Burke when he says, "The desire for unity is genuine and admirable. The desire for national unity, in the present state of the world, is genuine and admirable. But this unity, if attained on a deceptive basis, by emotional trickeries that shift our criticism from the accurate locus of our trouble, is not unity at all."
1 comment:
I don't necessarily agree with Burke in the sense that unity based on some sort of deception isn't really unity. Because despite how they arrived there, they ended up being of one purpose and by the end they'd gone so far, it wouldn't have even mattered what their initial reasoning was anyhow, the hatred had been festering for so long. I think unity based on truth would just indicate a unified front at every stage of the process. But the unity of purpose can be stronger, I believe, than the unity of cause. Not that reason isn't important, because it definitely is. But I suppose I think that at the time, the Germans were just looking for any reason to unite again, and Hitler gave them one. Their purpose it what endured.
I guess I also think (in response to your question about America's potential unity) that democracies (which is apparently what the "Jew" represented according to Burke, p. 195) have a hard time establishing unity. The reality is, as you say, complete unity is not attainable. It can be forced, much like Hitler's regime eventually resorted to. But in a country governed by popular vote and where the public opinion is vocalized freely, complete unity is almost impossible simply because of a natural tendency to disagree.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.