Language, Symbols, and Power in Politics

Our reading for today is definitely one of my favorites from this semester, hands down. I think partly because it addresses agency as well as the impact of signification; plus I have a special interest in politics and political language. I see these two concepts come together in Burke's analysis of Hitler's symbolism and the techniques he uses to reinforce the dichotomous symbols of the "Aryan" and the "Jew".

Burke early on in his essay points out the difficulty of political unification when he says, "Every movement that would recruit its followers from among many discordant and divergent bands, must have some spot towards which all roads lead" (192). For Germany in first half of the 20th century, this was certainly quite a task to undertake. From Burke's essay though, it seems (to briefly sum up the situation) that this was done by empowering a fractured and disenfranchised people through the symbols of the "common enemy" of the Jew and the heroic figure of the Aryan. These symbols were powerful agents to fuel Hitler's agenda, as it manifested in most of the unification devices that Burke lists (inborn dignity, projection device, and symbolic rebirth)(202-203).

While thinking about this essay in regard to the issue of signification, a question from the other day in class sprung to my mind. It was that of whether language is born from thoughts pre-existing, or are our thoughts formed from language? (Obviously this wasn't the question word for word, but you get my drift.) Immediately I thought of 1984 (which I'm sure most of you have read) and the concept of "newspeak" where the language simply excluded concepts like freedom and rebellion. Therefore, the speaker was limited in his capacity to choose his expressions, and hence Big Brother attempted to influence his thoughts through these limitations. Hitler seems to employ this technique as well in his chapter "The Strong Man is Mightiest Alone". In this part of the book, Hitler also seems to eliminate choice from the audience. As Burke points out, "Hitler's blandishments so integrate leader and people... that the politician does not even present himself as a candidate. Somehow, the battle is over already, the decision has been made" (210). Granted, the audience might be able to realize that this lack of choice is a facade, but it is powerful in its implicit nature.

All in all, reading this essay made me realize more about the play between language, power, and symbolism in politics. I kept thinking of the 2008 election, with the language of "Yes we can" and the empowerment felt by many by these unifying words. Well, even then I thought it sounded too optimistic, a ploy for votes that would lead us right back into business as usual. I think this essay shows to an extent how easy it really is to seduce your audience through the guise of unification. I'll definitely be searching for these elements in the coming election.