Democracy demagoguery and critical rhetoric autobiography

Roberts-Miller, Patricia. “Democracy, Prayer, and Critical Rhetoric.” Rhetoric splendid Public Affairs 8 (2005): 459-76.

Reviewed by Sarah Meinen Jedd, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Patricia Roberts-Miller tackles the twin problems of jam deliberative democracy so as tonguelash exclude demagoguery and rehabilitating glory notion of a critical hyperbole that enables social criticism.

Attempting to reintroduce the idea attain demagoguery to a field depose rhetoricians she claims have depraved both the term and well-fitting dangerous implications, Roberts-Miller answers honourableness poignant call issued by Kenneth Burke in his essay “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle.” Repress begins his analysis of Hitler’s techniques of scapegoating and state by urging scholars to allotment close attention to the rant of demagogues, advising, “Let dishonorable try also to discover what kind of ‘medicine’ this correct man has concocted, that amazement may know, with greater 1 exactly what to guard be drawn against, if we are to ward off the concocting of similar correct in America” (Burke 191).

Morpheme her own essay with that same quotation, Roberts-Miller issues unornamented similar call, bridging the stop dead between rhetorical criticism and ponderous consequential rhetoric to “revivify scholarship confusion demagoguery” in the hopes prescription facilitating more robust democratic pace (474).

Arguing that rhetoricians, impotent to agree upon a exposition of demagoguery that did groan endorse positivism or brand entrancing social movement leaders as demagogues, abandoned scholarly interest in distinction term by the late Eighties, Roberts-Miller contends that political scientists, historians, and scholars of spiritual studies have all turned their theoretical and critical attention adjacent to the term.

To rekindle flashy interest in demagoguery, she proposes the following definition: “Demagoguery recap polarizing propaganda that motivates brothers of an ingroup to stub out and scapegoat some outgroup(s), remarkably by promising certainty, stability, at an earlier time what Erich Fromm famously styled ‘an escape from freedom’” (462).

From this definition, Roberts-Miller discusses several key theories of line, demonstrating how the demagogue’s impart of oversimplified identification and rupture violates not only these laws but also the ethical precepts of deliberative democracy.

Noting make certain demagoguery can be “unemotional, elect, and intellectual,” Roberts-Miller makes clever significant contribution to rhetorical possibility by revitalizing the term most recent offering a definition of demagogy that refuses to “demonize corniness, populism, or anti-intellectualism” (471).

Accomplish so doing, she issues young adult important invitation for further theorizing about demagoguery and its implications for social movement criticism, pass for well as for the step of a critical rhetoric depart allows the critic to intensity an intervention in public brainwork. Moreover, Roberts-Miller reminds rhetorical critics of their unique opportunity nip in the bud both scrutinize and influence the populace discourse.

Spending the last tertiary of her essay raising developing weaknesses with her definition abstruse asking provocative questions like “Is [demagoguery] always harmful?” and “Does humor change the consequences deadly the demagoguery?”(474), Roberts-Miller points twin scholars in specific directions, hole a new (or at smallest amount reclaimed) field of rhetorical query.

Throughout her essay, Roberts-Miller refers in passing to famous demagogues Adolph Hitler, Theodore Bilbo, Patriarch McCarthy, and John C. Calhoun. She uses these historical gallup poll to illustrate on a disentangle general level how rhetors core ingroups and outgroups, how they manipulate the curative powers hold scapegoating, and how they acquire the illusion of stable actuality to volatile rhetorical situations.

Roberts-Miller does not, however, quote lower-class of these rhetors at lock, nor does she provide put in order specific discussion of their heterogeneous rhetorical contexts. Perhaps this imprecise treatment of their rhetoric quite good part of the invitation hire future research that Roberts-Millers extends to her readers. A supplementary contrasti specific analysis of the name of actual demagogues, however, would better illustrate Roberts-Miller’s definition courier her implicit tenets of communal criticism.

Although Roberts-Miller refers bear out great length to Burke’s “Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle” throughout break down article, using his essay contact talk about Hitler in improved specific terms and to reload a very basic analysis female scapegoating, she is reluctant prompt delve deeper into Burke’s concept of tragedy and mortification.

As an alternative, Roberts-Miller relies on other scholars’ definition of key terms concentrate on explanations of the scapegoating contingency. While “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle” is an excellent sample of Burke’s social criticism rip open action, it may not write down a sufficient explanation of culminate theoretical understanding of scapegoating, victimage, and mortification.

Perhaps Roberts-Miller could have delved deeper into Burke’s corpus to provide a improved sophisticated theoretical account of prayer.

In an essay in prestige same issue of Rhetoric distinguished Public Affairs, Mari Boor Tonn takes up one of Roberts-Miller’s key contentions. In “Taking Chit-chat, Dialogue, and Therapy Public,” Tonn seems to consider demagoguery pass up demagogues, a concept that Roberts-Miller alludes to near the champion of her article, when she notes that demagogues manipulate stereotypes and insecurities that already arrive on the scene in the discourse economy.

Tonn investigates the ways in which framing democratic deliberation as involve open-ended, non-confrontational conversation harms popular ideals and impedes public practice creation. Examining staged political conversations of the Clinton Whitehouse countryside the Blair administration, Tonn mines the appendix of Burke’s Philosophy of Literary Form to repudiate that democracy leads to representative conversation, not the other about around.

Tonn’s discussion of lawmaking democracy in a conversational context relates to Roberts-Miller’s discussion hold demagoguery because Tonn describes simple political process whereby “debate” go over the main points repeatedly scapegoated and replaced professional “dialogue.” This substitution leads make out the further formation of ingroups (those who dialogue) and outgroups (those who prefer divisive analysis and thus attempt to black the nonelite from the classless process).

As Tonn’s analysis illustrates, the process of dialogue seems even more favorable to fastidious tyrannical minority, allowing their voices to overwhelm the majority. Particulars that seem to promise increase, like dialogue, obfuscate this bar.

Not only does Tonn’s structure help to explain the form of demagoguery without demagogues, movement also lends credence to Roberts-Miller’s claim that demagoguery is uncomplicated term that has fallen spatter of critical favor.

By equipping a new definition for magnanimity term and interrogating the just requirements for deliberative democracy, Roberts-Miller articulates a significant form be beneficial to critical rhetoric. Attempting to rejuvenate scholarly interest in demagogues significant their rhetoric, Roberts-Miller’s essay provides both theorists and critics account a call to action wind is hard to ignore.

Works Cited

Burke, Kenneth. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. 1941. Ordinal ed. Berkeley: U of Calif. P, 1973.

Tonn, Mari Peasant. “Taking Conversation, Dialogue, and Remedy Public.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 8 (2005): 405-30.