Discovering the truth - through rhetoric

While reading What Is an author by Michel Foucalt and Special Issue on Human Rights Rhetoric: Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing by Arabella Lyon and Lester C. Olson, I found myself very interested in the arguments pertaining to rhetoric as well as basic human rights in both articles. I found myself especially resonating with Lyon and Olson’s article the most, for a couple of different reasons. My whole life I have looked at human rights to be very linear and concrete. I put human rights in the same category as laws and how they should be enforced no matter what with little room for alterations or change. It has not been until recent discussions within class and after reading these articles, where I have begun to question this thought as well as human rights more than ever.

This question within Lyon and Olson’s argument really made me think, “Does this ostensibly ‘‘universal’’ character of human rights mean that certain human rights principles can never be compromised and, if so, how have communities dealt constructively with collisions among conflicting human rights?” (204) After reading this very thought provoking question, I immediately tied it back to our case study “Rhodes Must Fall”. The Rhodes Must Fall movement was put into place by the students of the University of Cape Town who demanded that the statue of white supremacist, Cecil John Rhodes (in which was believed by the students to have encompassed institutional racism) be taken down. This is when the argument with conflicting civil rights comes into place. Who are people who have not directly endured this type of suffrage to tell them their thoughts and feelings on the subject are wrong? It is difficult to understand someone’s thoughts and feelings about a subject without being able to relate to them in a similar way. The students themselves are a direct relation to the suffrage and racism that took place underneath Prime Minister, Cecil Rhodes. This begins to complicate human rights and I believe that is a great deal of what Lyon and Olson were saying within their piece. That makes me think, how are we supposed to have the same basic human rights set for everyone when cultures and suffrages differ so much between people in this world. I, myself as well as millions of others cannot possibly relate to the type of suffrage that the people of South Africa went through but themselves (suffrage in which was directly against basic human rights in the first place). It is impossible for people of different cultures, backgrounds, and countries to abide by the same set of basic human rights when in all reality, we are all so different and extensive.
It is an ongoing struggle in order to respond to rights violations as ethical and fair as possible. This quote really stood out to me, “Although the United States has often portrayed itself as the ‘‘protector’’ of human rights around the world, in recent years the United States has been condemned internationally for alleged human-rights violations, ranging from torture and sexual abuse to illegal wiretapping and invasions of privacy, all in the name of human security—a fundamental human right declared by the UN.” (207) Clearly there is a fine line between upholding ethics and deliberately violating the rights of humans. This was quite groundbreaking to me to be aware that the United States is portraying themselves one way yet acting a different way. The US government gets US citizens to believe them and their motives, yet there is much scrutiny against them after realizing they are violating the basic human rights in condemning such repugnant actions such as the torture, sexual abuse and invasions of privacy themselves. 

Another point I wanted to expand on would be the study of rhetoric within testimonies in Lyon and Olson’s article. Rhetoric plays a huge role in testimonies. “Most significantly, rhetorical analyses of human rights attend to rhetorical processes, forms, and concepts in representing or portraying human rights concerns—exemplified by double-binds, performatives, enactment, narrative and myth, rhetorical appeals such as character (ethos), emotions (pathos) and reasoning (logos), argument, expert and lay testimony, as well as the nature of embodiment and otherness.” (205) This quote shows how much rhetoric actually goes into human rights and testimonies. People are more likely to listen to and side with someone who has hierarchy, even when within this hierarchy they are not always right. People are so easily manipulated and rhetoric is so powerful, the right author could alter someone’s viewpoints in favor of their own. I immediately tied this back to Burke, more specifically terministic screens. While learning about Burkes terministic screens in my rhetoric class last year, it just made so much sense to me. An example of this I learned was in the form of abortion. While discussing abortion, if someone were to use the words to describe it as “murder of a baby”, mostly anyone would be against it. The term “murder” and “baby” are extreme and they naturally provoke emotions, especially when used together. Rather if you used the words “termination of cells” it changes the meaning drastically and doesn’t tie that emotional aspect in with it. Replacing “murder” to “termination” and “baby” to “cells” it puts it in much more scientific terms, therefore not generating nearly as much emotion from its audience. I believe that authors have a way of almost manipulating their audience by using terministic screens and proper words that make the audience associate it to something else, driving their thoughts to a certain place in favor of the rhetorician. This can be especially prevalent within testimonies. Through the use of these terministic screens, whichever words are chosen are ultimately the dominant perspective of its audience. These terministic screens act as different lenses in which the author anticipates to share with its audience. Within these lenses and through specific choices of words the author is able to select, reflect and deflect information at their discretion and in their favor.

Comments