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
Post a Comment