Frankenstein and The Power of Language

Since Shelley's classic "Frankenstein" became a movie in 1931 it has become a familiar reminder of the dangers of unchecked scientific ambition. The creature takes on a life of its own, which has unintended results and consequences, and it finally ends up turning against its creator. Although we do not have the same abilities or ambitions, we all bring actions and words into this world, and thereby participate in the universal drama and discourse that continually shapes the world we live in. These words and actions can, just as Frankenstein's monster, take on a life of their own; with ripple effects that may go well beyond what the author ever intended or even imagined.

Kenneth Burke described a three-step process of how language can take on a life of its own. Words start by expression; there is something we want to express or emit from ourselves. These impulses are translated through the medium of communication, such as language, in order to engage with an audience. Then comes the stage of consummation, where the words can transcend both the original message the author intended and the meaning the reader originally perceives, and take on a life of their own. This is possible because words never leave a person without that person infusing the words with tendencies, tones, and what Burke called attitudes or incipient actions. They arouse expectations in all who hear and read them; expectations we want to have fulfilled. According to Burke words are like seeds, and they carry within them the potential for action. It is this process that can make reading a book such a thrilling experience. And good authors know how to arouse those expectations in us. For example, take a look at this passage from Shakespear, where prince Hamlet is planning to avenge his father's murder:

"Tis now the very witching time of night,
When churchyards yawn and hell itself breathes out
Contagion to this world: now could I drink hot blood
And do such bitter business as the day
Would quake to look on."

The stage is set for the final tragic confrontation between Hamlet and his uncle. Yet Shakespear leaves us in this suspence for several other acts, where we are fearing and desiring the final resolution to the conflict which has already been prepared by these few lines.

Kenneth Burke's point was that the same dynamics of expectation and consummation play out in our daily lives. Not that this dynamic is necessarily bad in nature. Just imagine the mutual expressions and communications of love and admiration which are consummated in a happy marriage. However, if we are not careful, we might find ourselves caught up in a destructive discourse which has run out of control; seeking a consummation that will be bad for all the participants. Imagine a married couple who are caught in a destructive discourse of hurt and recrimination. Its final consummation may be to destroy their love and relationship, something neither of them intended as their dispute started. Many people are now questioning whether the Arizona shootings were in any way caused or influenced by the loaded war-rhetoric discourse which has flared up recently. Burke himself mentions the nuclear arms race of the Cold War as an example of this:

"The various scientific specialties are to be viewed as carrying out the implications of their terminologies, and thereby seeking technological consummation for its own sake, however deceptively their efforts might be justified. For instance, whether or not it is possible to develop 'clean' thermonuclear bombs, some men might well want to go on experimenting with these dismal weapons. For they have brought their calculations to the point where further experimental steps are in order, steps suggested by the present state of their terminologies. And the 'principle of consummatory self-consistency' would provide an incentive, or almost a compulsion, to continue in this same direction. . .”

In many ways the Cold War could be seen as a discourse of deterrence which ran out of control. If it had been allowed to reach its final destination, the result could have been a total annihilation of the human race. "Dr. Strangelove" envisions a situation where systems of deterrence have run out of control. In the film, a unstoppable Doomsday Machine has been activated, which will make the entire planet uninhabitable for human kind.

Even now, mankind is engaging in several discourses which are out of control. One example is the discourse of technological progress. People may question the wisdom of moving forward with communication technologies and what impact they have on our societies, but the discourse has now gained such a magnitude and momentum that it is close to impossible to halt it. The frameworks and conditions have been set, and any future invention that meets those conditions is almost destined to become a worldwide phenomenon within a year from the time it has been introduced.

So what final end or consummation are we headed towards? Is the drama of the human race going to be a comedy, a fairytale, or a tragedy? The entire discourse of human interaction is I believe too vast and complicated to be able to get a clear picture of it. But we can look at individual discourses that are driving forces in our society, and see if we can spot the final fruits of the seeds they are sowing (I will come back to exactly how we can detect the potential of a text in a later post). Think, the next time you are observing or participating in a discourse, what attitudes and emotions that discourse is driving. What is the ultimate good in this discourse? What is the ultimate evil? I think we can all profit from stopping up sometimes, both as individuals and societies, and ask: "Where are we headed?"

Rhetorical Pressure and Moral Will

We are currently living in deficient democracies. For democratic rule depends on an informed public who have the ability to be heard in the public discussion.

In “Introduction to Rhetorical Theory” Hauser writes that public discussion forms public judgment, and the quality of this discussion “depends on the conditions under which it takes place.” (88) Hauser mentions some of the conditions necessary for a good public discourse: “right to participate”, “access to relevant information”, “access to relevant media of dissemination so that they [citizens] can share their point of view with others in the public”, and “right of free speech.” (90) Whenever any of these are lacking it undermines good public judgment and (by implication) poses a threat to democracy.

Except for freedom of speech, all the conditions mentioned above are controlled mainly by the media. Though a citizen may want to participate in the public discourse, he is not likely to be heard unless he is granted access to relevant media of dissemination, and the media organizations often have the privilege to decide which information is relevant for their audience and how that information is presented.

Mass media is arguably one of the strongest “social forces” of modern society. There is a real danger that such forces could deceive a people to identify themselves with principles, parties and social movements that they ultimately do not have joint interests with. As Burke remarks in “Linguistic Approach to Problems in Education”, “In practice, democratic states move toward a condition of partial tyranny to the extent that the channels of expression are not equally available to all factions in important public issues. Thus we see democracy being threatened by the rise of the enormous ‘policy-making’ mass media that exert great rhetorical pressure upon their readers without at the same time teaching them how to discount such devices; and nothing less than very thorough training in the discounting of rhetorical persuasiveness can make a citizenry truly free.” (285)

Burke claims that a citizenry which has not been "thoroughly trained in the discounting of rhetorical devices" is in some ways enslaved. Clearly such a citizen will not be able to achieve enough autonomy from social forces to render him capable of reacting back on those forces effectively. Such training would contribute to restore the balance upset by the rise of ‘policy-making’ mass media and make citizens able to detect and hopefully avoid manipulation.

A stable democracy needs citizens who are able to distance themselves from these influences, question them to see what they are doing, and make a conscious decision to act with or react against those influences with intelligence and power. I believe that in order to become such a people we need to be learned in the intelligence of persuasion: rhetoric and rhetorical criticism.

As Professor Gary Layne Hatch writes, "those who understand the power of language to shape and respond to significant moments in time can gain some power over their circumstances and expand their individual freedom and influence. They become agents [no pun intended] - those who act - rather than those who are acted upon." Rhetorical criticism is how we can pause and negate some of the "bullets of influence" that fly at us all the time, and by using rhetoric we can fight back against those influences that are harmful. 
I believe we need to raise more awareness and help people be more educated about persuasion and democratic participation. Otherwise we may as well let a handful of powerful people rule us, since that is in effect the same experience we have as non-participating citizens. Hatch comments, "For many people, life is motion rather than action. Things happen to them that seem beyond their control. They are caught up in the flow of time and seem to be victims of circumstance."

Democracy is a gift that should be a cherished and living part of our societies. As Senator Smith says in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", "Liberty is too precious a thing to be buried in books."

Religious Values in the Public Square

The values of a democratic society determine many of its actions. These values are shaped by public discourse. I have found an online article which describes this process very accurately and encourage everyone to read it. 

Religious Values in the Public Square

Here is one excerpt:
"Our public interaction reveals much about who we are as a people, what values we uphold and what kind of society we want to live in. The discourse that emerges from that interaction continually defines what we consider morally acceptable, how we treat others, and how in turn we expect to be treated."

Modern democratic societies generally have a broad public discourse as their ideal, inviting contributions from different ethnic, ideological and religious groups. Yet in many democratic societies religious groups have been marginalized. Despite the fact that many of these have legitimate competence and experience in areas like community building, solving ethical problems and organizing volunteer work, their viewpoints have often been ridiculed, considered obsolete, or deliberately ignored. Some religious communities have as a result become radicalized (as is the case with many Muslim extremists), others have become increasingly isolated from society around them and its development. None of these two options are healthy for a democracy. The result of the first is that citizens of a society turn against it violently because they no longer identify themselves as a part of that society. The result of the second (for religious groups) is an experience of society which resembles that of totalitarianism; the development of society is in the hands of another group of people and the governed have no voice to participate in determining the outcome. 

To quote from the article:
"The issue of religious participation in the public square is essentially a debate about the first principles of civic life: the coexistence between competing human interests, the self-determination of religious communities, the autonomy of individual conscience and the accommodation of diverse beliefs and opinions in public debate. The way we respond to these challenges establishes the parameters of civic interactions and sets the boundaries of our collective and individual identities."

When groups and voices are marginalized or denied access to the public discourse, society as a whole loses. Many examples in the past show how people from these communities have effectively questioned and changed the flow of current public discourse, and as a result societies have improved. Prominent examples include Ghandi, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Reverend Martin Luther King. These are almost universally seen as heroes. They identified conditions, tendencies or movements in their society which were contrary to their deepest beliefs, and they reacted against those with intelligence and power. They identified their passion with their religious zeal. How much poorer would the world be today if these voices had been forever silenced or denied access to the public debate because of their religious origin and motivation?

On the other hand, religious communities and individuals lose when they withdraw themselves from the public discourse. As isolated as they may become, eventually decisions will be made which affect them. Without actively participating in public discourse they often become defined by people who may be ignorant of or even antagonistic towards their views.

A democratic society is ruled by the people, and that includes both secular and religious individuals and organizations. A narrow public discourse leads to a narrow-minded society. Jurgen Habermas, one of the most prominent modern thinkers, wrote, "Among the modern societies, only those that are able to introduce into the secular domain the essential contents of their religious traditions which point beyond the merely human realm will also be able to rescue the substance of the human.”