brendanfritz

[brendanfritz]

*Rhetorical Commitments*

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88478467

In this post I will examine and answer the following questions, How does this rhetorical artifact or the person who produced it navigate the rhetoric of self (Hauser)? Is it ultimately productive and/or unproductive and what are the implications?

To answer these questions I will look at a speech given by Barack Obama during his first presidential campaign. In the speech, Obama both maintained self and the self of the American people which is ultimately productive because it challenges racial stereotypes that Obama faced during his Presidential campaign. 

Barack Obama gave this speech in March of 2008 during his first presidential campaign. The speech, given at the constitution center in Philadelphia, is primarily about race and how it has shaped himself as well as his campaign. At the time Obama was a senator for Illinois who was drawing criticism for his connection to a speaker that criticized the U.S. government’s handling of the war on terror. During this campaign there were also accusations of Obama being “anti-American” and socialist in his policy. Obama’s campaign was centered on overcoming these claims and a lot of his rhetoric was centered around combating these accusations. He also faced criticism from the Black community for not being “black enough”. However, speeches such as this one helped Obama quickly rise in popularity and eventually win the 2008 Presidential election. 

In his book Making Commitments Through Rhetoric, Gerard A. Hauser explains the connections between rhetoric and the self. Hauser lays out four central ways rhetoric interacts with the self: reflecting a self, evoking a self, maintaining a self, and destroying a self.. Reflecting a self is defined as how a rhetor develops their appeals and asks for the audience to share in their views. Hauser defines evoking a self as questioning or reexamining the self they define. He defines maintaining a self as supporting and reinforcing an existing self. The example that he gives of maintaining a self is rhetoric that emphasizes certain aspects of the self and reaffirms them. Such as, a group of protestors that might paint other groups as oppressors in contrast to themselves which emphasized their role as protestors. Finally, destroying a self is defined as dehumanizing opponents and scapegoats which effectively removes opponents from the human race. 

Obama first begins the speech by appealing to the audience’s current values. He asks the audience to maintain a self by appealing to distinctly American values. In his speech Obama opens up by stating “‘We the people, in order to form a more perfect union ...’ — 221 years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy” (1). In this quote, Barack Obama appeals to American values that the audience holds sacred and in doing so ensures them that he is a part of their group and reinforces the audience’s idea of what it means to be American. By referencing the first few words of the constitution Obama is giving respect to the document that is at the core of most American’s beliefs. By doing this Obama reinforces that core value and reinforces the audience’s groupness as Americans and maintains the self of the audience. In maintaining the self of the audience and including himself in their group, Obama appeals to their values and reinforces the idea of himself as another American. Maintaining a self helps to overcome various claims about him being un-american and if Obama were to use rhetoric to evoke a self in this instance rather than maintain and question his own beliefs, the message would not be nearly as effective. To question whether he should believe in the constitution would have been the death of his political career and would have given ammunition to his opponents who claim he is unamerican. The importance of Obama maintaining his self rather than using  any of the other ways that rhetoric interacts with the self causes the message to be lost and it is also unproductive. 

Obama recognizes his own experiences about how race has played a part in his life as well as his campaign and in doing so maintains his self. Obama discusses how race has affected his life when he states “I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners — an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters” (7). Obama discusses his and his family’s background that makes him qualified for the presidency and a true American. By reinforcing his and his family’s background and his belief of his qualification to be president, Obama maintains his self which is vital for him to do in the face of claims about his background. However, in reinforcing his experiences as an American Obama also forces the audience to question how race plays a part in all American’s lives. If Obama had attempted to destroy the self of people who made claims about the legitimacy of his being American rather than maintain the belief in his background, he would have caused division during a speech that preached unity. 

Ultimately, the way that Obama maintains a self through his appeal to American values and his experiences as a black American is productive. Throughout the speech Obama describes his experiences as a black American, and challenges the audience to question how race is treated in the United States. By outlining his experiences with these American values and race Obama forces the audience to consider how race is viewed in the United States. This speech, in part,forced a conversation about race onto the United States which should hopefully result in a more equal society. While it may be too soon to tell whether or not this conversation about race has resulted in productive solutions, just having the conversation about race is a necessity and is therefore productive. This speech being productive is due to how Obama navigates the selves. Had Obama decided to destroy a self or reflect a self rather than maintain, he might have created a dichotomy surrounding race and the speech would come off as self involved. Rather by maintaining a self, Obama simply asks his audience to consider how race is viewed in the United States which has led to the productive, national conversation about race that we see going on today. 

In his article The Ego-Function of the Rhetoric of Protest by Richard B. Gregg, which Hauser mentions in his own article, Gregg discusses how protests use rhetoric, the nature of this rhetoric, and for the purposes of this entry how protest rhetoric engages both the rhetor and the audience. Gregg states “In every case, some kind of identification is required in order for communication to be effective.” (74). Obama identifies himself as an American and maintains this self. By effectively maintaining a self as Gregg describes Obama creates a convincing argument that properly and productively navigates the rhetoric of self. This furthers the importance of Obama maintaining a self and identifying rather than using any of the other selves.

In conclusion, Obama effectively maintains self in this 2008 speech while doing so productively. If he were to use another one of the selves the speech would not have been nearly as effective or productive. By identifying his belief in his background Obama successfully dispels baseless rumors while challenging how race is viewed in the United States. 

Gregg, R. B. (n.d.). The Ego-Function of the Rhetoric of Protest. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40236754?seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents. 

Hauser, G. (n.d.). Hauser Making Commitments Through Rhetoric. Moodle. org. https://moodle.augustana.edu/pluginfile.php/260277/mod_resource/content/0/Hauser%20Making%20Commitments%20Through%20Rhetoric%20%281%29.pdf. 

NPR. (2008, March 18). Transcript: Barack Obama's Speech on Race. NPR. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88478467. 

[brendanfritz]

*Burke: Dramatistic Rhetoric *

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvcE9D3mn0Q&t=960s

In this entry I will examine the critical question; How are symbols at use in this artifact in the way Burke describes the symbol-using animal? How is this particular use productive/unproductive, ethical/unethical?

To help answer these questions I will look at the United States propaganda film Know Your Enemy: Japan! as my artifact. Know Your Enemy: Japan! uses symbols to depict the Japanese in a negative frame which fulfills Burke’s fear of the misuses of the symbol using animal because the film uses symbols, both verbal and nonverbal, to create hate for the Japanese and is ultimately both unproductive and unethical. 

Know Your Enemy: Japan! is a propaganda film released by the United States and directed by Frank Capra during World War II  as a part of a seven film series that was meant as training videos for soldiers headed off to the front lines. However, the films were so popular among the soldiers that they were released to the public. Know Your Enemy: Japan! was released three days after the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and was redacted only two weeks later. The film was re-released in the mid 1970’s on PBS for public viewing. The film is an extremely racist characterization of Japanese people that was typical in the United States at the time of its original release. This framing of the Japanese attempted to dehumanize them and turn them into an enemy. The film used entirely original Japanese film from newsreels and fictional movies with a narration over the film and occasional political cartoons spliced in to help reinforce the framing that the U.S. government wanted. As a majority of the United States public already opposed the Japanese due to the Pearl Harbor bombing, the purpose of the film was to raise morale among both soldiers and their families, as well as to encourage the audience to buy war bonds and in general raise funds for the war effort. While it is impossible to gauge the effect that this film had due to its short time being released, it is an accurate representation of the type of depictions that the U.S. government released. 

In his article On Symbols and Society Kenneth Burke attempts to define man and distinguish mankind from other animals. Burke comes to the conclusion that the definition of man is “The Symbol Using Animal”. He argues that man’s use of rhetoric is what separates man from other kinds of animals, specifically man’s ability to share and record information and the consciousness that symbols give man. However, these abilities also leave man susceptible to how Burke puts it “Our many susceptibilities to the way of demagogic spellbinders” (58). In other words, while symbols give man the consciousness to separate ourselves from animals, it also leaves man in danger of being manipulated by those very symbols. To help solidify this definition Burke gives us 5 clauses, man is, the symbol using animal, the inventor of the negative, separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy, and rotten with perfection. Each of these clauses help to explain Burke’s view on how man uses symbols and the importance of rhetoric. Burke believes that rhetoric (symbols) have helped to create man but there are dangers to how man uses rhetoric. 

The symbols in Know Your Enemy: Japan are most evident through the use of narration over the Japanese film that is used. This narration is used to interpret the images of the film and create more hate for the Japanese. The film shows various images that are confusing and hard to interpret, such as one scene where a classroom full of kids is shown and these kids are waving their hands up and down in unison. It is a confusing scene and the original film is in Japanese so there is no way to comprehend what is happening. However, the narrator is gracious enough to explain it, he states “97% of the Japs are illiterate but the Japanese school is not an institution for the development of the mind. The government controlled institution designed to teach only officially selected facts” (37:47-38:47). The narrator explains the footage that was just shown and uses explanation to create a sense of disgust towards the Japanese. How could they possibly have schools as government controlled institutions? The narrator uses this film to state things that seem un-American. To the audience, the 1940’s American public, the conditions of education are horrific. The American public knew very little about the Japanese and found it very easy to believe what they were being told by the narrator. This susceptibility is exactly what Burke discusses in the example of the wren, where he states “They cannot be filled with fantastic hatreds for alien populations they know about mainly by mere hearsay” (Burke, 58). In the example, the audience could not possibly discern what is actually going on in the visuals of the film, but by mere hearsay they are filled with hatred of the Japanese when in reality they know little about them, fulfilling Burke’s fears of the misuses of rhetoric. 

The nonverbal symbols in this film are also important to how the frame of the Japanese is constructed. Throughout the film there are several examples of political cartoons spliced into the film one example comes at about the 46:47 mark. In this cartoon the audience is shown a graphic of the world and Japan is shown as a dragon. Slowly the dragon begins to spread out and covers all of California, Mexico, South America, and most of the Pacific. This visual played on the fear that the audience had about Japanese world domination. These symbols within this visual help to create this false reality for the audience. As Burke explains “But can we bring ourselves to realize just what this formula implies, just how overwhelming much of what we mean by reality has been built up for us by symbols” (58). Know Your Enemy: Japan! attempts to build up this reality about the Japanese through the use of nonverbal symbols such as the dragon to construct this reality that is overwhelmingly built by symbols as Burke describes. The film misuses Burke’s theory about meeting Burke’s definition of how man is ultimately the symbol using animal. 

This film's use of symbols makes it unproductive and an unethical use of how Burke describes symbols. The film’s attempt to influence the audience’s reality of the Japanese is propaganda in the most negative connotation that propaganda can have. These symbols used to describe the Japanese reinforced an ignorant American public's view about the Japanese and allowed for atrocities such as the internment of Japanese-Americans. Pieces of propaganda like this have entrenched racism and stereotypes that are still present today. Symbols such as this have been detrimental to moving forward as a society and have even shown up recently in society in the form of Asian hate. The United States was well aware of the symbols that they were perpetuating and the film feels as an attempt to justify what the United States government did to Japanese-Americans. There is not a way for this artifact to be considered productive. The film wasn’t even productive for the U.S. government as the war ended quickly and this film exposed what lengths the United States would go in characterizing the Japanese. Instead the film is a stain on the U.S. government’s already terrible history. 

In Stefanie Hennig’s journal titled A German Version of Kenneth Burke she helps to explain Burke’s idea about reality and the symbol using animal. Hennig states “Symbolizing clears a matter and/or integrates the competing principles of the dramatic situation. “To act” in terms of disputing dialectic antitheses, in terms of reflecting and gauging them in a structured and/or dramatically complex world, relies on such prescinding and synthesizing “vessels” or “mergers” (106), which symbols are. They rescue persons from the ever-impending division they fear and ensure the ever-promised identification they yearn for” (Hennig, Section 2.2). While Hennig’s definition of the way that Burke’s idea of symbols act is a bit complicated, it fits well with how Know Your Enemy: Japan! uses symbols. Painting out Japanese as evil and using them as the scapegoat saves the American public from “this ever impending division they fear” while it may have not been that dramatic, the American public was struggling due to the rationing and fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers being off to war. However, this film does just as Hennig describes and gives this identification that they were desperate for at the expense of the Japanese. 

The United State’s use of symbols in their propaganda film Know Your Enemy: Japan! was extremely unproductive and reinforced stereotypes for decades. The misuse of symbols how Burke defines them is how this film was successful in framing the Japanese and creating this new reality for the audience. This misuse of symbols ultimately fulfills Burke’s fear about the susceptibilities of man as the symbol using animal and in doing so is ultimately unproductive. 

“‘A German Version of Kenneth Burke;” A German Version of Kenneth Burke, kbjournal.org/Stefanie_Hennig. 

Burke, Kenneth. “On Symbols and Society.” Moodle, moodle.augustana.edu/pluginfile.php/190338/mod_resource/content/2/Burke%20-%20On%20Symbols%20and%20Society%20-%2056-74.pdf. 

[brendanfritz]

*Isocrates, Politics, and “Good” Rhetoric*

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/eisenhower-farewell/

In this entry, I will answer the following questions: How does or doesn't this artifact fit Isocrates' criteria of good rhetoric (Kairos, appropriateness, originality)? Is this example of rhetoric ethical/productive for democracy and/or limiting to society? 

To answer these questions, I examined Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address. The address by Eisenhower does not fit Isocrates’ idea of good rhetoric because while it fulfills Isocrates’ idea of originality, the farewell address is given when he is no longer in a position to make changes that he sees fit and the speech violates American values as well as the traditions of the genre of the speech, despite this it is a great example of ethical rhetoric and is productive for society. 

Dwight Eisenhower was the 34th president of the United States and served two terms as president from 1953 to 1961. Eisenhower delivered his farewell address on January 17th, 1961 at the end of his second term, on national television. Dwight Eisenhower gave this speech during increasing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. This period saw great innovation in both a military capacity and research in general. Brian Wolly from The Smithsonian Magazine describes the context well as they state “In this post-World-War-II moment there was a tremendous emphasis on the development of new technologies, particularly those that would augment or lead to the creation of new or improved weapons” (Wolly, 8). This is important to understand because this innovation was the primary concern of Eisenhower’s speech. When it comes to Eisenhower’s perspective on the innovation it is important to note that he was the last President to be born in the 19th century. He had not grown up with much of the technology that he ended his presidency with. Wolly brings up another point about the scale to which the United States’ military was expanding, he notes that our current military spending is at about 4 to 5 percent of the United States’ GDP (934 billion dollars) whereas during Eisenhower’s presidency it was anywhere from 10-15 percent of the GDP and 60-70 percent of the entire federal budget. It is possible to see Eisenhower’s cause for concern if military spending during his presidency increased this drastically. Wolly notes that this increase was widely supported by the general public and could be noted as the start of the American dedication to supporting its military to this extreme. 

Isocrates in his text Against the Sophists defines good rhetoric as fulfilling three different criteria. As Isocrates states “The greatest indication of the difference is that speeches cannot be good unless they reflect the circumstances (kairoi), propriety (to prepon), and originality” (Isocrates, 64). As Isocrates defines here, the three criteria are Kairos, appropriateness (propriety), and originality. Kairos asks, is the rhetoric used at the right time? Did the speaker take too long to address it or was it too soon? Was it the right time of day or was it at the correct time during the event? To fulfill Kairos rhetoric needs to be at the right time. In order to fill the appropriateness (propriety) criteria the rhetoric needs to be consistent with the values and traditions of the society that the rhetoric is used in. The rhetoric also needs fit within the genre of whatever it is speaking on. If the rhetoric is an inaugural address, in order for it to be considered good rhetoric, the inaugural needs to follow the general traditions of the occasion in order to fill the criteria of appropriateness. To meet the originality criteria, the rhetoric needs to do something that hasn’t been done before. The rhetoric may discuss a topic that has already been discussed but the rhetoric needs to do it in a different way. If the rhetoric does not fill any of these three criteria, Kairos, appropriateness, and originality, Isocrates would not consider it to be good rhetoric.  

Dwight Eisenhower does not fulfill Kairos because he is no longer able to implement policies to address the critique about the military industrial complex that he makes. Eisenhower has already completed his terms as President and is giving his farewell as the President to the American people. Therefore, he is using this speech at the end of his Presidency to warn the American people. In the speech he states “We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations” (Eisenhower, 7). The context of the speech is critical in order to understand why Eisenhower doesn’t fulfill this criteria. Eisenhower served in the U.S. Army from 1915 to 1953 and was President from January 20th, 1953 to January 20th, 1961, yet he uses his farewell address, given three days before he left office, to give this warning. In the quote he describes what has already happened, the build up of the military has already occured, it is already a permanent industry. The permanent industry that he discusses did not occur overnight, the logistics of approving spending and training three and a half million men and women to serve in the military takes multiple years and multiple wars. All of this happened during his term as President and his service in the Army. Now he is vacating those positions in which he would have some influence in preventing this permanent industry and imbalance that he discusses. He could’ve made this speech much earlier and saw to it that his warning was heeded by the American public but he uses the last three days of his 8 years with constitutional authority to change this military institution to give this warning. This warning by Eisenhower should have been used much earlier in order to fulfill Isocrates’ definition of Kairos. 

Eisenhower also does not fulfill Kairos because he speaks in a deliberative way during an epideictic occasion. Epideictic rhetoric being defined as celebratory or praising in the case of farewell addresses. As defined by Campbell and Jameison in their article President’s Creating the Presidency there are a couple of characteristics a farewell address should have. These characteristics are that the President should take on a persona that “combines the role of leader and visionary” (Campbell & Jameison, 310), the address must be consistent with the character and rhetoric of the administration during their term, the speech must be consistent with farewells as epideictic rhetoric, and the legacy of a president should be encapsulated in the rhetoric. This farewell address does not adhere to the general principles of what a farewell address should be, therefore Eisenhower’s rhetoric is not used at the correct time and does not fulfill Kairos. Eisenhower warns that “As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow” (17). Eisenhower may be considered to be taking on the persona of a visionary and leader here but he does not fulfill the other three characteristics of a farewell address. The speech and this quote specifically do not fulfill the epideictic nature of the occasion. Eisenhower’s address is in stark contrast to what is normally expected of an epideictic speech. He does not praise the American people for who they are or what they have accomplished under Eisenhower as president. Rather he uses his farewell to warn the American people to not give into their impulses. As defined by Campbell and Jameison this is not what a farewell address is meant for, therefore Eisenhower is using this warning at the wrong time and does not fulfill Isocrates’ definition of Kairos. 

Eisenhower does not meet the criteria of appropriateness because he critiques the United States government’s action of spending too much money on their military which violates the value of American exceptionalism that many U.S. citizens hold. American exceptionalism is defined as the belief that the United States is an inherently better nation and any action that it takes must be just because it is an inherently better nation. Eisenhower is critical of the American government in this speech. He criticizes the spending of the American government where he states “We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.” (7). While he doesn’t directly state whether he believes this to be a just or unjust action, he discusses a need for balance in the United States and this isn’t a balance of government spending because as Wolly notes that military spending was at about 60-70 percent of the federal budget during Eisenhower’s presidency. This does not exemplify the balance between the military industrial complex and the “progress towards these noble goals” (4) that Eisenhower wants, which is why this quote can be taken as a critique. This critique violates the definition of American exceptionalism. The critique that the United States spends too much on their military which could have disastrous consequences, is in direct contrast to the value of American exceptionalism that many citizens of the United States hold, because as Wolly notes many U.S. citizens supported this increase in spending. Eisenhower does not meet the criteria of appropriateness because this critique violates that core value of his audience. 

Despite not fulfilling the first two criteria of good rhetoric, Eisenhower does fulfill the criteria of originality. In the address Eisenhower meets the criteria of originality because he criticizes the rising industrial military complex that was widely supported by the citizens among the increasing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union which is original for a president to say. Presidential speeches in general, not just farewell addresses, are epideictic. These speeches rarely warn the American public but rather celebrate the United States, which is what makes Eisenhower’s speech original especially during the Cold War. As is noted, many Americans supported this military industrial complex because of this nuclear tension between the two superpowers. Eisenhower even notes “We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method” (4). Eisenhower recognizes the threat that the American public is faced with, and warns the American public of the growing military industrial complex when it was not popular to do so. He could have very easily told the American people how great they are, as many presidential speeches do, but instead he uses this speech to warn the American people which not many other presidential speeches have done. 

Despite Eisenhower’s farewell address not meeting Isocrates’ definition of good rhetoric, the speech is ethical and productive for society as well as democracy because it promotes values such as peace in a time of uncertainty. While it may not fulfill Isocrates’ idea of appropriateness the values that it does promote are ethically right and productive for society.  Eisenhower states “We yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment” (3). Eisenhower promotes values beyond the United States gathering as much military power as possible. He promotes the betterment of humankind. This is the ethically right thing to do. He attempts to warn the American public of their current track despite the fact it may damage his legacy. Had this warning been heeded, the world may have been better off. Eisenhower promotes values outside of what might not be in the best interest of the United States but they are in the best interest of the entire world. However, Eisenhower’s address may be considered unethical by the citizens of the United States. The speech may be taken as putting the world’s needs in front of the United State’s. The United States was in a precarious position at the time of this speech and Eisenhower does not call for the United States to secure its position in the world but rather to consider other values rather than the threat to their life they were facing from the Soviet Union.

This is the critique with Isocrates’ definition of rhetoric. Eisenhower does not meet the Kairos or appropriateness criteria of good rhetoric but  the speech is productive for society as a whole and is ethical. Can this criteria alone determine whether or not something can be considered good rhetoric? If this speech is considered then no, Isocrates’ definition of good rhetoric cannot be considered complete. This speech accomplishes bigger goals of being ethical but it wouldn’t be considered good rhetoric. Even Eisenhower’s timing can be considered ethical despite not fulfilling Isocrates’ definition. Eisenhower discusses a problem that the United States is still struggling with decades later but it still does not fit the criteria. The timing of his rhetoric is morally right but not in line with Isocrates’ definition. Good rhetoric must include a moral or ethical requirement in order to remedy this fault.

Eisenhower’s farewell address does not fit Isocrates’ definition of good rhetoric because it does not exhibit either Kairos or appropriateness but it can be considered ethical and productive rhetoric because it promotes values of world peace. Therefore Isocrates' definition of good rhetoric is faulty and needs a moral or ethical requirement in order to be a complete definition of good rhetoric. 

Campbell, Karlyn, and Kathleen Jamieson. “Presidents Creating the Presidency.” Moodle, moodle.augustana.edu/pluginfile.php/193133/mod_resource/content/0/Campbell%20and%20Jamieson%20-%20Farewell%20Address.pdf.

“Eisenhower's Farewell Address, 1961.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/eisenhower-farewell/.

Wolly, Brian. “Eisenhower's Farewell Speech, 50 Years Later.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 14 Jan. 2011, www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/eisenhowers-farewell-speech-50-years-later-4356528/. 

[brendanfritz]

*Rhetoric is Narrative*

https://www.iaea.org/about/history/atoms-for-peace-speech

This essay intends to answer the following questions; What central narratives does the chosen artifact tell through rhetorical elements? In doing so, what values does it promote and ignore? In which ways is this narrative productive for society, in which ways is it limiting, and is it more productive or limiting?

To answer these questions this essay will be looking at Dwight Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace speech in which he addresses the United Nations. In this speech Dwight Eisenhower creates a dichotomy between the United States as a peace bringer and the Soviet Union as an enemy of world peace in order to create narratives that show the United States is not responsible for the increase in nuclear weapons around the world and present the United States’ nuclear arsenal as a necessity, in order to keep peace and lessen the tensions of the Cold War. These narratives are unproductive and limiting because they promote both scapegoating and militarism as well as focusing on who’s to blame rather than working towards a common goal of world peace. 

Dwight Eisenhower’s speech was given in front of the United Nations General Assembly on December 8th, 1953 among rising tensions between the United States and the U.S.S.R. 

Palczewki defines a narrative as “A form of symbolic action. They are referential, meaning they depict or describe events; they are not events themselves” (118). The takeaway from this is that narratives create a reality of events. Narratives are how rhetoric is used in order to create a reality out of facts and events. Narratives are created by using rhetorical strategies in order to “organize people’s experience by identifying relationships among events and time.” (119).  Narratives are how we attempt to make sense of reality and are a part of our everyday lives. However, some narratives are more based in the rational world paradigm than others. This essay will examine how Eisenhower creates narratives about the United States and nuclear weapons as well as evaluate how productive those narratives are.

The narrative that Eisenhower pushes the most in his speech is that the United States is not solely responsible for the rise in nuclear stockpiles or the increasing tensions in the Cold War. Eisenhower states “In the first place, the secret is possessed by our friends and allies, the United Kingdom and Canada, whose scientific genius made a tremendous contribution to our original discoveries and the designs of atomic bombs. The secret is also known by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has informed us that, over recent years, it has devoted extensive resources to atomic weapons. During this period the Soviet Union has exploded a series of atomic devices, including at least one involving thermo-nuclear reactions. If at one time the United States possessed what might have been called a monopoly of atomic power, that monopoly ceased to exist several years ago. Therefore, although our earlier start has permitted us to accumulate what is today a great quantitative advantage, the atomic realities of today comprehend two facts of even greater significance. First, the knowledge now possessed by several nations will eventually be shared by others, possibly all others. Second, even a vast superiority in numbers of weapons, and a consequent capability of devastating retaliation, is no preventive, of itself, against the fearful material damage and toll of human lives that would be inflicted by surprise aggression.” (Eisenhower, para. 12-16). Eisenhower recognizes that the United States started these nuclear weapons programs, but immediately shifts the blame to the genius of the United States’ allies and their contributions to what can be assumed that Eisenhower is referencing, the Manhattan Project. As soon as Eisenhower has recognized the United States role, he abdicates the United States of sole blame from the very beginning of nuclear weapons. By doing this Eisenhower attempts to reshape the narrative that the United States created nuclear weapons. After attempting to throw the United States’ allies under the bus, he shifts his focus to the Soviet Union. This is where Eisenhower truly moves the narrative from the United States stockpile to the threat that the Soviet Union’s stockpiles pose and create the dichotomy between the two nations. By stating that the Soviet Union has dedicated extensive resources to the expansion of its nuclear arms program Eisenhower is pointing a finger and implying that the Soviet Union alone is responsible for the increasing tensions and poses an active and increasing threat. By doing so Eisenhower creates this narrative that the Soviet Union is attempting to destroy any peace that existed after World War 2 whereas the United States’ arsenal is simply being maintained for the purpose of defense. This narrative contributes to again, abdicating the United States of blame and creating the narrative that the Soviet Union is this enemy to peace. Finally, to reiterate all of this Eisenhower makes an important distinction; He refers to the power of nuclear weapons as a secret. However, after discussing the contributions made by both allies and the Soviet Union, Eisenhower switches to refer to nuclear weapons as “knowledge”. This is a really important distinction and is part of how he drives home the narrative that the United States cannot be held responsible for the rise in nuclear weapons. When the United States was developing nuclear weapons it was a secret, something not to take lightly and not shared but when the Soviet Union came into the picture his wording changed to knowledge which helps implicate the Soviet Union as being responsible for not only the increase in tensions but also acting recklessly with this great power as to make it available to anyone who wishes to know about it. Eisenhower creates these narratives in order to show that the United States cannot be held responsible for the rise in tensions because the United States is a peace bringer that is using nuclear weapons for defense whereas the Soviet Union is the enemy to peace that is increasing their stockpile of  nuclear weapons recklessly and for chaos.

The dichotomy and the narratives that Eisenhower creates between the United States and the Soviet Union promotes both scapegoating and militarism. Eisenhower doesn’t take responsibility for the United States’ role in the rising tensions and instead uses this dichotomy and narratives to absolve the U.S. of any blame, effectively using the Soviet Union as a scapegoat. In the short term this was productive for the United States, as the government was able to continue stockpiling nuclear arms and solidify its place as a superpower. However, these narratives and the values they promote ended up being very unproductive and limiting for the rest of the world. There was an increased importance surrounding nuclear arms and puts the focus on nuclear arms rather than attempting to preserve the fragile peace that existed after World War 2 or other more productive goals that would benefit the world rather than keeping it constant fear. This put an importance on militarism and building up these nuclear arms programs in order to be able to properly defend your country. This militarism has lasted well into the 21st century and has led to several countries pursuing the idea of nuclear weapons which has been detrimental to world peace. While it isn’t appropriate to lay the blame on one man’s speech, Eisenhower’s dichotomy certainly contributed and existed outside of this speech. 

The narratives surrounding the United States and the Soviet Union were also extremely limiting for the rest of the world. This put the spotlight on the two superpowers after World War 2 rather than rebuilding the world’s infrastructure. Other countries were struggling and instead of those countries receiving help the two superpowers were on the world stage scapegoating and focusing on who could stockpile more nuclear arms. The dichotomy also centered the discussion between the U.S. and the Soviets rather than include what should be a world issue. Nuclear arms is a worldwide issue as the result of using nuclear weapons affects not only the targeted country but poisons resources such as water and land, that could lead to worldwide shortages of food. By creating this dichotomy Eisenhower effectively excludes the rest of the world from the discussion that will have a direct impact on those countries. 

Another central narrative that Eisenhower creates in this speech is that the United States needs their nuclear arsenal in order to keep peace. Eisenhower says this in the defense of the United States nuclear program, “But let no one think that the expenditure of vast sums for weapons and systems of defense can guarantee absolute safety for the cities and citizens of any nation. The awful arithmetic of the atomic bomb doesn't permit any such easy solution. Even against the most powerful defense, an aggressor in possession of the effective minimum number of atomic bombs for a surprise attack could probably place a sufficient number of his bombs on the chosen targets to cause hideous damage. Should such an atomic attack be launched against the United States, our reactions would be swift and resolute. But for me to say that the defense capabilities of the United States are such that they could inflict terrible losses upon an aggressor, for me to say that the retaliation capabilities of the United States are so great that such an aggressor's land would be laid waste, all this, while fact, is not the true expression of the purpose and the hopes of the United States.” (Para 17-18). While Eisenhower doesn’t explicitly say this, he is discussing the concept of mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.). The idea that in nuclear warfare, should one nation use them on another, both nations would end up completely devastated. This idea of M.A.D. helps Eisenhower to create this narrative that the United States nuclear arsenal is vital to the survival of the nation. According to Eisenhower, without it the United States doesn’t have the capability to defend itself, therefore the United States has a necessity to continue its nuclear program. If we are convinced that the United States nuclear arsenal is a necessity it is easy to fall into Eisenhower’s dichotomy that the United States is a peace bringer only using nuclear weapons out of necessity whereas the Soviet Union is actively increasing and innovating nuclear weapons for destruction. When we consider the audience and the rising fears surrounding nuclear weapons it is clear why Eisenhower would frame the United States nuclear stockpile this way and why the narrative of this dichotomy may have been effective.

This narrative is extremely productive for the United States. If Eisenhower is successful in creating this narrative it would allow the United States to continue to build their nuclear stockpile without taking the blame. However, this narrative is unproductive for everyone else. The continuation of nuclear arms program, specifically from the United States and the U.S.S.R., led to decades of tensions and proxy wars that involved other countries such as the Korean War.. For the U.S. government, in the short term, Eisenhower accomplished his goals, however for U.S. citizens and citizens of every nation this dichotomy served to prolong tensions and put the focus of the world on nuclear weapons rather than more productive goals. However in the long term this promotes the value of militarism for countries which in turn promotes nuclear weapons as a normal defense mechanism for countries. This narrative that a country needs nuclear weapons in order to secure its place as a sovereign nation has helped to destabilize areas like the Middle East and North Korea, who's rise in militarism has led to various humanitarian crises. 

In their journal When and How Narratives Persuade: The Role of Suspension of Disbelief in Didactic Versus Hedonic Processing of a Candidate Film, Patrick Weber and Werner Wirth discuss how narratives, especially in political settings, persuade the audience to have a certain attitude towards a candidate. The authors also discuss what makes a narrative more effective rather than “purely expository, argument-based messages advocating some action” (Weber & Wirth, 125). This journal explains what makes narratives, rather than strictly facts, more effective, specifically when it comes to how candidates running for a political office present themselves. This excerpt from the journal helps to explain how Eisenhower’s narratives work as well as why it is important to assess the productiveness of those narratives, “We propose that the accentuation of a politician’s narrative affects assessments of factuality. Drawing on the assumption that the salience of violations of realism and consistency is a function of their frequency and intensity (Bocking, 2008a), we conceptualize exaggerations in a candidate’s ¨ narrative as violations of realism, more specifically, as violations of factuality. A candidate film that, in order to fulfill a certain archetype, portrays a politician as always overcoming all kinds of resistance” (128). This excerpt shows that the narratives that politicians create are exaggerated and perversions of the truth however they are effective nonetheless because the narratives affect how we assess factuality. Essentially these narratives are affecting how the audience perceives whatever the speaker is speaking on. In Eisenhower’s case we can see then why these narratives are so limiting. If by creating these narratives and that dichotomy is affecting how the United Nations views the situation this is unproductive to how they view and ultimately fix the problem. This concept is important to understand because it shows why it is important to assess if narratives are being used productively. 

Eisenhower’s speech while very convincing and effective ended up being very limiting and unproductive. By creating these narratives that the United States is not responsible for the tensions surrounding the nuclear arms race and that the United States needs to continue its arms programs as well as this dichotomy between the two superpowers, Eisenhower has at least contributed to the decades long tension that resulted from the Cold War which was very unproductive 

“Atoms for Peace Speech.” IAEA, IAEA, 16 July 2014, www.iaea.org/about/history/atoms-for-peace-speech. 

Palczewski, c. “Narratives.” Moodle, moodle.augustana.edu/pluginfile.php/190302/mod_resource/content/3/Narratives%20by%20Palczewski%2C%20C.%20H.%2C%20Ice%2C%20R.%2C%20Fritch%2C%20J.%20%282012%29.pdf. 

Weber, Patrick, and Werner Wirth. “When and How Narratives Persuade: The Role of Suspension of Disbelief in Didactic Versus Hedonic Processing of a Candidate Film.” Journal of Communication, vol. 64, no. 1, 2013, pp. 125–144., doi:10.1111/jcom.12068.