Easier said than done

Think back to 1934, as Hitler is continuing to gain power in Germany. Now, imagine that you were a German, and all of your friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. were steadfast dedicated to the goals and means of the National Party. Your friends would look at Hitler, idolize him, and wanted nothing more than your country to be brought together, and saw that Hitler was bringing the nation together. Would you be able to see beyond the desirable front that was being put up, and know to leave the country before the Party gained too much power? From our perspective, and knowing all of the cruel things that Hitler did, sure, you might think it would be easy to identify that Hitler’s schemes were not to be trusted. But, what if you didn’t know about the Holocaust? What if you didn’t know about Hitler’s dirty laundry? My English class explored this idea recently, and have come to conclude that many of us would have just gone with the flow. So, how can we ensure that something similar doesn’t happen again? Perhaps that’s the whole point of taking a class on argument; to understand what makes an argument good, and how to see past the desirable exterior.

In class on Monday, my teacher showed us a film called Triumph of the Will. This black-and-white film was produced by Leni Riefenstahl in 1934 under the funding/guidance of Adolf Hitler. If you are not a history buff, that was 5 years before Germany invaded Poland, and many years before the Holocaust. There were already camps in 1933 for those “undesireables” who broke the laws and fought against those in power, but these camps weren’t limited to one race or group like the Jews. Also, this was following WWI, and Germany didn’t look that desirable to the rest of the world. Therefore, Germany had to build up its image, build up its national character, and make the Germans themselves as well as the rest of the world respect Germany. This is where Hitler came in, and the film made by Riefenstahl aided in that mission.
In the movie, right from the beginning, what you see is desireable. The film starts from a plane floating in the clouds, a scenic view. Then, as the plane landed, a crowd awaited, cheering, happy and content. How could anything be wrong? Hitler was shown in his car driving down the streets. It seemed impossible to fathom that anyone was still in their homes because the sidewalks were so crowded, but no one seemed annoyed by this fact. At night, there were parties, fireworks, live music. During the day, the movie showed women with baskets of food, children eating apples; it seemed like a bountiful time. All of these visuals were arguments that as Hitler was rising to power, people were happy, they were well-fed, and they were united as one people supporting one person. Hitler appealed to people’s ethos by showing that other people gave him the power, and that he was willing and able to accept it. At the same time, there were constant appeals to pathos, in that people were just shown loving Hitler. Hitler was shown holding babies, people were fed; no one had to worry about pain or famine, so people were happy. People were brainwashed by this.
How could you say, “no” this is not OK? If you were brainwashed into thinking that Hitler is equated with food and prosperity and a united nation, wouldn’t you want him to stay in power? If you decided that Hitler was too radical, you would probably be shunned. Think of going to a football game where you’re not welcomed. For example, one of my classmates said how they went to the University of Michigan – Michigan State football game a few weeks ago, and how people booed her, harassed her, and even threw things at her. This would be emotionally difficult for one day; would you really want to deal with this harassment every day, even if you really did love the opposing team? Probably not. Maybe you would fake it and say that you loved State, maybe you’d just keep quiet, or maybe you’d just leave if you could. But if East Lansing was home to you, and the city was prosperous, it seems that it would be difficult to uproot. This may be similar to why even those people who knew something was up stayed in Germany and kept their mouths shut. However, although those people who go against the grain may be ridiculed, those are the people who make the greatest impact in history. Martin Luther King, Jr. , Rosa Parks, Thomas Edison, Amelia Earhart: these people all did what everyone else told them was crazy, wasn’t normal, and they were ridiculed. Sometimes we have to step back and say, maybe the extremists have a point worth examining; I really need to try to see both sides of the story: that’s what argument is. Objectively examining both sides, and coming to a conclusion, that’s the best option. That’s perhaps one reason why pathos is avoided in academic writing: because pathos has a tendency to pull on the heartstrings and make you forget logic.

So, argument can be used to develop an identity for both parties involved: those you are viewing and those that are being viewed. People liked Hitler, because he argued that people liked him; or at least, that’s what Leni Riefenstahl argued in the film she produced. At the same time, the visual and verbal arguments in the movie argued that Germans were united, and that everyone wanted the same thing. Using Riesman’s theory of the conforming self, people were other-directed, worrying about the needs of the other. But, by doing what everyone else was doing, the Germans were convinced that they were really looking out for themselves because the images they saw showed that being other-directed meant being prosperous.

In the end, I guess my point is that although it sometimes may seem easiest or the most logical to go with the flow, we need to step back, reevaluate why we are thinking the things we are thinking, and ask objectively whether the situation we are in really is for the best. It is easy to become brainwashed into thinking that something is the best option or the best way of doing things, but we should always balance our view with the opposing view and underlying reasons for their argument, and decide if we really do respect the side that we argue for. This is easier said than done, but it’s worth the fight.