The Rhetoric of Oppression*
Art Harun
Umberto Eco, in his article, “The Wolf and the Lamb – The Rhetoric of Oppression” (from which the title to this article is borrowed), posits that often enough, an oppressor – such as a dictator – would try to legitimise his oppression. He or she will even try “to obtain the consensus of those he is oppressing, or to find someone who will justify it” by using “rhetorical arguments to justify his abuse of power.”
(At this juncture, I would like to add to Eco’s example of an oppressor. In addition to a dictator, I would add a “totalitarian democrat”, who is a so called leader elected through a controlled democratic process. I would also add to the list what Rawls terms as the “benevolent absolutist”).
The need for legitimisation of an act or acts of oppression, to my mind, stems from the desire to justify such acts which in turn is driven by purely egoistical motivation, or perhaps is due to a deep feeling of guilt. Added to that must be the desire to gain acceptance of the people and to pander to the middle class intellectual probing.
Whatever the reason for the attempt to legitimise, at the end of the day, the rhetoric of the oppressor, to the reasonable and probing minds, would often come out as completely lame and curious – sometimes even ridiculous, stupid and laughable – babbles.
That is because of the nature of the oppressor. He is so used to getting and doing what he wants without so much of a necessity to justify any of his actions. He thus develop this inability to answer properly when questioned; to engage when called to question; to debate when argued against.
The oppressor rules with absolute subservience from his minions. He is the supreme leader. He is an idol of the people. His wishes are his people’s commands. All the years of absolutism contributes to his feeling of being infallible. That in turn numbs his mind and thought process.
