Rhetoric analysis

In the article, Ginsberg provides a discussion of how politics and violence relate. Violence tends to provide three major questions of the political life that include power, statehood, and territoriality. In the article, the writer uses several examples to indicate how violence is the answer to the political problems. With the help of examples to support his claims, the author can convince the audience of the role that violence plays in politics so as to broaden the audience understanding with regards to violence and politics. 

Why violence works

When reading through the article, the author tends to explain that violence is not good; however, it is required. As described in the article, through violence, there is a lot that nations have managed to achieve. Ginsberg states that violence is a key instrument of political and social change. The author states that violence remains as the primary catalyst for change, and that has been happening throughout the history. The author sees violence as being unavoidable, valuable, and indispensable. Violence is a method in which the society tends to preserve social order (Ginsberg, 2013). Through the use of the examples that the author uses, the audience gets to think about how violence has been a key element in achieving different aspects of life.  Ginsberg purports that even groups that are committed to non-violent acts rely on the violent reactions of their opponents in achieving their ends.

So as to explain how nations have been using violence to gain power and balance, Ginsberg considers the example of the United States. The international system of the United States is a large part a product of wars and violent episodes. The global dominance of the West is much associated with the function of its involvement in violence. As nations are trying to change how the US has gained presence abroad, nations are developing military capabilities so as to challenge the United States. For instance, Iran has been developing nuclear weapons so as to dominate in the Middle East and China has been building air, naval, and ground forces to make the country a central power in Asia. The weapons that the countries are making, they aim to use them so as to gain more power in their regions.

In the book, Ginsberg tends to make bureaucracies as the force multipliers in that the threat of violence is enough to change the intentions of people. The author claims that the relationship between African-Americans and American police forces was the difference. Most of the big-city police forces subjected the blacks to harassment, and they were likely to enforce brutality against blacks and whites (Ginsberg, 2013). During the time, the police officers in black communities did not respond to calls for help. Most of the efforts by African Americans in persuading police to change their practices were not successful, and there were organizations to protest the police misconduct. However, the numerous peaceful protests were not successful, and success was achieved after an outbreak of violence and rioting. Based on the description through the use of historical events that happened in the past, Ginsberg helps the audience to understand how acts of violence and the threat of violence helped countries to achieve balance in different areas. Some of the tactics used were aimed at provoking a violent response.

There is a lot that the audience gets to learn from this article. One of the lessons is that violence tends to be the driving force of politics. In the article, the author states that through the use of violence, the states tend to have some advantages are about other actors. Most of the nations do not usually rely on naked violence as being an instrument of governance; however, they aim at refining violence and making is to be a more effective tool. It is through violence that determines what nations exist and their power, the territories that they occupy, and the groups that will exercise power in them.

In the analysis of the article, one element that Ginsberg uses is narration. In describing the reason for violence, the author uses narration to explain the issue of dominance. The author uses narration in describing the Tiananmen Square Bloodletting. Apart from narration, there is also the use of compare and contrast. The author compares two incidences when he says that “the result is likely to resemble the Tiananmen Square Bloodletting than the fall of the Berlin Wall” (Ginsberg, 2013). Through the use of this device, it provides the audience with an opportunity of comparing one incident with another incident and see how the two incidents differ. The author also provides a similarity on the tactics that Gandhi and King uses, which were not violent. The techniques that these leaders use that included demonstrations, strikes, and boycotts aimed at provoking a violent response from the opponents.

In this essay, it provides a rhetoric analysis of the article on why violence works. Through the use of the different elements, the audiences can understand how violence and politics relate.

Reference

Ginsberg, B (2013). Why violence works. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Violence-Works/140951/

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at Melda Research in nursing writing services if you need a similar paper you can place your order for already written essay.