Rhetorical Analysis of Authority History Essay Example

In the 19th century, Europe was an ideological battleground. There was a 3 way fight between the Communists and Social Democrats vs. the Liberals and Conservatives vs. the Reactionaries. Amongst those divisions, there are further divisions. For example, under the communist moniker, there are a plethora of differing thoughts and ideas. The big topic of the time, however, was the issue of authority, and a German political economist and philosopher named Frederick Engels spelt out a critique opposing the Anarchist ideal of anti-authoritarianism; titled ‘On Authority’ in 1872. By the late 19th century, Marx, his theorist friend and writing partner, and Engels had become a dynamic duo of political, economic, and social theory/analysis. Engels had a solid reputation for his work over decades and contributed to Das Kapital, a massive book laying out the economic lens of Marxism and its primary critiques of capitalism.

The author begins by establishing the situation they have seen. It seems many socialists,as of late (1872), have begun a "crusade" against the "principle of authority" and as such, Engels feels compelled to comment on the matter. He first states the definition of authority in the context in which he uses it, that being "will be imposed on another"; and his first point posits that authority exists with flaws, but the nature of society and the overlap of political, economic, and social variables, each needing to be fine tuned to work in a machine, does in fact need authority in order to function. He continues with the idea that if they won the revolution and dethroned capitalism, someone would need to direct the economy and therefore impose their will on the system to change it. He illustrates a few more examples that resemble the same idea of authority being necessary for the maintenance of society, but he then shifts to illustrating the anti-authoritarian’s hypocrisy. He gives an example of how the lack of authority can allow the will of one to become authority: in the process of trains coming and going, there needs to be a very large quantity of workers maintaining and directing everything on the tracks. This requires discipline and leadership, but in the event there was no authority present, a worker who is vital to the operation can simply refuse to work. By refusing to work, the operation has halted for the workers and the passengers. His singular will has subjected all the people to essentially following his command. He finishes with another stab at their hypocrisy and states that the anti-authoritarian doesn’t know what they’re talking about and should be quiet or that they do know and are causing confusion to betray the proletariat.

The author is very open about the disdain he holds for his target, anti-authoritarians, and he does so through his continuous framing of his target as being somewhat evil and also stupid. Specifically, saying they’re on a "crusade against authority" (1) and "the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about" (1), he asserts they’re either stupid or "they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case, they serve the reaction. " (1). Not much held back in terms of 19th century venom, however he is being fallacious in the dogmatism he displays and seems to believe the system will keel over if authority is lost, which perhaps may be true in his eyes, however it is an unfair attack. The counter-arguments are non-existent and because of that, it is significantly lacking. Not giving the opponent light of day may skew readers' first impressions, and it is also unfair in that they’re unable to defend themselves against an arguably major author and figure.

The appeal is primarily pathos and logos, in the form of him positing relatively logical scenarios. However, the language and general reasoning are heavily charged and carry a lot of baggage. There is a fallacy in the way he paints them as dangerous idiots to discredit them, which is ad hominem. Engels brings up good points when it comes to the logic and rhetoric, but it feels overshadowed by how it seems he was more focused on showing that he is better than them as opposed to actually expanding on what is a decent critique.

Engels, Frederick On Authority(1872). Marx-Engels Reader, New York: W. W. Norton and Co., second edition, 1978 (first edition, 1972), pp 730-733.