Oppression And Political Change Rhetorical Analysis

Words: 1361
Pages: 6

Prompt #2: On Oppression and Political Change Social hierarchies have become increasingly apparent with the development of class divisions. There are the rulers and the rulers, the powerful and the powerless, and the elites and the commoners. However, when the reigning authority oppresses the average citizen, who should induce corrective political change? Moreover, who are the most effective actors for this task? Famous authors Max Weber, Henry David Thoreau, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s dogmas guide the answers to these questions. Weber’s postulation that the vocational political elite’s engagement in politics predicates their duty to induce political change is subverted by the dilettante’s dominance in political life. Alongside Thoreau …show more content…
Shirking these duties would put the state’s peace, the elite’s position, and the people’s safety at risk– especially if prolonged ignorance of the issue enables factionalism in the state and non-violence devolves into violence. Consequently, the tension that the ordinary citizen's non-violent techniques place on ruling dilettantes, society’s stability, and the state’s systems consolidates their position as effective actors by forcing political change. In all, the duty to induce political change originates with Weber’s vocational political elites but transfers to the ordinary citizen when dilettantes fill the seats in political offices. As Thoreau and MLK Jr demonstrated, it is necessary that ordinary citizens become the most effective actors in guiding said change; otherwise, they face a reality where oppression persists. Collective, non-violent methods are more effective than violent methods as they demand the state’s attention without upending the argument’s credibility with dangerous actions. Therefore, ordinary citizens have the duty to induce political change, albeit by proxy, and are the most effective actors in pressuring the state to guarantee it will institute