Ever since the start of America’s war on terrorism, anyone who would provide any criticism was stifled and shunted. The images of reason, balance, or openness were rearticulated excessively within rhetorical critique and positioned as separate from prevailing political positions through administrative dishonesty, manipulation, and propaganda. Therefore, there is a need to find a rhetorical sense of balance between the leadership-enabled opinion and policy juxtaposed by the underlying culture of beliefs, values, and accepted behaviors. “Negotiating the precarious line between division and identification is the constant but crucial challenge of sustaining a rhetorically viable Other” is a sentence intended to summarize the argument put forth by Robert Ivie (2005) within the exploration of rhetorical critique (p. 284). Dissent, which is the central notion within the argument, plays the role of the medium between the productive competition between parties. Without the rivalry, there would be no differences and no ways of holding the limited perspectives accountable to each another.
Within the study of rhetorical criticism, which refers to the process of using rhetorical theory for understanding rhetorical practice and theory generation, it is essential to define critical rhetoric as a crucial influence on the notion of dissent. Critical rhetoric is considered to have a “critical spirit,” which is concerned with the issues relating to power, rhetoric, and ideology (Borchers & Hundley, 2018, p. 282). Also, it attempts to provide a demystification of sources of power in society by showing how the connection between knowledge and power is concealed. Furthermore, critical rhetoric is never impersonal and is rather used by an individual to provide an argument against something based on personal views and considerations for future action. A dissenting opinion is also not impersonal and represents a difference in views that are being divided by the hypothetical line between division and identification.
Dissent is represented as a practical, though underappreciated necessity in the complicated world. It is seen as normal and often common in healthy democratic practices as well as a sign of genuine political health rather than failure or dysfunction. While it is often complicated to maintain, dissent is modus operandi, the way of operating, in an all-encompassing and transparent political system filled with passionate debate and deep deliberation. Whether in the form of demonstrating or protesting, the channels of rhetoric dissent struggle with articulating the contract or convergence points that exceed the established boundaries. If the political actors, groups or individuals, were not divided or separate, then there will be no need to find the middle ground or achieve sufficient cohesion for avoiding explicit antagonism. Thus, dissent, as any other form of action within rhetoric or symbolism, stands on the line between division and identification, enabling the collaboration between parties. Without cooperation, there otherwise will be victimization and ‘finger-pointing’ occurs too readily, leading to significant conflicts, such as wars. Ivie (2005) calls such a line “precarious” because, in the absence of a dialogue between the rivals, the line may sway to one side, thus having adverse consequences for both.
Modeling political rivals as the only existing oppositions to each other makes them both joined and separate, identified but distinct, as well as communicative yet polemical. The phenomenon of the only current oppositions, referred to as consubstantiality, is a way of parties acting together but in separateness at several social organization levels. In such a sense, a consubstantial rivalry is a part of democratic dissent. In addition, it is a trope associated with enhancing democratic practices within the environment of widespread division. Besides, consubstantial rivalry also relates to illustrating hierarchical connections that are complicated yet still interrelated.
War and terror pressed against any kind of polemics in which patriotism is aligned with a standard of political conformity “instead of democratic contestation” (Ivie, 2005, p. 280). In this case, dissent is highly complicated to implement at the point of the most significant tensions in human affairs, especially in instances where it could benefit the political relations process. Through looking at cases of war and crises that occurred around the world, one may see how deeply the democratic powers are invested in dissent for maintaining its viability and vitality (Ivie, 2005). As a rule, essential lessons are learned from the past by referring to negative examples of dissent being suppressed and democracy diminished in favor of pushing the national security agenda.
To conclude, the “precarious line between division and identification is the constant but crucial challenge” because, in the absence of a dialogue between the rivals, the line may sway to one side, thus having adverse consequences for both (Ivie, 2005, p. 284). The central argument made by Ivie is that the identification and disidentification should be in balance with each other to avoid silencing or dehumanizing the Other, or the different view. Therefore, rhetoric viability is concerned with preserving both sides of the rhetoric and avoiding suppression of either. Dissent is quite crucial in this argument because it illustrates the importance of rivals being joined and separate, identified but distinct, as well as communicative yet polemical.
References
Borchers, T., & Hundley, H. (2018). Rhetorical theory (2nd ed.). Waveland Press, Inc.
Ivie, R. (2005). Democratic dissent and the trick of rhetorical critique. Critical Methodologies, 5(3), 276-293.