Sandra French
As we look back on the 75th anniversary of D-day, and with anti-Semitic sentiment on the rise, it is wise to investigate how the Holocaust is being remembered and memorialized, particularly in Germany. Traditionally we expect monuments to celebrate heroic past accomplishments; the idea for Germany to devote prime real estate to a Holocaust memorial, reminding a nation of its crimes at a time when East and West Berlin were in the process of reunification, was not without its critics. Could a German Holocaust memorial successfully navigate the tension, as Young notes, “between being permanently marked by memory and disabled by it‚Äù? After 17 years of public debate and argument, Germany decided upon Peter Eisenman’scontroversial and abstract field of steale. Eisenman’svision was to reject traditional/literal monuments and instead create an edifice in the tradition of the counter-memorial. The memorial is comprised of 2,711 concrete slabs or “steale” of various heights, (ranging from .65 feet to just over 15 feet) created to honor the six million Jews murdered by Hitler’sNazi regime and is the most visited Holocaust memorial in Berlin.
The debate surrounding the construction of the memorial has been well researched and reported on, however, little attention has been given to the “concession” of adding the Information Centre below the field of steale. During the process of selecting an architect and design for the memorial, the German State Minister for Culture and the Media, Michael Naumann, proposed combining a memorial and some type of library or research centre as a “balance” to the abstract nature of Eisenman’smemorial. Eisenman was originally against this idea, and is quoted in a 2005 Der Spiegel interview saying, “The world is too full of information and here is a place without information. That is what I wanted.” However, Eisenman did not get his wish and the Information Centre was created underneath his proposed memorial design.
In this paper, I demonstrate that a closer look at the rhetorical strategies employed by the Information Centre reveals the interaction of logical and emotional appeals working in harmony to captivate the visitor, encouraging both encounter and reflection. The Information Centre stands in stark contrast to the abstract memorial above it. By examining Aristotelian concepts of pathos and logos, I argue that the pathos present in postmodern Holocaust memorials, such as the Berlin Holocaust memorial, are insufficient vehicles for understanding this catastrophic historic event.
Jacob Rawlins
In 1856, a crowd of over 30,000 people came to cheer for the hanging of Dr. William Palmer, a convicted murderer who had been accused of poisoning dozens of people, including several members of his family. His trial was a public spectacle, with breathless coverage in the newspapers and even from author Charles Dickens. Palmer’s trial focused on the evidence connecting him to the crimes, and the interpretation of that evidence by 33 different scientific and medical experts who testified at his trial.
Murder trials rely on the physical evidence left behind in the acts of violence: fingerprints, blood, bodily fluids, chemicals, poisons, clothing fibers, bruises, bite marks, and DNA. While all of this evidence speaks of violence, none of it speaks for itself. Rather, scientific and medical experts are placed on the witness stand to argue for (or against) the evidence and its connection with the person accused of the crime. The experts act as mediators to explain extremely technical, abstruse evidence to jurors and judges who will determine the verdict. These experts lend their education, experience, training, and reputation to a rhetorical argument about the guilt or innocence of the accused, while maintaining the fiction of unbiased expertise to create a distance from the argument. As one of the experts at Palmer’s trial said in response to cross-examination: “I simply gave an opinion as to the poison, not as to the prisoner’s guilt.
The presentation and interpretation of evidence is one of the most powerful and consequential expressions of public rhetoric. Under the guise of unbiased scientific knowledge, expert witnesses often determine the outcome of trials, hearings, and other deliberative actions. In this presentation, I will discuss how experts establish and exert their expertise as a rhetorical power in the courtroom, and how the illusion of scientific fact and unbiased interpretation sways juries and judges. Using testimonies and evidence from the trial of Dr. William Palmer as a case study, I will also show how the expert witness developed as one of the most powerful rhetorical tools in the toolbelts of prosecutors and defense attorneys.