How to Start a Nation (Part 3): Hamilton is Rhetoric
Note: Many of the ideas in this article are directly inspired or drawn from the excellent book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, by Yuval Noah Harari. Be sure to read Harari’s book for an even more in-depth exploration of imagined hierarchies and fiction.
This is Part 3 of a larger connected series. If you have not read, please read Part 1 and Part 2.
In Part 1, we observe the difficulty of bringing together a team of people above a certain limit — and gave a general sketch in Part 2 of social fiction, the anthropological solution to this problem. In Part 3, we will give examples of how rhetoric and complexity play into social fiction (including in the musical Hamilton).
Hamilton is Rhetoric
We ended Part 2 with a sketch of what social fiction is and highlighted how they have power, using the US government as an example. Now, let’s take a look at what rhetoric looks like in the context of a social fiction such as the USA.
I loved US history in middle school. I was (and still am!) in love with the musical Hamilton, which is a hip-hop musical rendition of founding father Alexander Hamilton’s life.
My history teacher loved to show us Hamilton numbers to illustrate different historical events, such as Hamilton’s fatal duel with Aaron Burr, or the Battle of Yorktown. In the end, the lesson of Hamilton is that, with enough passion and hard work, anyone can achieve success. Listen to the conclusion of Yorktown (The World Turned Upside Down):
And as our fallen foes retreat,
I hear the drinking song they’re singing…
The world turned upside down.
The world turned upside down.
The world turned upside down.
The world turned upside down, down…
Down, down, down!
Freedom for America,
Freedom for France!
Down, down, down!
Gotta start a new nation,
Gotta meet my son!
Down, down, down!
We won!
We won!
We won!
We won!
Yorktown is written in a hip-hop style, with performers singing in tandem about the Battle of Yorktown, fought in 1781, a decisive patriot victory in the American Revolutionary War. The majority of the song is set to rock-and-roll instrumentals, while dancers act out the battle on stage. This song is packed with so much epic and fast-paced movement — and I highly recommend you listen to it or stream the performance on Disney Plus.
Full of intense, awesome action, this song depicts the Battle of Yorktown as a rhythmic, breeze for the patriots. We, as viewers, are rewarded with a sense of patriotism and pride as we watch the battle come to an end with an actor waving a white flag, representing the British surrender.
Hamilton’s success is greatly due to its method of composition. The musical expresses the life of one of the most prolific founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, by blending jazz, hip-hop, and modern styles, all while casting members from multi-cultural backgrounds. In the list of songs, you can find two rap-style roast battles (Cabinet Battle #1 and Cabinet Battle #2) between Hamilton and his Democratic-Republican rival, Thomas Jefferson.
But in the end, Hamilton is a form of rhetoric — and, as aforementioned, leads to adherence. The emotions and story the audience gets from Hamilton are inherently patriotic. With its unique cast, music, and lyrics, Hamilton is an example of how cultural and artistic forces can amplify patriotism and loyalty to a social fiction.
Government-Controlled Rhetoric
Rhetoric can certainly be controlled by the government as well. Listen to the Pledge of Allegiance, a ritual recited every morning across the nation:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The pledge is embedded into citizens from a young age. It implies that the United States of America is liberty. The USA is justice, as long as it is one nation, indivisible.
If you were attentive, you’ll realize that I left out one phrase from the pledge:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The phrase “under god” was added during the Cold War by President Eisenhower, a time when Communism was seen as a great threat to the USA. Becky Little writes:
The push to add ‘under God’ to the pledge gained momentum during the second Red Scare, a period when U.S. politicians were keen to assert the moral superiority of U.S. capitalism over Soviet communism, which many conservatives regarded as ‘godless.’
Adding the phrase “under god” also bolstered patriotism, giving people a deeper connection to the country. Even today the phrase remains, a reminder of the USA’s history and its story.
Importantly, it is not only the story told to us that is determined by those in power — but also how it is depicted.
The way the pledge is said remains the same across the nation. the phrase “under god” is separated by pauses, while “of the United States of America” is one entire phrase. This method of recitation creates a subtle, rhetorical emphasis. Additionally, the pledge is always recited standing up, without headwear, and with your right hand over your heart — poetic elements that make the pledge, and its story, more significant.
These elements show one example of how the government can influence rhetoric to strengthen adherence and loyalty.
Complexity
Harari notes, very importantly, that social fictions are what sets humans apart from other animals. Harari uses the word “myths” to describe social fiction, as myths involve storytelling. We are the only animal capable of creating fictions and myths as we do. Only Homo Sapiens, the knowing man, can unite millions to do one thing.
For instance, you might be reading this article on a device manufactured by a company — say, Apple. But what exactly is “Apple?” You can’t touch, smell, hear, or taste “Apple Incorporated.” Yet at the same time, we say things such as “this product will harm Apple,” or “Apple has had great success recently.”
We treat Apple like a real thing — and everyone believes that Apple somehow just exists. Apple makes products that are physically real — you are probably looking at one right now, but what’s the significance of the small logo on the back of your device? Really, Apple is merely a social fiction — and it’s a single concept that everyone believes in.
Of course, the world is not simply discrete social fictions living separate of each other. Non-tangible companies and governments overlap and interact in complex ways (the study of which might be called “politics” or “economics”).
Think about how Apple is influenced as a social fiction. Apple is controlled by various regulations by governments. It follows the whims of something called “the economy.” People buy Apple “stocks” and treat digital slips of paper as if they are pieces of physical gold. All because we believe that Apple exists in a fictitious dimension created by our collective minds.
At the same time, it is completely possible for Apple to stop existing at any moment — just see Form 966, Corporate Dissolution or Liquidation, on the IRS’s website. When Apple no longer has any usage, we can choose to delete it from existence. All the iPhones and iPads in the world might still exist — but not Apple Incorporated.
The Catch…
Social fictions have stuck around because all of this works amazingly well. Humans are thriving — compared to pre-historic times, we have a massively increased chance of survival and reproduction. Humans are the most powerful animal on the planet because of our ability to collaborate.
However, with the level of complexity social fictions create, they are bound to conflict or fail.
In 2020, the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked Apple to unlock two iPhones whose owners had passed away. Apple rejected it, stating that allowing a backdoor into iPhones would set a bad precedent for privacy.
In this scenario, we see two large social fictions arguing: the government, and a private company. They argue over a physical reality (unlocking a phone) while attempting to protect their own story and values.
The FBI indicated its desire to preserve domestic security and conformity with the law. Meanwhile, Apple cited user privacy, which it wants to protect. Harari argues that rights such as privacy are myths — they aren’t inherent rights physically, but concepts created by society to be useful. We see here a complex interaction between social fictions — surprisingly lucid for mere concepts floating around in our heads.
Conclusion
Next time you want to start a nation with a handful of friends, keep in mind that telling some stories will probably be helpful.
