If you’ve seen the new King Kong, you probably noticed the intense mating ritual that King Kong and Ann Darrow engaged in. King Kong starts this ritual atop his mountain by violently displaying his strength and then expressing his frustration that Darrow is not also engaged in the ritual. I can’t remember specifics, and maybe I’ll have to go re-see the movie. Eventually, Darrow begins to dance and do routines she learned from vaudeville, and this is when Kong is entertained. There is an obvious difference between Kong’s and Darrow’s rhetorics. Kong’s is one meant to impress, terrify, and create awe. Darrow’s is one meant to amuse. In fact, when Kong finds something in Darrow’s act that really amuses him (she fell over on purpose), he begins to knock her over with her finger. When Darrow ceases to allow this violent behavior, Kong is furious and storms off in a rage. It is apparant that in the mating ritual, men show strength and control over others and the environment, while women must be a display of amusement. If there had been two male Kongs, I am certain they would have fougth over Darrow, or both shown off their strength through destruction to Darrow. However, if there had been two female Kongs, I believe they would not have harmed each other.
So what does this have to do with rhetoric? Well, I think Walter Ong (I’m about to read his book Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness) is right that our rhetoric arises from a need to display. I want specifics of his argument before I write my paper (once again, I am looking for more information before I start writing).
Interesting observation from the perspective of Life. Also, once the Kong gained loyalty from Darrow, it has no intention of harming her and would do anything in the world to save her and maintain her love/respect. This is exactly a male “in love” behaves.