Mattrking.files.wordpress.com



Kenneth BurkeBackground1897 (Pittsburgh, PA) – 1993 (Andover, NJ)Essayist, literary theorist and critic, poet, novelist, musician, and teacher; very influential for the field of rhetoricHis thinking draws on literature, philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, biology, politics, and more, and he is particularly interested in the relationship between human behavior or motivation and language.Although people took up rhetoric in different ways after Aristotle, it largely remained the province of “good men speaking well” (to paraphrase Quintilian). In schools, rhetorical education primarily focused on style and delivery, particularly for men going into politics, law, and religion (does Aristotle’s framing of rhetoric as political/deliberative, judicial/ forensic, and ceremonial/epideictic ring a bell here?). By and throughout the 20th century, many aspects of our society and culture changed in ways that led people to take up rhetoric in new ways. A broad gesture toward relevant contexts from the 19th through the 20th centuries includes the following:Charles Darwin’s work on the origins and evolution of species, which helps challenge traditional religious understandings of human origins;Sigmund Freud’s work in psychology, where his understanding of the subconscious challenges our thinking about self-aware and rational human agents;Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism, which challenges beliefs that our society and economy are inherently fair and conducive to individual freedom;New manifestations of horror and evil, particularly in the trench-warfare of WWI and the genocide of WWII, challenging understandings of the true, the good, the just, etc.;Science being used for mass destruction and devastation, such as with the atomic bomb.The rise of new forms of mass communication: radio, television, film, advertising, etc.Burke’s thinking comes of age in the 1930s and ‘40s in the context of the Great Depression and WWII. He is less concerned with how language helps communicate the true and the good than with how language motivates humans, shapes our behavior, and helps us cooperate. Language can motivate humans toward beneficial forms of cooperation (such as collectively addressing the Great Depression) or toward disastrous forms of cooperation (such as perpetuating genocide). Burke takes up Aristotle’s thinking on persuasion but adds another element: identification. “You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his” (A Rhetoric of Motives, 1950, p. 55)This notion of identification goes beyond Aristotle’s understanding of persuasion, as we can use it to think about symbolic action beyond formal speeches and public discourse. All symbolic exchange (“speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea,” etc.) becomes a ground for persuasion, for motivating people, shaping their attitudes and behavior, and moving them to action. Rhetoric is thus “the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols” (A Rhetoric of Motives, p. 43).Orientations, Attitudes, and Terministic ScreensBurke develops his thinking on the connection between language and human behavior and action across several books and essays, and he highlights different terms and concepts over time. Here’s a gesture toward a(n incomplete) general progression. In Permanence and Change (1935), he describes how we form “orientations”: a “bundle of judgments” about the world around us that shape what we think, how we act, and how we respond to and engage with the world around us. Importantly, our orientations not only help us process our experience but also limit our capacities for response: seeing things one way inherently blinds us from seeing them another way. A key component of Burke’s thinking on identification is that our use of language embodies our orientations. How we speak, write, and engage in symbolic action more generally is shaped by our orientations, and language in turn shapes how we orient ourselves toward the world. We identify with someone else when their use of language embodies the same or a similar sort of orientation toward the world, and this serves as the foundation of persuasion. Our orientations, embodied in our use of language, thus motivate our actions: motives are distinctly linguistic products. We discern situational patterns by means of the particular vocabulary of the cultural group into which we are born. Our minds, as linguistic products, are composed of concepts (verbally molded) which select certain relationships as meaningful. Other groups may select other relationships as meaningful. These relationships are not realities, they are interpretations of reality—hence different frameworks of interpretation will lead to different conclusions of what reality is. (p. 35)This suggests that we do not have direct access to reality and the truth, that rhetoric is epistemic, that the foundation of our knowledge and epistemology is language.In Attitudes Toward History (1937), Burke moves from orientation to attitude, a similar term that gestures toward our broader dispositions toward the world and our orientations. He outlines a series of attitudes, but the two main ones are the tragic attitude and the comic attitude. Here Burke draws on classic understandings of these literary or dramatic genres: tragedy is a narrative mode where a character has a tragic flaw, a shortcoming that they fail to overcome and that leads to their downfall; comedy is a narrative mode where a character is able to see their limitations and shortcomings and move beyond them. To have a tragic attitude is thus to be unable to change, to be stuck in your own orientation. To have a comic attitude is to recognize your limitations and be open to the possibility of change and seeing things from other perspectives.These different types of attitudes play a big role in Burke’s thinking on cooperation. If we are truly going to be able to cooperate and effectively address the problems of the world, a comic attitude will be more beneficial than a tragic attitude. So, not only do our orientations shape how we understand and interpret the world around us, but our attitudes determine how flexible and adaptable we are in our thinking.In the essay collection Language as Symbolic Action (1966), Burke takes up the concept of “terministic screens” in a way that helps us see the connection between orientation and language. We each have a terministic screen, a sort of language filter through which we process our experience and apply terms to it:We must use terministic screens, since we can’t say anything without the use of terms; whatever terms we use, they necessarily constitute a corresponding kind of screen; and any such screen necessarily directs the attention to one field rather than another. Within that field there can be different screens, each with its ways of directing attention and shaping the range of observations implicit in any given terminology. (p. 50)Furthermore, “Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function also as a deflection of reality” (p. 45). Our use of language orients toward the world in a particular way, but these terms inherently fail to capture and account for all of reality and thus also deflect and obscure other aspects of reality.Rotten with PerfectionAgain, one of Burke’s main goals in mapping out this system of rhetoric is to better understand how we might avoid mutual destruction, how we can reconcile our orientations such that we do not feel compelled to dominate, silence, or oppress other people. After all, “men build their cultures by huddling together, nervously loquacious, at the edge of an abyss” (Permanence and Change, p. 272). But there are aspects of being human that make this difficult to achieve, that push us toward division.A Rhetoric of Motives (1950) offers Burke’s most direct discussion of rhetoric, identification, and persuasion, and it addresses how his system builds on Aristotle’s. As quoted above, this book includes his main definition of rhetoric. For our purposes, another important aspect of the book comes in his discussion of positive, dialectical, and ultimate terms, a way of framing different types and uses of language. Positive terms “name … the things of experience,” “real entities”: “A positive term is most unambiguously itself when it names a visible and tangible thing which can be located in time and space” (p. 183). Positive terms would include, for example, book, tree, house, dolphin, star, molecule, hamburger, etc.Dialectical terms “refer to ideas rather than to things. Hence they are more concerned with action and attitude than with perception” (p. 185). Dialectical terms are open to interpretation and debate, and how we understand these terms depends on our orientations and attitudes. Examples here include things like justice, democracy, intelligence, and love (we might notice the possibility for slippage or disagreement in framing some terms as positive and some as dialectical).Ultimate terms are similar to dialectical terms but assert a sense of truth or finality: “The ‘dialectical’ order would leave the competing voices in a jangling relation with one another … but the ‘ultimate’ order would place these competing voices themselves in a hierarchy, or sequence, or evaluative series, so that, in some way, we went by a fixed and reasoned progression from one of these to another, the members of the entire group being arranged developmentally with relation to one another” (p. 187). As Americans, for example, we tend to have a particular understanding of freedom as an ultimate term that in turn structures our thinking about governance, laws, education, speech, etc. These things are open to interpretation, but “freedom” as an ultimate term helps determine what we mean by these things. Different people and different orientations employ different ultimate terms and thus have different ways of ordering and evaluating experience.Going back to the point above, while ultimate terms do provide a sense of structure and order to our thinking and experience, they also provide a foundation for dominating and dismissing other people. If we return to the example of “freedom” as an ultimate term for Americans, we might reflect on how this idea has been used to justify things such as drone bombings, torture, political interference in other governments, etc. In another essay from Language as Symbolic Action, Burke offers a “definition of man” in five parts: “Man is the symbol-using animal” (p. 3), “Inventor of the negative” (p. 9), “Separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making” (p. 13), “Goaded by the spirit of hierarchy” (p. 15), and “rotten with perfection” (p. 16). Again, a sense of hierarchy and a desire for perfection can help us organize and structure the world and push ourselves to excel, but they also provide the foundation for exclusion and judgment, for dividing ourselves by putting some people lower in the hierarchy or granting others some claim to perfection or exceptionality. We would not have racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc., without a spirit of hierarchy, a sense that some people are more fully human than others.Overall, Burke’s system aims to help us see and understand how our orientations, our use of language, and these underlying principles that define us as humans shape our experience. They help us better understand the challenges and problems we face, the role that language plays in producing and perpetuating these problems, and the possibilities for using language to better address them.Further Overview from WikipediaBeyond his contemporary influences, Burke took Aristotle's teachings into account while developing his theories on rhetoric. A significant source of his ideas is Aristotle's Rhetoric. Drawing from this work, Burke oriented his writing about language specifically to its social context. Similarly, he studied language as involving more than logical discourse and grammatical structure because he recognized that the social context of language cannot be reduced to principles of pure reason. Burke draws a line between a Platonic and a more contemporary view of rhetoric, described as "old rhetoric" and "new rhetoric" respectively. The former is defined by persuasion by any means, while the latter is concerned with "identification." In Burke's use of the word identification he is describing the process by which the speaker associates herself/himself with certain groups, such as a target audience. His idea of "identification" is similar to ethos of classical rhetoric, but it also explains the use of logos and pathos in an effort to create a lasting impression on the auditors. This theory differs from ethos most significantly in Burke's conception of artistic communication that he believes is defined by eloquence, which is "simply the end of art and therefore its essence." The use of rhetoric conveys aesthetic and social competence which is why a text can rarely be reduced to purely scientific or political implications, according to Burke. Rhetoric forms our social identity by a series of events usually based on linguistics, but more generally by the use of any symbolic figures. He uses the metaphor of a drama to articulate this point, where interdependent characters speak and communicate with each other while allowing the others to do the same. Also, Burke describes identification as a function of persuasive appeal.[12] Burke defined rhetoric as the "use of words by human agents to form attitudes or to induce actions in other human agents." His definition builds on the preexisting ideas of how people understand the meaning of rhetoric. Burke describes rhetoric as using words to move people or encourage action.[citation needed] Furthermore, he described rhetoric as being almost synonymous with persuasion (A Rhetoric of Motives, 1950). Burke argued that rhetoric works to bring about change in people. This change can be evident through attitude, motives or intentions as Burke stated but it can also be physical. Calling for help is an act of rhetoric. Rhetoric is symbolic action that calls people to physical action. Ultimately, rhetoric and persuasion become interchangeable words according to Burke.---The political and social power of symbols was central to Burke's scholarship throughout his career. He felt that through understanding "what is involved when we say what people are doing and why they are doing it", we could gain insight into the cognitive basis for our perception of the world. For Burke, the way in which we decide to narrate gives importance to specific qualities over others. He believed that this could tell us a great deal about how we see the world. ---Burke defined the rhetorical function of language as "a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols." His definition of humanity states that "man" is "the symbol using, making, and mis-using animal, inventor of the negative, separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy, and rotten with perfection."[13][14] For Burke, some of the most significant problems in human behavior resulted from instances of symbols using human beings rather than human beings using symbols. ---Another key concept for Burke is the Terministic screen—a set of symbols that becomes a kind of screen or grid of intelligibility through which the world makes sense to us. Here Burke offers rhetorical theorists and critics a way of understanding the relationship between language and ideology. Language, Burke thought, doesn't simply "reflect" reality; it also helps select reality as well as deflect reality. In Language as Symbolic Action (1966), he writes, "Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent must function also as a deflection of reality.[22] Burke describes terministic screens as reflections of reality—we see these symbols as things that direct our attention to the topic at hand. For example, photos of the same object with different filters each direct the viewer's attention differently, much like how different subjects in academia grab the attention differently. Burke states, "We must use terministic screens, since we can't say anything without the use of terms; whatever terms we use, they necessarily constitute a corresponding kind of screen; and any such screen necessarily directs the attention to one field rather than another." Burke drew not only from the works of Shakespeare and Sophocles, but from films and radio that were important to pop culture, because they were teeming with "symbolic and rhetorical ingredients." We as a people can be cued to accept the screen put in front of us, and mass culture such as TV and websites can be to blame for this. ---In "Definition of Man", the first essay of his collection Language as Symbolic Action (1966), Burke defined humankind as a "symbol using animal" (p.?3). This definition of man, he argued, means that "reality" has actually "been built up for us through nothing but our symbol systems" (p.?5). Without our encyclopedias, atlases, and other assorted reference guides, we would know little about the world that lies beyond our immediate sensory experience. What we call "reality," Burke stated, is actually a "clutter of symbols about the past combined with whatever things we know mainly through maps, magazines, newspapers, and the like about the present ... a construct of our symbol systems" (p.?5). College students wandering from class to class, from English literature to sociology to biology to calculus, encounter a new reality each time they enter a classroom; the courses listed in a university's catalogue "are in effect but so many different terminologies" (p.?5). It stands to reason then that people who consider themselves to be Christian, and who internalize that religion's symbol system, inhabit a reality that is different from the one of practicing Buddhists, or Jews, or Muslims. The same would hold true for people who believe in the tenets of free market capitalism or socialism, Freudian psychoanalysis or Jungian depth psychology, as well as mysticism or materialism. Each belief system has its own vocabulary to describe how the world works and what things mean, thus presenting its adherents with a specific reality. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download