Kenneth Burke and the Symbolic Motivation Move
Kenneth Burke and the Symbolic
Motivation Move
Preparation Guide 2010
Weeks 2-4: Kenneth Burke
Although Kenneth Burke is not the font of all contemporary rhetoric, no other thinker lies at the intersection of so many of the rhetorical problems we will address. Consequently, I have decided to begin our examination through contemporary theory by reading Burke's work. The Gusfield volume is an editing of Burke that others have found an excellent introduction. Do not rely on the secondary readings on Burke. Read the Gusfield volume first. Only then will you be able to judge the secondary work.
Questions to stimulate thought:
?How would you characterize the difference between Burke's viewpoint on rhetoric and traditional viewpoints?
?Differentiate traditional and Burkean definitions of the following terms: "rhetoric," "motive," "action," "form."
?Develop a Burkean model for communication to substitute for the "speaker-message-audience" model.
?Explain what Burke means that the key term for the old rhetoric was "persuasion"; for the new rhetoric "identification."
Some Terminology:
You should know the following terms and how they are used in Burke: ?Action vs. Motion
?Identification
?Dialectic (as per Burke)
?Motives
?Drama
?Victimage
?Purification
?Mortification
?hierarchy
?acceptance and rejection
?guilt
?purification
?redemption
?transformation
?pentad & ratios
Basic Readings:
* Burke, Kenneth. On Symbols and Society. Ed. Joseph Gusfield. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1989..
Secondary Reading
?Brock, Bernard L. "Evolution of Kenneth Burke's Criticism and Philosophy of Language." Brock. 1-33.
?* Foss, Foss, and Trapp on Burke.
?Klumpp, James F. . "Burkean Social Hierarchy and the Ironic Investment of Martin Luther King." Kenneth Burke and the
Twenty-first Century. Ed. Bernard L. Brock. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1999. 207-41.
Weeks 4-5: The Dramatistic Move
A cluster of theorists have developed approaches around dramatistic assumptions. Burke is the first and the primary theorist in this cluster, but the others are important to know. Several moves that these theories have in common define the cluster:
?Rhetorical form. They punctuate accounts of rhetorical transactions with the help of rhetorical form. This constructs
coherence in rhetoric around patterns in discourse rather than
around the rhetor. Thus, they study the clustering of language forms in a culture.
?Symbolic action. These theories primarily locate rhetoric in directing the flow of social action rather than the initiation of action or theories of knowledge. Consequently motivation is a
central concern. In the heyday of behaviorism, motivation had been understood as located in biological drives and had been punctuated
as an account of the initiation of behavior. A sociological school -- the symbolic interactionists -- offered an alternative. They
began by rejecting the completeness of the biologically based
theory, arguing that humans had essentially identical biology yet in any given situation humans react many different ways. Then, they asserted a methodological point: the most interesting questions of human motivation are to be answered not with an account of the
initiation of action but with an explanation of the variety of human action.
?Culture-creating power of language. In these theories, motivational patterns are tied to cultures rather than to
biological individuals or the species in general.
On these three linchpins developed a theory of human motivation as symbolic. Because symbols were given a central place in motivation, the methodological moves of the symbolic interactionists had opened the opportunity to study the clustering of rhetoric in forms, and the practical accomplishment of rhetoric as an invoking of these forms to influence human action.
Clusters: Dramatism; Logology; Fantasy Theme Analysis; Ideograph; Narrative.
Questions to Guide Your Reading:
?Bormann's argument is based out of a qualitative study of interpersonal communication. What do you make of its
non-theoretical origins? In what way does this relate to or move away from earlier concepts of dramatism?
?McGee proposes "mapping" ideograph usage, both synchronically and diachronically, as an indicator of a shift in our understanding of collective reality. How should scholars best go about such mapping?
What would Burke say about such an endeavor?
?Does Gusfield’s attempts to systematize Burke into the movements, chapters, or section that he did affect your way of understanding Burke? Does organization of theory affect your interpretation?
?What does it mean when a rhetorician says they are not a “Burkean”?
Can one be a dramatist and not be a Burkean? Can one read Burke but not be a Burkean?
?Burke’s dialectic puts emphasis on the numerous ways of perceiving, in that, when we move the circumference of analysis, we understand an act differently. Is there a limit to the number of perspectives, ratio relations, etc. that can be analyzed from an act? Are some perspectives more important than others, or are they all equally
acceptable/ plausible? What does this say—or does this say
anything?—about the a priori relationship between identification and division?
Instructions on preparing for the discussion:
Please prepare for Thursday's class in the following way:
1.Read the assigned articles and highlight key terms between either
other readings; Foss, Foss & Trapp; or the Gusfield text. Be
prepared to compare key terms and tentative definitions.
2.Generate one general question on something you don't understand
from the readings or their relation to Gusfield or Foss, Foss & Trapp.
Synthesize your knowledge and vocabulary to engage not only with particular readings, but also your classmates and the dramatistic move on whole. For example questions, see our questions we posted on the webpage.
3.If there is a particular passage (or a series of passages, a
comparison of passages) you feel illuminates or goes against other areas of the dramastic move, please bring this to class, also.
Basic Readings: *= Please read these by Feb. 25 (Access electronically through Communication and Mass Media Complete (CMMC) or J-Stor)
?Dewey, John. Human Nature and Conduct. 1922; New York: Modern Library, 1930. 112-14.
?Mills, C. Wright. "Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motives."
American Sociological Review 5 (October 1940): 904-13.
?Burke, Kenneth. On Symbols and Society. Ed. Joseph Gusfield.
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1989.
?* Bormann, Ernest G. "Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: The Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality." Quarterly Journal of Speech 58
(December 1972): 396-407. (CMMC)
?* McGee, Michael C. "The 'Ideograph': A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology." Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 (February 1980): 1-16.
(CMMC)
?* Fisher, Walter. "Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument." Communication Monographs 51 (March 1984): 1-22. (CMMC)
Some Additional Reading:
?Brock, Bernard L. "Rhetorical Criticism: A Burkeian Approach Revisited. In Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A
Twenthieth-Century Perspective 3rd Edition, Revised (Detroit:
Wayne State U Press, 1990) 183-195.
?Klumpp, James F. "A Rapprochement Between Dramatism and Argumentation." Argumentation and Advocacy. 29 (1993): 148-64.
?Klumpp, James F. "'Dancing With Tears in My Eyes': Celebrating the Life and Work of Kenneth Burke." Southern Communication Journal61 (Fall 1995): 1-10.
?Conrad, Charles, and Elizabeth A. Macom. "Re-Visiting Kenneth Burke: Dramatism/Logology and the Problem of Agency." Southern
Communication Journal 61 (Fall 1995): 11-28.
?Forum. . Brock, Bernard. "Limits of the Burkean System." Quarterly Journal of Speech78 (August 1992): 347-48; Celeste Michelle Condit.
"Post-Burke: Transcending the Sub-stance of Dramatism.: Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (August 1992): 349-55; James W. Chesebro.
"Extensions of the Burkean System." Quarterly Journal of Speech78 (August 1992): 356-68. Response: Phillip K. Tompkins and George
Cheney. Quarterly Journal of Speech 79 (May 1993): 225-31.
Rejoinder: Celeste Condit; James W. Chesebro. Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (February 1994): 77-90.
?Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.New York: Doubleday, 1959. (pgs. 1-34)
?Edelman, Murray. Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988.
?Crable, Bryan. "Burke's Perspective on Perspectives: Grounding Dramatism in the Representative Anecdote." Quarterly Journal of
Speech 86 (August 2000): 318-33.
?Crable, Bryan. "Symbolizing Motion: Burke's Dialectic and Rhetoric of the Body." Rhetoric Review ; 22 (2003): 121.
?King, Andrew. "Burkean Theory Reborn: How Burkean Studies Assimilated Its Postmodern Critics." Rhetoric Review 20 (2001):
32-37.
?Tonn , Mari Boor, Valerie A. Endress, and David Diamond. “Hunting and Heritage on Trial: A Dramatistic Debate Over Tragedy, Tradition, and Territory.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 79 (1993): 165-81.
?Brock, Bernard L. Kenneth Burke and Contemporary European Thought.
Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama,1995.
?Selzer, Jack. Kenneth Burke in Greenwich Village: Conversing with the Moderns, 1915-1931. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1996.
?Warnick, Barbara. "The Narrative Paradigm: Another Story."
Quarterly Journal of Speech 73, no. 2 (May 1987): 172-82.
?Wolin, Ross. The Rhetorical Imagination of Kenneth Burke.Columbia:
USC Press, 2001.
?Maddux, Kristy. "Finding Comedy in Theology: A Hopeful Supplement to Kenneth Burke's Logology." Philosophy & Rhetoric39, no. 3 (2006):
208-232.
?Hawhee, Debra. "Language as Sensuous Action: Sir Richard Paget, Kenneth Burke, and Gesture-Speech Theory." Quarterly Journal of
Speech 92, no. 4 (November 2006): 331-54.
?*Stob, Paul. “Kenneth Burke, John Dewey, and the Pursuit of the Public.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 38 (2005): 226-47. (CMMC) ?*Burke, Kenneth. . (Nonsymbolic) motion/ (symbolic) action.
Critical Inquiry, 4 (1978): 809-38. (J-Stor)
Recent Work (selected by Cameron Mozafari and Jade Olson): ?Anderson, D. (2008). Burke is dead: long live Burke!. CCC, 60(2),
W2-W10.
?Appel, E. (2008). “Tragedy-lite” or “melodrama”?: in search of
a standard generic tag. Southern Communication Journal,73(2),
178-194.
?Crable, B. (2009). Distance as ultimate motive: a dialectical interpretation of A Rhetoric of Motives. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 39(3), 213-239.
?Crusius, T. (2006). The question of Kenneth Burke's ethics. KB Journal, 3(1).
?Davis, D. (2008). Identification: Burke and Freud on who you are.
Rhetoric Society Quarterly,38(2), 123-147.
?George, A, and J. Selzer. (2007). Kenneth Burke in the 1930s.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
?Hawhee, D. (2008). Kenneth Burke and American studies: a response to Giorgia Mariani. American Literary History.
?---. (2009). Moving Bodies: Kenneth Burke at the Edges of Language.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
?---. (2008). The Squirm. CCC, 60(2), W10-W19.
?Johnson, K. A. (2009). Burke's Lacanian upgrade: reading the Burkeian unconscious through a Lacanian lens. KB Journal,6(1). .
?Lynch, P. (2008). Something completely different: notes toward a Burkean ethics. KB Journal, 5(1).
?McCabe, J. (2009). Resisting alienation: the social construction of Internet communities supporting eating disorders. Communication Studies,60(1), 1-16.
?McLure, K. (2009). Resurrecting the narrative paradigm: identification and the case of young earth creationism. Rhetoric Society Quarterly,39(2), 189-211.
?Olson, C. (2008). Burke's Attitude Problem. CCC, 60(2), W19-W28. ?Pineda, R and S. Sowards. (2007). Flag waving as visual argument: 2006 immigration demonstrations and cultural citizenship.
Argumentation & Advocacy,43(3/4), 164-174.
?Schwarze, Steven. (2006). Environmental Melodrama. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 92(3), 239-261.
?Sperber, D. & Cummins, S. (2007). Rudiments of cognitive rhetoric.
RSQ, 37(4), 361-400.
?Stob, P. (2008). “Terministic screens,” social constructionism, and the language of experience: Kenneth Burke's utilization of William James. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 41(2), 130-152.
?Stround, S. (2008). Simulation, subjective knowledge, and the cognitive value of literary narrative. Journal of Aesthetic
Education, 42(3), 19-41.
?Weiser, M. E. (2009). As usual I fell on the bias: Kenneth Burke's situated dialectic. Philosophy & Rhetoric,44(2), 134-153.
?---. (2008). Burke, war, words: Rhetoricizing dramatism. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
?Wess, R. (2007). Looking for the figure in the carpet of the symbolic of motives. KBJournal, 3(2), .
?Zappen, J. (2009). Kenneth Burke on dialectical-rhetorical transcendence. Philosophy & Rhetoric,42(3), 279-301.