Kenneth Burke
A brief introduction
PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information.
PDF generated at: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 01:35:34 UTC
Contents
Articles
Kenneth Burke
1
Language As Symbolic Action
4
The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle"
6
Definition of man
8
Dramatism
11
Dramatistic pentad
13
References
Article Sources and Contributors
15
Article Licenses
License
16
Kenneth Burke
Kenneth Burke
Kenneth Duva Burke (May 5, 1897 – November 19, 1993) was a major American literary theorist and philosopher.
Burke's primary interests were in rhetoric and aesthetics.
Burke became a highly distinguished writer after getting out of college, and starting off serving as an editor and
critic instead, while he developed his relationships with other successful writers. He would later return to the
university to lecture and teach.
Personal history
He was born on May 5 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and graduated from Peabody High School, where his friend
Malcolm Cowley was also a student. Burke attended Ohio State University for only a semester, then studied at
Columbia University in 1916-1917 before dropping out to be a writer. In Greenwich Village he kept company with
avant-garde writers such as Hart Crane, Malcolm Cowley, Gorham Munson, and later Allen Tate.[1] Raised Roman
Catholic, Burke later became an avowed agnostic.
In 1919, he married Lily Mary Batterham, with whom he had three daughters: the late feminist, Marxist
anthropologist Eleanor Leacock (1922–1987); musician (Jeanne) Elspeth Chapin Hart (b. 1920); and writer and poet
France Burke (b. ~1925). He would later marry her sister Elizabeth Batterham in 1933 and have two sons, Michael
and Anthony. Burke served as the editor of the modernist literary magazine The Dial in 1923, and as its music critic
from 1927-1929. Kenneth himself was an avid player of the saxophone and flute. He received the Dial Award in
1928 for distinguished service to American literature. He was the music critic of The Nation from 1934–1936, and
was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1935.[2]
His work on criticism was a driving force for placing him back into the university spotlight. As a result, he was able
to teach and lecture at various colleges, including Bennington College, while continuing his literary work. Many of
Kenneth Burke's personal papers and correspondence are housed at Pennsylvania State University's Special
Collections Library [3].
In later life, his New Jersey farm was a popular summer retreat for his extended family, as reported by his grandson
Harry Chapin, a contemporary popular song artist. He died of heart failure at his home in Andover, New Jersey.[4]
Persuasions and influences
Burke, like many twentieth century theorists and critics, was heavily influenced by the ideas of Karl Marx, Sigmund
Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche. He was a lifelong interpreter of Shakespeare, and was also significantly influenced
by Thorstein Veblen. He resisted being pigeonholed as a follower of any philosophical or political school of thought,
and had a notable and very public break with the Marxists who dominated the literary criticism set in the 1930s.
Burke corresponded with a number of literary critics, thinkers, and writers over the years, including William Carlos
Williams, Malcolm Cowley, Robert Penn Warren, Allen Tate, Ralph Ellison, Katherine Anne Porter, Jean Toomer,
Hart Crane, and Marianne Moore.[5] Later thinkers who have acknowledged Burke's influence include Harold
Bloom, Stanley Cavell, Susan Sontag (his student at the University of Chicago), Erving Goffman,[6] Geoffrey
Hartman, Edward Said, René Girard, Fredric Jameson, Michael Calvin McGee, Dell Hymes and Clifford Geertz.
Burke's political engagement is evident, for example, in the epigraph A Grammar of Motives in its epigraph, ad
bellum purificandum -- toward the purification of (the human spirit from) war.
1
Kenneth Burke
Philosophy
The political and social power of symbols was central to Burke's scholarship throughout his career. He felt that the
study of rhetoric would help human beings understand "what is involved when we say what people are doing and
why they are doing it."
Dramatism
Burke called the social and political rhetorical analysis "dramatism" and believed that such an approach to language
analysis and language usage could help us understand the basis of conflict, the virtues and dangers of cooperation,
and the opportunities of identification and consubstantiality.
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."[7][8] 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.
Burke proposed that when we attribute motives to others, we tend to rely on ratios between five elements: act, scene,
agent, agency, and purpose. This has become known as the dramatistic pentad. The pentad is grounded in his
dramatistic method, which considers human communication as a form of action. Dramatism "invites one to consider
the matter of motives in a perspective that, being developed from the analysis of drama, treats language and thought
primarily as modes of action" (Grammar of Motives xxii). Burke pursued literary criticism not as a formalistic
enterprise but rather as an enterprise with significant sociological impact; he saw literature as "equipment for living,"
offering folk wisdom and common sense to people and thus guiding the way they lived their lives.
Terministic screen
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.
Principal works
In his book 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
system" (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 (no page reference).
His other principal works are
• Counter-Statement (1931)
2
Kenneth Burke
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"Towards a Better Life" [9] (1932), Googlebooks preview, pp. 25-233 not shown.
Permanence and Change (1935)
Attitudes Toward History (1937)
The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle" (1939)
Philosophy of Literary Form (1941)
A Grammar of Motives (1945)
A Rhetoric of Motives (1950)
The Rhetoric of Religion (1961)
Language As Symbolic Action (1966)
Dramatism and Development [10] (1972): a description of the contents of the two part lecture devoted to
biological, psychological and sociocultural phenomena
Here and Elsewhere (2005)
Essays Toward a Symbolic of Motives (2006)
Kenneth Burke on Shakespeare (2007)
Full list of his works [11] from The Journal of the Kenneth Burke Society
He also wrote the song "One Light in a Dark Valley," later recorded by his grandson Harry Chapin.[12]
Burke's most notable correspondence were to
• Jay, Paul, editor, The Selected Correspondence of Kenneth Burke and Malcolm Cowley, 1915-1981, New York:
Viking, 1988, ISBN 0-670-81336-2
• East, James H., editor, The Humane Particulars: The Collected Letters of William Carlos Williams and Kenneth
Burke, Columbia, USC, 2004
Honors
Kenneth Burke was awarded the National Medal for Literature at the American Book Awards in 1981. According to
the New York Times [13], April 20, 1981, 'The $15,000 award, endowed in memory of the late Harold Guinzberg,
founder of the Viking Press, honors a living American writer for a distinguished and continuing contribution to
American letters. '
References
[1] Selzer, Jack. Kenneth Burke in Greenwich Village: Conversing with the Moderns, 1915-1931. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996.
[2] Twentieth Century Authors: A Biographical Dictionary of Modern Literature, edited by Stanley J. Kunitz and Howard Haycraft, New York,
The H. W. Wilson Company, 1942.
[3] http:/ / libraries. psu. edu/ psul/ speccolls/ rbm/ burke. html
[4] "KENNETH BURKE, 96 PHILOSOPHER, WRITER ON LANGUAGE" (http:/ / nl. newsbank. com/ nl-search/ we/
Archives?p_product=BG& p_theme=bg& p_action=search& p_maxdocs=200& p_topdoc=1& p_text_direct-0=0EADE099E1B49D55&
p_field_direct-0=document_id& p_perpage=10& p_sort=YMD_date:D& s_trackval=GooglePM), Boston Globe, November 22, 1993.
Accessed July 16, 2008. "Kenneth Burke, a philosopher who was influential in American literary circles, has died. He was 96. Mr. Burke died
Friday of heart failure at his home in Andover, N.J."
[5] List of Correspondents in Kenneth Burke Papers, Kenneth Burke Papers, Special Collections Library, Pennsylvania State University. http:/ /
libraries. psu. edu/ content/ dam/ psul/ up/ speccolls/ documents/ Burke-1_Correspondents. pdf
[6] Mitchell, J. N. (1978). Social Exchange, Dramaturgy and Ethnomethodology: Toward a Paradigmatic Synthesis. New York: Elsevier.
[7] Burke, Kenneth. "Definition of Man." The Hudson Review 16 4 (1963/1964): 491-514
[8] Coe, Richard M. . "Defining Rhetoric--and Us: A Meditation on Burke's Definition." Composition Theory for the Postmodern Classroom.
Eds. Olson, Gary A. and Sidney I. Dobrin. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994. 332-44.
[9] http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=pH2cw_ku1hMC& dq
[10] http:/ / www. comm. umn. edu/ burke/ DandD. html
[11] http:/ / kbjournal. org/ node/ 58
[12] http:/ / harrychapin. com/ music/ valley. shtml
[13] http:/ / www. nytimes. com/ 1981/ 04/ 20/ arts/ kenneth-burke-to-get-literature-medal. html
3
Kenneth Burke
External links
• Author and Book Info.com (http://www.authorandbookinfo.com/cgi-bin/auth.pl?B009607) offering a list of
works and their description
• Outlines of 15 works (http://www.comm.umn.edu/burke/) from the Department of Communication Studies at
the University of Minnesota.
• The Virtual Burkeian Parlor and the Kenneth Burke Discussion List (http://www.cla.purdue.edu/dblakesley/
burke/index.html)
• KB Journal (http://www.kbjournal.org), KB Journal's mission is to explore what it means to be "Burkean"
• An analysis of a President Clinton speech (http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/burke.html) that compares
Aristotelian and Burkean methods, from Bradley University, Peoria IL.
• The Kenneth Burke Society (http://www.kbjournal.org/kbs)
• A short introduction to Burkean rhetoric (http://nightfly.googlepages.com/kennethburke), with all relative
concepts defined
• Burke's lecture A Theory of Terms, at Drew Theological Seminary (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/
speeches/kennethburketheoryofterms.htm), Complete text and audio
Language As Symbolic Action
Language As Symbolic Action is a book by Kenneth Burke, published in 1966 by the University of California Press.
Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature and Method was Kenneth Burke’s sixteenth published
work.[1] As indicated by the title, the book consists of “many of Burke's essays which have appeared in widely
diverse periodicals” and has thus been regarded as one of the most significant resources for studying and
comprehending Burke’s ideas.[2]
Overview of Book
Language as Symbolic Action is divided into three parts: (1) Five Summarizing Essays (2) Particular Works and
Authors and (3) Further Essays on Symbolism in General.
Five Summarizing Essays
The first of Burke’s five essays is the “Definition of man” which defines man as
. . .the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal/inventor of the negative (or moralized
by the negative)/separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making/goaded by the
spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order)/ and rotten with perfection.[3]
The next chapter “Poetics in Particular, Language in General” returns to a discussion of perfection continued from
the previous chapter. Burke summarizes this chapter by stating:
The poetic motive does indeed come to a head in the principle of perfection . . . But the principle of
perfection should not be viewed in too simple a sense. We should also use the expression ironically . . .
the motive of perfection may extend to areas far beyond the confines of poetry and poetics.[4]
Osborn explains this concept further: “. . . a truly rigorous attempt to account for a single work on the grounds of
poetics alone should force recognition that it is necessary to go beyond poetics-in-particular to language-in-general. .
.”[5] Perfection, according to Burke and similar scholars, is a motive that exists both in literature and beyond, as an
underlying human desire that drives much symbolic action.
The third and often-referenced chapter “Terministic Screens” makes use of many key terms of Burke’s “dramatistic”
approach to literary and rhetorical criticism. Burke begins the chapter by explaining the “scientistic” and the
4
Language As Symbolic Action
“dramatistic.” “‘A scientistic approach begins with questions of naming, or definition’(44). A ‘dramatistic’ approach
stresses ‘language as an aspect of ‘action,’ that is, symbolic action’(44).”[6] Burke explains that, through the concept
of terministic screens,
“any nomenclature necessarily directs the attention into some channels rather than others.” This can be
obvious, such as how different academic subjects direct the attention, or more subtle. Burke illustrates
the latter point with an example of how photos of the same objects using different color filters reflected
and deflected his attention in different ways, depending on the filter (45).[7]
Terministic screens is significant to the process of rhetorical criticism, as well as understanding rhetoric, because
terministic screens are a conduit to understanding reality.
Particular Works and Authors
In Part II, Burke engages in a rhetorical criticism, spanning 11 chapters, of many different prestigious authors and
texts including, but not limited to, Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, the Oresteia, Faust, and William Carlos
Williams.
Further Essays on Symbolism in General
Part III consists of eight chapters. One of the more significant of these is chapter six, entitled “Medium as Message.”
Burke takes one of his peers, Marshall McLuhan, to task for focusing too much on the media rather than the
symbolic resources of language.
Burke’s main criticism of McLuhan stems from his most memorable slogan and the undue emphasis put
on medium. “If the medium is the message, obviously the important thing is not what somebody says in
a given medium, but what medium he uses, regardless of what he says. . . The medium is the message.
Hence, down with content analysis” (413).[8]
Burke continues the discussion on the relative importance of medium to message by acknowledging the relationship
as significant and stating that certain content can be better delivered by or suited to a specific medium.[9]
Reception
Burke’s ideas, through these significant essays, have had widespread influence. Burke scholar Nelson J. Smith III
offered this review: “Much of what our current generation of rhetoricians accomplishes will be drawn from the
preliminary and pioneer investigations into the sociology of ideology by Kenneth Burke.”[10] Frederick J. Hoffman
also writes: “[Burke’s] range and scope are truly remarkable. If there are predecessors and contemporaries in this
respect, they are probably R6my de Gourmont. . .and Eric Auerbach. . . His fate is that of a man some years ahead of
his time.”[11] The range of critical ideas and practices included in Language as Symbolic Action help scholars explore
this breadth.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Blakesley, David and Clarke Rountree. “Works by Kenneth Burke.” K.B. Journal. 2010. <http://www.kbjournal.org/worksbykb>
Smith, Nelson J. III. “Review: [untitled].” Philosophy & Rhetoric 1.3 (1968): 187.
Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966) 16.
Burke 38-39.
Osborn, Neal J. “Toward the Quintessential Burke.” The Hudson Review 21.2 (1968): 320.
Wessels, Emanuelle, Justin Killian, and Sean Larson. “Outlines of Kenneth Burke’s Writings: Language as Symbolic Action.” Resources on
Kenneth Burke. 12 May 2009. < http:/ / www. comm. umn. edu/ burke/ LASA. html>
[7] Wessels, Emanuelle, Justin Killian, and Sean Larson. “Outlines of Kenneth Burke’s Writings: Language as Symbolic Action.” Resources on
Kenneth Burke. 12 May 2009. < http:/ / www. comm. umn. edu/ burke/ LASA. html>
[8] Wessels, Emanuelle, Justin Killian, and Sean Larson. “Outlines of Kenneth Burke’s Writings: Language as Symbolic Action.” Resources on
Kenneth Burke. 12 May 2009. < http:/ / www. comm. umn. edu/ burke/ LASA. html>
5
Language As Symbolic Action
[9] Wessels, Emanuelle, Justin Killian, and Sean Larson. “Outlines of Kenneth Burke’s Writings: Language as Symbolic Action.” Resources on
Kenneth Burke. 12 May 2009. < http:/ / www. comm. umn. edu/ burke/ LASA. html>
[10] Smith, Nelson J. III. “Review: [untitled].” Philosophy & Rhetoric 1.3 (1968): 189.
[11] Hoffman, Frederick J. “Review: Kenneth Burke’s Great Range.” Poetry 111.6 (1968): 418.
The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle"
The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle" was an influential essay written by Kenneth Burke in 1939 which offered a
rhetorical analysis of Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany. Much of Burke's analysis focuses on Hitler's Mein
Kampf ("my struggle"). Burke (1939; reprinted in 1941 and 1981) identified four tropes as specific to Hitler's
rhetoric: inborn dignity, projection device, symbolic rebirth, and commercial use. Several other tropes are discussed
in the essay, "Persuasion" (Burke: 1969).
Tropes
Common enemy
One trope is the idea of the common enemy. Without an enemy with a mindless determination to destroy everything
good and beautiful, any state struggles with the economic and social problems of unemployment and poverty. So, the
idea of a common enemy is a symbol of the evil against which people must unite, and it distracts the people from
politically inconvenient issues by relating all evils to the common rhetorical enemy. According to Burke, this is
creating an antithesis. We are born separate individuals and divided by class or other criteria, so identification is a
compensation to division. (Burke, 1969, p. 22). He sees this human need to identify with or belong to a group as
providing a rich resource for those interested in joining us or, more importantly, persuading us. To promote social
cohesion, antithesis makes a simple balancing statement, "We do this" but "They do that". This symmetry creates an
expression of conjoined opposites which stigmatises the latter and encourages the former to cohere by only doing
"this". At first, the enemy may be local politicians or other voices that might criticise the protagonist's actions. Then,
all opposing voices are seen as antithetical to unity: without a united voice, the outside enemies will gain the upper
hand. If the nation goes to war, fascism requires that everybody in society and every aspect of society is involved in
the war effort and machine, so the society fights as one organism under the one leader.
Geographical materialization
All roads lead to Rome. In Ancient Rome, this was literally and metaphorically true. All roads did radiate out from
the capital of the Empire and all tribute and authority was owed to the Emperors. This is a form of cognitive
mapping which associates inspiring ideology and strong leadership with a particular location. Hence, Hitler
promoted Munich as the place where all roads must lead – geography materializing the ideology of fascism.
Unifying voice
The unification rhetoric demands a unifying voice: the entire nation must speak as one person. This is the essence of
the authoritarian ideal and it produces a totalitarian, one party state.
Projection devices
Projection devices are scapegoating tactics used to personalise the initially vague threats posed by the common
enemy. At a social level, the internal problems of unemployment and poor trading performances are directly
attributed to the activities of the "identified others". Simplification is a particularly effective rhetorical device when
dealing with an uncritical population, permitting rhetoricians to rise to power through their persuasive abilities,
frequently outmanoeuvering those with expert knowledge who do not communicate well. In this context, Burke
6
The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle"
(1941) identified Hitler's use of apodictic argumentation where anecdotal experiences are asserted as proof of his
social analysis.
Inborn dignity
It is usual to define a national ideal or archetype, or class of citizen as a measuring stick by which all other types of
people are to be judged. This archetype will be heroic, noble, and dignified to appeal to the vanity in the majority,
while the others will be subhuman and easily distinguished by reference to their ethnicity, religion or politics. For
this rhetoric to be effective, it must always address existing prejudices. Hitler proposed the Manichean antithesis of
superior: inferior through the superiority of das Volk, i.e. the Aryan race, over the inferior races ("in particular Jews
and Negroes").
Symbolic rebirth
Wink and others identify symbolic rebirth rhetoric as allowing a people to aspire towards a new utopian society;
when the scapegoat is eliminated, a rebirth will occur. The morally negative action of elimination is justified by a
positive goal of symbolic rebirth, where all ideals are realised. It will only occur once in the lifetime.
Commercial use
Another trope is Commercial use. Commercial use rhetoric offers a non-economic interpretation of economic
problems that appeals to the class that will benefit the most if the competition is removed. Thus, Burke (1941)
identifies Hitler's attribution of Germany's economic difficulties to "Jewish" moneylenders, suggesting that if they
were removed, "Aryan" finance would be in control.
Journal citations of The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle"
The following journal articles reference The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle":
• "Telling it like it is: Jim Pankiw and Politics of Racism", Rhetor. Journal of the Canadian Society for the Study of
Rhetoric, 2007, p1-23, 23p; (AN 27747329)
• Blain, Michael "The politics of victimage", Critical Discourse Studies, April 2005, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p. 31-50, 20p;
doi:10.1080/17405900500052168; (AN 16669758)
• Engels, Jeremy, "Reading the Riot Act: Rhetoric, Psychology, and Counter-Revolutionary Discourse in Shays's
Rebellion, 1786–1787", Quarterly Journal of Speech, February 2005, Vol. 91 Issue 1, p. 63-88, 26p;
doi:10.1080/00335630500157532; (AN 17941694)
• Katz, Steven B., "GUEST EDITORIAL: A RESPONSE TO PATRICK MOORE'S "QUESTIONING THE
MOTIVES OF TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION AND RHETORIC: STEVEN KATZ'S 'ETHIC OF
EXPEDIENCY'"." Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 2006, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p. 1-8, 8p; (AN
20338972)
• Kiewe, Amos, "Theodore Herzl's The Jewish State: Prophetic Rhetoric in the Service of Political Objectives",
Journal of Communication & Religion, September 2003, Vol. 26 Issue 2, p. 208-239, 32p; (AN 14350131)
• Lee, Michael J., "The Populist Chameleon: The People's Party, Huey Long, George Wallace, and the Populist
Argumentative Frame", Quarterly Journal of Speech, November 2006, Vol. 92 Issue 4, p..355-378, 24p;
doi:10.1080/00335630601080385; (AN 24875979)
• Maddux, Kristy, "Finding Comedy in Theology: A Hopeful Supplement to Kenneth Burke's Logology",
Philosophy & Rhetoric, 2006, Vol. 39 Issue 3, p, 208-232, 25p; (AN 22497430)
• Moore, Mark P., "To Execute Capital Punishment: The Mortification and Scapegoating of Illinois Governor
George Ryan", Western Journal of Communication, October 2006, Vol. 70 Issue 4, p. 311-330, 20p;
doi:10.1080/10570310600992129; (AN 23234017)
7
The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle"
• Roberts-Miller, Patricia, "DEMOCRACY, DEMAGOGUERY, AND CRITICAL RHETORIC", Rhetoric &
Public Affairs, Fall 2005, Vol. 8 Issue 3, p. 459-476, 18p; (AN 18536135)
• Spielvogel, Christian, "'YOU KNOW WHERE I STAND': MORAL FRAMING OF THE WAR ON
TERRORISM AND THE IRAQ WAR IN THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN", Rhetoric & Public Affairs,
Winter 2005, Vol. 8 Issue 4, p. 549-569, 21p; (AN 19628709)
• "In Praise of Kenneth Burke: His "The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'" Revisited", Josef Schmidt, Rhetor, V.1, 2004
[1]
References
• Burke, Kenneth (1939). "The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle". The Southern Review 5; 1-21.
• Burke, Kenneth (1941). "The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle" in The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic
Action. New York: Vintage. p. 191-220. Reprinted Berkley, California: University of California Press. (1974).
ISBN 0-520-02483-4
• Burke, Kenneth (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN
0-520-01546-0
• Burke, Kenneth (1989). "The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle" in On Symbols and Society. Burke, Kenneth & Gusfield,
Joseph R. (eds.). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. p. 211-231. ISBN 0-226-08078-1
• Girard, Rene (1987). Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Wink, Walter (1992). Engaging the Powers, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
References
[1] http:/ / uregina. ca/ ~rheaults/ rhetor/ 2004/ schmidt. pdf
Definition of man
Definition of Man, sometimes now referred to as Definition of Human, originated from a summary essay of
Kenneth Burke (1897–1993) which he included in his 1966 work, Language as Symbolic Action. Burke's work in
communication has spanned many fields and focuses primarily on rhetoric. Perhaps he is best known for his theory
of Dramatism, wherein he characterizes life to not just reflect or be like a drama but rather that life is drama.[1]
Definition
Burke's definition of man states: "Man is the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal, inventor of
the negative (or moralized by the negative), separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making,
goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order), and rotten with perfection".[2] Essentially, Burke's
definition maintains that man is distinct from other creatures by the virtue of his use of symbols to communicate, his
understanding of negation, his separation from nature by his own techniques, his existence in differing social
structures, and his goal to become better than he presently is.
Symbol-Using Animal
Burke distinguishes man from other animals by drawing an analogy between man and birds. He argues that unlike
birds, which cannot use symbols to communicate, man is able to use language towards pragmatic ends. To illustrate
this point, Burke recalls seeing a bird trapped inside a college classroom. The windows were open, but the bird kept
flying upwards to the ceiling, rather than through the window. If the bird could use symbols to communicate then
one could simply inform the bird of the open windows and it could fly out to freedom. Its natural instinct to fly up
8
Definition of man
coupled by its inability to use symbols, however, prevents its escape. Burke, also argues that not only does man use
symbols, but concedes that man makes and misuses symbols as well.[3]
Condensation
One aspect of symbols that Burke points out in his discussion of Sigmund Freud's work is condensation. This
explains man's ability to condense symbols into categories that can be understood by others to include a variety of
other symbols. The example he gives is using the word furniture to refer to chairs, tables, etc.[4]
Burke's defining of man in these terms leads to man's quest for identity and social belonging.[5] Burke sees all human
action as infused with symbols. These symbols are used to help create our sense of who we are and where we fit. In
order to accomplish these, man seeks for differences and commonalities respectively.
Inventor of the Negative
While Burke struggles with using the word inventor for he feels that language has invented man, he points out that
negatives do not exist in nature. He contends that negatives are purely a characteristic of symbol systems, which he
has already determined belong uniquely to man. He further refers to morality as being particularly human and based
largely on the idea of negatives; that is, there are things we should not do.[6]
Intrinsic to this portion of Burke's Definition is the idea of paradox. Burke explains that the idea of negation is, by its
nature, paradoxical. He explains that conditioning a statement with a negative draws a positive image of that very
statement. This, he argues, defeats the purpose of negation, yet is an inescapable situation.[7]
Separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making
In this section of Burke's definition he describes man's natural state as being that of basic needs and appetites.
However, because of his tools and language, he has taken on a nature completely different than that of his original
state. He cites an example of a day when the electricity of New York City went out and how unnatural it seemed for
the streets to be filled with darkness; darkness being a state of man's first nature. However, because of man's tools, a
state of lighted streets has become natural.[8] One major example of man's instruments is exemplified in
technology.[9] Technology has accomplished the task of separating man from nature.
Goaded by the spirit of hierarchy
This portion of Burke's description seeks to define man as being drawn to order and status. He points to positions in
society that imply this fact. One such example he draws upon is the division of labor that exists in society. Others are
titles of nobility and peasantry.[10]
Rotten with perfection
This last portion of Burke's definition has particular importance to his other philosophical theories of man. Man
being rotten with perfection speaks to the motives that are distinct in man; motives being an intrinsic part of Burke's
Dramatism, distinguishing action from motion.
Burke refers to Aristotle's notion of entelechy, which states that we seek to reach the perfection of our kind. This,
however, is not present in nature. Burke points out that a rock and a tree are perfectly acceptable as being what they
are, but not so with man for he aims to be higher than he is.[11]
While man's striving for perfection may afford him to reach admirable goals and progress, Burke also sees man's
goal of perfection as one rife with danger. He points to our concepts of perfection in accordance with other terms.
One particularly clear example he gives is the perfection for which was strived by the Nazis thus alluding to the
consequences to which such ambitions may lead. Lastly, Burke explains that such dichotomies of perfection give
9
Definition of man
credence to man's belief in God and Devil and Heaven and Hell.[12]
Modern-day applications
Feminist scholarship has shown a use of Burke's definition as a framework by which a definition for woman can be
derived. Their definition is as follows: "Woman is the symbol-receiving animal, inventor of nothing, submerged in
her natural conditions by instruments of man's making, goaded at the bottom of hierarchy, and rotten by
perfection".[13] This particular definition clearly conveys a perception that views man as the suppressor of woman
and the cause for her restrained condition.
One notable scholar, Celeste Condit, has written in an effort to modernize Burke's works and his "definition of man"
in particular by calling for a Post-Burkean philosophy that takes Burke's ideas and transports them into what she
calls the new scene, or modern day. She calls particularly for a restructuring each part of Burke's definition into
terms that are founded on but surpass radical feminist ideologies as seen above. Condit defines people as those who
play with symbols, invent the negative and possible morality, changed from nature by tools that men and woman
have collectively made, struggling for equality, and at times rotten and perfect. Condit seeks to transform Burke's
emphases of race and class into gender and culture.
J. MacLennan has used Burkean ideas, particularly his dramatistic pentad, in analyzing criminal behavior and
offering an understanding of criminal behavior that is often at odds with the ideas of many criminologists and
psychologists.[14] Of particular interest to MacLennan is Burke's first clause in his definition of man as a
"symbol-using animal". MacLennan maintains that this clause, coupled with Burke's ideas of motive, help explain
criminal behavior. Burke posits that man uses symbols to obtain his goals, thus his motives are often carried out as
acts based on his intentions. Thus Burke maintains that man's actions (use or misuse of symbols) are based on
choices and not a compulsion or sickness. This has great implications for modern psychology which often views
abnormal and criminal behavior as an illness that is forced upon those who act out in unacceptable ways.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Miller, K. Communication theories: Perspective, processes and contexts (New York: McGraw Hill, 2005), p. 96
Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p. 16
Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.3-4
Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.7
MacLennan, J. (2005). A rhetorical journey into darkness: Crime scene profiling as Burkean analysis. KBJounal, 1, (2). Retrieved October 26,
2006, from www.kbjournal.org
[6] Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.9-13
[7] Brock, B., Burke, K., Burgess, P., & Simons, H. (1985) Dramatism as ontology or epistemology: A symposium. Communication Quarterly,
33, 17-33.
[8] Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.13-15
[9] Wess, R. (2006). Ecocriticism and Kenneth Burke: An introduction. KBJournal, 2 (2). Retrieved October 26, 2006, from www.kbjournal.org
[10] Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.15-16
[11] Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.16-20
[12] Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, p.20
[13] Condit, Celeste. (1992). Post burke: Transcending the sub-stance of dramatism, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 78, (3), 349-355
[14] MacLennan, J. (2005). A rhetorical journey into darkness: Crime scene profiling as Burkean analysis. KBJounal, 1, (2). Retrieved October
26, 2006, from www.kbjournal.org
10
Definition of man
Additional reading
• Burke, Kenneth. Language As Symbolic Action: Essays On Life, Literature and Method. Berkeley: University of
California, 1968. Print
• Burke, K. (2006). Definition of Humans. Purdue University. (http://www.cla.purdue.edu/dblakesley/burke/
human/index.html)
• Crusius, Timothy. (1999). Kenneth Burke and the Conversation after Philosophy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press. Ch. 6 discusses the "definition of man."
Dramatism
"All the world’s a stage."
William Shakespeare
Dramatism, an interpretive communication studies theory, was developed by Kenneth Burke as a way to analyze
public speaking. Dramatism focuses on the role of the critic and their responsibility of uncovering a speaker’s
motives. In this theory, Burke discusses two important ideas – that life IS drama, and that the ultimate motive of
rhetoric is the purging of guilt. There are three key concepts associated with dramatism – identification, the
dramatistic pentad, and guilt-redemption.[1]
Key Concepts
Dramatistic Pentad
The Dramatistic Pentad is an instrument used by the critic to discover how the speaker convinces the audience to
accept his view of reality. This is done through the five key elements of human drama – act, scene, agent, agency,
and purpose.[1]
•
•
•
•
•
Act: What was done
Scene: Where it was done
Agent: Who did it
Agency: How the speaker did it; methods or techniques
Purpose: Why it happened
While it is important to understand each element of the Pentad on its own, it is more important to understand how the
elements work together. This is called a ratio, and there are ten possible ratios within the Pentad. Burke maintained
that analyzing the ratios of a speaker’s presentation would allow the critic to realize why the speaker selected a
certain strategy and what this means about their worldview.
The Pentad is a simple tool for seeing and understanding the complexity of a situation. It reveals the nuances and
complications of language as symbolic action, which in turn, opens up our perspective.[2]
11
Dramatism
Guilt Redemption
According to Burke, Guilt Redemption is considered the plot of all human drama, or the root of all rhetoric. In this
perspective, Burke concluded that the ultimate motivation of man is to purge oneself of one's sense of guilt through
public speaking. The term guilt covers tension, anxiety, shame, disgust, embarrassment, and other similar feelings.
Guilt serves as a motivating factor that drives the human drama.
Burke claimed that the speaker could purge their guilt in one of two ways:
The first way is through victimage, or the process of scapegoating. Here, the speaker blames an external source for
his ills.[1] According to Burke, there are two different types of scapegoating, universal and factional. In universal
scapegoating, the speaker blames everyone for the problem, so the audience associates and even feels sorry for the
victim, because it includes themselves. In fractional scapegoating, the speaker blames a specific group or a specific
person for their problems. This creates a division within the audience.[3] The victim, whoever it may be, is vilified, or
made up to violate the ideals of social order, like normalcy or decency. As a result, by people who take action
against the villains become heroized because they are confronting evil.[4]
The second way the speaker purges their guilt is through mortification. This is a confession of guilt by the speaker
and a request for forgiveness.[1] Normally, these people are sentenced to a certain punishment so they can reflect and
realize their sins. This punishment is specifically a kind of “death,” literal or figuratively.
Many speakers experience a combination of these two guilt-purging options.
Application and Uses of theory
• Ideas studied by scholars in a variety of fields, including English, communication, political science, psychology,
sociology
• Analyze public address (why a speaker selects a certain strategy to identify with audience, like a Malcolm X
speech)
• Religious themes
• Political advertising and political campaigns
• Corporate realm, business influence on federal policy agenda
• Used in writing courses to help students understand how language produces knowledge, professional
communication, case studies
• Examine the nature of texts and narratives
• Study to test and compare other Burkeian methods
• Diplomacy as an example of stagecraft
Notes
[1] Griffin, Em. (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory. (7th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
[2] Fox, Catherine.(2002). Beyond the Tyranny of the Real: Revisiting Burke's Pentad as Research Method for Professional Communication.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 11, 365-388.
[3] Moore, M. P. (2006). To Execute Capital Punishment: The Mortification and Scapegoating of Illinois Governor George Ryan. Western
Journal Of Communication, 70(4), 311-330. doi:10.1080/10570310600992129
[4] Blain, M. (2005). The politics of victimage:. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(1), 31-50. doi:10.1080/17405900500052168
References
• Adams, Gregory (1963). All the World's a Stage. New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Benoit, William L. (1983). Systems of Explanation: Aristotle and Burke on Cause. Rhetoric Society Quarterly,
13, 41-57.
• Brock, Bernard L.; Burke, Kenneth; Burgess, Parke G.; Simons, Herbert W. (1985). Dramatism as Ontology or
Epistemology: A Symposium. Communication Quarterly, 33, 17-33.
12
Dramatism
• Burke, Kenneth. Kenneth Burke on Shakespeare. (http://www.parlorpress.com/shakespeare.html) Parlor Press,
2007.
• Burke, Kenneth. (1978). "Questions and Answers about the Pentad." (http://www.jstor.org/view/0010096x/
ap020128/02a00010/0) College Composition and Communication, 29(4), 330-335.
• Crable, Bryan. (2000). Burke's Perspective on Perspectives: Grounding Dramatism in the Representative
Anecdote. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86, 318-333.
• Fox, Catherine.(2002). Beyond the Tyranny of the Real: Revisiting Burke's Pentad as Research Method for
Professional Communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 11, 365-388.
• Griffin, Em. (2006). A First Look at Communication Theory. (6th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Hamlin, William J.; Nichols, Harold J. (1973). The Interest Value of Rhetorical Strategies Derived from Kenneth
Burke's Pentad. Western Speech, 37, 97-102.
• Manning, Peter K. (1999). High Risk Narratives: Textual Adventures. Qualitative Sociology, 22, 285-299.
• Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts.(2nd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
• Overington, M. (1977). Kenneth Burke and the Method of Dramatism. Theory and Society, 4, 131-156.
Dramatistic pentad
The dramatistic pentad forms the core structure of dramatism, a method for examining motivations that the
renowned literary critic Kenneth Burke developed. Dramatism recommends the use of a metalinguistic approach to
stories about human action that investigates the roles and uses of five rhetorical elements common to all narratives,
each of which is related to a question. These five rhetorical elements form the "dramatistic pentad." Burke argues
that an evaluation of the relative emphasis that is given to each of the five elements by a human drama enables a
determination of the motive for the behaviour of its characters. A character's stress on one element over the others
suggests their world view.
Burke introduced the pentad in his 1945 book "A Grammar of Motives". Burke based his pentad on the scholastic
hexameter which defines "questions to be answered in the treatment of a topic: Who, what, where, by what means,
why, how, when".[1] Burke created the pentad by combining several of the categories in the scholastic hexameter.
The result was a pentad that has the five categories of: act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose. Burke states, "The
'who' is obviously covered by agent. Scene covers the 'where' and the 'when'. The 'why' is purpose. 'How' and 'by
what means' fall under agency. All that is left to take care of is act in our terms and 'what' in the scholastic
formula".[2]
The pentad also closely follows the journalistic 'Five Ws': who, what, when, where, why. 'Who' maps to agent.
'What' maps to action. 'When' and 'Where' map to scene. 'Why' maps to purpose. There is no direct mapping from the
Five Ws to the pentads category of agency but Geoff Hart states "Some authorities add a sixth question, “how”, to
this list, but “how to” information generally fits under what, where, or when, depending on the nature of the
information." [3]
13
Dramatistic pentad
Rhetorical elements of the dramatistic pentad
The dramatistic pentad comprises the five rhetorical elements:
Act
Act, which is associated with dramatic action verbs and answers the question "what?", is related to the world view of
realism; What happened? What is the action? What is going on? What action; what thoughts?
Scene
Scene, which is associated with the setting of an act and answers the questions "when?" and "where?", is related to
the world view of materialism and minimal or non-existent free will.
Agent
Agent, which answers the question "whom?", reflects the world view of philosophical idealism.
Agency
Agency (means), which is associated with the person or the organization that committed the deed and answers the
question "how?", implies a pragmatic point of view.
Purpose
Purpose, which is associated with meaning and answers the question "why?", indicates that the character seeks unity
through identification with an ultimate meaning of life. Reflects the world view of mysticism.
Notes
[1] Burke, Kenneth. "A Grammar of Motives". University of California Press, 1969, p. 228
[2] Burke, Kenneth. "A Grammar of Motives". University of California Press, 1969, p. 228.
[3] "The Five Ws of Online Help". by Geoff Hart, TECHWR-L. Retrieved April 30, 2012.
14
Article Sources and Contributors
Article Sources and Contributors
Kenneth Burke Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=516851707 Contributors: Acélan, Alan W, Alanbilansky, Alansohn, Alphacat2, Andycjp, Aristophanes68, Ashot Gabrielyan,
B cubed, Burkeophile, C.Fred, Charles Matthews, Cheddar2000, Clariosophic, Commodore Sloat, Cpiral, D6, DASonnenfeld, DMG413, Dblakesley, DionysosProteus, Dobie80, Ebaumbach,
Edunoramus, Fjwright04, Geogre, GhostofSuperslum, Gkerkvliet, Gobonobo, GoingBatty, Itsjoey, JJL, Jtmorgan, JzG, Kate, Katharineamy, Lockley, Martarius, Mattbarton.exe, MeltBanana,
Mercurywoodrose, Michael David, Morninj, Naolae, Nataliemoine, Noosphere, Nunya210, OM, Outbox5, Peter1c, ProfKen101, Radh, Radiohawk, Redf0x, ReverendG, Rrburke, Rudowsky,
Shawn in Montreal, Sighrik, Smartings, Sparagmite, Sproateus, Stefanomione, Sterry2607, SummerWithMorons, Szarka, Tfarrell, Ulric1313, Usuallylucid, Vinay Varma, Virbonusdicendiperitus,
Warren Allen Smith, Whatcape, WikiHannibal, 80 anonymous edits
Language As Symbolic Action Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=513325988 Contributors: Gregbard, Magioladitis, Malcolmxl5, Mercurywoodrose, Nunya210, R'n'B, 3
anonymous edits
The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=521462262 Contributors: Argyriou, Baumjay, Cberlet, Charles Matthews, Coelacan, Commodore Sloat,
David91, Ed Poor, Eleland, Error, GCarty, Gennarous, Grumpyyoungman01, Iohannes Animosus, Javier Carro, Jmabel, John of Reading, Jwanders, Khazar2, LittleRedAyAy, Mercurywoodrose,
Nikodemos, Panarjedde, Penbat, Rjwilmsi, Sardanaphalus, Stefanomione, Trekphiler, Wafulz, Wolfling, WordyGirl90, Zantastik, 24 anonymous edits
Definition of man Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=513541692 Contributors: Atlantima, Beland, Bongwarrior, Chasingsol, Ehque, Hmains, Johnsonste, Killian441,
Madconnor, Malcolma, Melchoir, Reaper Eternal, Tac4life, The Evil Spartan, Vrenator, Y control, 48 anonymous edits
Dramatism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=517278259 Contributors: ADeFreeuw, Arouzie, B cubed, Cgerben, DBigXray, Fatsodoctor, Gregbard, Guroadrunner,
IceCreamAntisocial, JHunterJ, Kelso878, KimberlyHolmes360, Niceguyedc, Nick Number, Pedant17, Penbat, Piotrus, Retired username, SchuminWeb, Sedonaarizona, Sparagmite, Tide rolls,
Woodshed, 31 anonymous edits
Dramatistic pentad Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=517396610 Contributors: Canuckian89, Clicketyclack, Crystallina, Davecrosby uk, Deximer, DionysosProteus,
Gpscholar, JDReso, Jeangoodwin, Jll, JubalHarshaw, Michael Hardy, R'n'B, 17 anonymous edits
15
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
16