Burke Blog and Bumbling along trying to figure out the human condition of living in a society with language.

Wow! How great is his statement, “…I don’t want to be a virtuoso; I want to be a –a—oh hell, why not? I want to be a—yes—a genius. I want to learn to work, to work like a Sisyphus—that is my only chance. I am afraid, I confess it, but I am going to try hard. This is my final showdown. I am in it for life and death this time. Words, words—mountains of words—If I can do that I am saved.” I think I would have gotten along with Burke fabulously or annoyed him to death with questions and arguments against his answers.

Although his definition of rhetoric (“[use of words by humans to form attitudes or induce action in others]”) is very similar to most traditional definitions, it’s his concept of identity that that first caught my attention. I haven’t really studied Derrida, but I know enough of him and of others, such as Georges Bataille, to know that all language can be considered a set of symbols/associations, and therefore communication, in this line of thought, is all false. This rings back to the sophists, for me, who, even though they just manipulated the audience and were paid to persuade for more or lesser truths, they were using this language which is a symbol and therefore “deceiving” in two manners.

In his third type of identification, the one that “derives from situations where it goes unnoticed,” is the most odd to me. Here I enter into a minor argument with myself—although I consider these things, on a very basic level, to be natural to humans in trying to persuade and relate to their audience, but on another level, I feel now since I have seen these manipulations classified and categorized, it would nearly be unethical to employ the techniques. I understand the value of persuasion, but I am torn…shouldn’t persuasion be about the most logical and factual path? I understand not everyone will agree on one path and this is why these techniques are employed…and I admire that people go to such great lengths to understand the human psyche, but at the same time, I hate to feel manipulated.

And thank god he includes sales pitches, hysteria, and social etiquette (not to mention witchcraft--?—does the Bible and biblical literature fall into this category for him? Does any religious text?) in his scope of rhetoric. I consider a great deal of modern rhetoric as propaganda…perhaps this is how I can reconcile my mixed feelings towards the subject. Perhaps the third type of Burke’s identifications may be considered as propaganda. But then, the first and second types could also be considered propaganda. I don’t know, in another class I’m trying to define the distinction between metaphor and propaganda…so this class has played a great role in helping me find the tiniest of differences. Any one else have thoughts on hidden rhetoric (in commercials, pamphlets, billboards, reality tv, news broadcasts, etc.) as propaganda?

In Burke’s function of rhetoric, defining a situation among individuals could possibly be misleading. Couldn’t one find him/herself involved in a situation through another’s rhetoric when in actuality her/she is not truly involved? Some association or other will make him/her identify with the rhetoric, which may not have been meant for them, and suddenly they will find themselves involved in a situation not pertaining to them and perhaps not adequately equipped to deal with it. I’m just saying, it’s a possibility. And, also, rhetoric as “a stylized answer to that situation” may be mistaken for the best, or only, answer. If the rhetor is mistaken, or proven to be not as correct as they have thought, then they can mislead many people.

I’m not sure yet where I’m trying to take this. I see problems with either some of his definitions, or with language and communication in general. Really, isn’t true communication impossible? So rhetoric employs all these tactics and techniques to aid and assist and try to correct the problems of communication. And, in some instances, these techniques and aids can do more harm that good. And, either more harm or more good is generally the rhetor’s telos. Even if it is perceived as the good of the majority, the rhetor may be mistaken and has not always accounted for all individuals to which he/she/they are trying to appeal to.

Sorry this is so long! I’m really trying to iron out my thoughts and standpoint on the subject. I’ll save the rest of his article for my second posting, how’s that sound? See everyone in class!