Response to Burke

I had previously read Burke in another class and was aware of his theory of the pentad. I had not; however, considered it true use in this class until reading it again in Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. After I reread his idea of the pentad, I truly begin to see the connection between my previous class (being English 310) and this class. I begin to understand that my professor (Jacobi) was simply trying to get us to use rhetoric without our realization of it. Not that he was tricking us, but simply that we did not have a higher understanding of rhetoric and yet we were still able to apply it to our works. I suppose that this point only goes to further the previous discussion of the influence of rhetoric over our lives.
First, I must say that I agree with his initial definition of rhetoric as “the use of words by human agents to form attitudes or to induce actions in other human agents,” (191) as it is fairly simple on the outside and appears to be similar to the previous definitions we have discussed. Also, despite some disagreement from other students, I believe his definition of identification is correct to an extent. How else do we identify ourselves if not from the people that we associate with, the groups that we join, and the values that we hold? I believe that these are the basic parts used in identification. I also agree with his second type of identification which is that of a common enemy. I believe that without World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union may never have had incentive to unite (or identify with one another). In response to his definition of the third type of identification, I do have some qualms. I do believe that someone can unconsciously identify with a group but I believe that this only counts as rhetoric if the group is aware of the consubstantially that it is attempting to gain. If the group is unconsciously identifying with people on an unconscious level then it cannot be considered rhetoric.
Also, it seems to me that despite the class’ general agreement that rhetoric should only be used to further good causes this is not the consensus of the rhetoric world. The book states that “it may help rhetors justify their conduct, turning actions that seem to be unethical or absurd into ones considered virtuous or accurate” (195). This is a very scary thought which I believe requires the rhetoric of Weaver to help to change.