Thoughts on Burke…

It seems to me that as we progress through rhetoricians and their explanations of what rhetoric is, things get more psychological. Burke says that in order to effectively persuade someone you must first identify with that person: “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.” This makes sense enough, and the examples included help to further explain this idea. People tend to support those who they can relate to or find common similarities with. And people are usually inclined to exploit those similarities as a means to gaining approval.

Burke says that the second kind of identification functions through the introduction of an antithesis. An audience or individual has a tendency to be persuaded if they can agree on something they both oppose and “unite against the common enemy.” I did not particularly understand the third, “unconscious level,” of identification.

I thought that Burke made a good point in his assertion that “people communicate in an attempt to elimination division.” I had never thought about rhetoric being motivated or functioning in this way. But it makes sense. Rhetoric seeks to bring about a sense of agreement through language. If a rhetorician can get you to agree with his message, then he has accomplished his purpose.

To me, it seemed that his thoughts agreed to a certain extent with other perspectives we’ve read on rhetoric, as there is a general focus on persuasion, situation, and audience.