On Kenneth Burke

A little late, I know. And I’ll go ahead and be honest enough to say that I did not completely understand all of what Burke was trying to say. His focus tended to be somewhat psychological.

Burke says, “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” (70). He also says that this “principle of perfection is central to the nature of language motive” because it is this principle that leads man to “action” or “motion.” Was the “perfection” an ideal that Burke says can only be understood through the use of active language?

I think what I found to be a significant point made by Burke was highlighted in Aristotle’s observation of rhetoric: that “antithesis is an exceptionally effective rhetorical device.” He says that this approach helps to redirect criticism and unites the audience on the basis of a general consensus of what/who to blame. I cannot say that I was ever really taught the importance of an antithesis until last semester. I had always thought that the best way to persuade in writing or writing was achieved through a thorough explanation and view of the side from which you argued.

However, it is just as important (if not more important) to examine and address the counterpart in light of your own argument. I think in this way a speaker/writer ascertains his credibility. By addressing the possible questions or concerns of your own argument from the perspective of those who may disagree, you demonstrate a prescience that will allow you to intelligently cover your argument. It demonstrates an understanding of an opposing side, that their claims may seem logical, but you intend to show how your argument provides a better answer to certain questions or address particular problems.