Watch, and be amazed, as Mr. Burke writes about I-dent-i-fi-cation! The revolutionary idea that somethings are kinda like other things! But, these shared properties don't just stop at the simple or physical. For you see, metaphors can kinda be like other metaphors! And then he is gonna say that a few more times in as many different ways. . . The point is: instead of looking at something as itself, you can think of it as a modified version of something similar! How deeply profound!
What's that you say?
"Identification is more about establishing common bonds regardless of truth behind them between people such that each might trust and/or persuade the other"?
Are you suggesting that our perception of the truth is more important than the truth itself? I wonder where we've heard that one before!
But that is far from all our Mr. Burke has in store! Revel in your own befuddlement as Mr. Burke wows you with his talk of ethics! He will topple the idea that science is without rhetoric! We have even prepared trash cans for you to deposit your long held beliefs regarding the relationship of science and rhetoric!
HA! You'll never look at state sponsored science in the same way once he's done with you!
Buy your tickets now to see him masterfully blend these two concepts into a cohesive rhetorical theory that is more than the sum of its parts! Truly, this is a spectacle that can't be missed! Thank you, and good night!
Liam, I'll admit that this post put some much needed humor into my day! I certainly did not think of the potential connection between sophism and Burke's theories before, but you make a compelling connection. Of course, Kenneth Burke's ideas seem to have been far more accepted in their time, while the sophists have experienced backlash from ancient Greece onward. Either way, it's interesting to see how rhetorical theory can often get repetitive and circle back to its origins, whether or not this similarity is intentional.
ReplyDeleteLiam, your posts are always a highlight. I think you make a solid connection between Burke and Sophism. Despite your valid point about "state-sponsored science" I think Burke's ideas about science and rhetoric were not so obvious to his readers at the time, and can still be challenging even now. We are taught to see science as unbiased/apolitical and infallible, despite the reality of who/what funds it and what it is used to excuse (like genocide). It reminds me of our discussion of historiography, in that history is similarly biased and fallible even though we often take it as face value, especially in K-12 education.
ReplyDeleteI think this is just to say that, despite disagreeing with a lot of criticism about Burke (his theory about the Rhetorical Situation is, dare I say, sin bin worthy in my eyes) I actually find "A Rhetoric of Motives" pretty important! Great post.
*Made a very silly mistake in misremembering Bitzer's Rhetorical Situation as belonging to Burke. The other theory that I'd read from Burke was that of Terministic Screens, which I also liked. Sorry!
DeleteWow, this was such an entertaining post! I loved it! I like how you discuss how Burke's theories are very similar to sophism, which is something that was degraded in Ancient Greece and Rome. I think it is interesting how Burke created his theories with the certain ideals of sophism, and then continued to have them mostly loved by society. It is truly fascinating to see how the change in different eras can create a change in acceptance of rhetorical ideologies. Burke is a very well respected rhetorician, but if he had lived in a different era, he surely would not be so well respected.
ReplyDeleteThis post is how I feel about a lot of theories discussed in academia nowadays--it can appear as if we're going around in circles discussing the same thing, which brings forth the question of why any of this is important. While I personally like Kenneth Burke (probably due to an early professor I had that showed a really entertaining presentation about him), the passive aggression shown in this post is still incredibly relatable to me. Surface-level, a lot of this course has seemed to be reiterations of the same basic idea throughout history; each new generation or major thinker wants to put their own spin on it, no matter how redundant that spin seems to be to us. This can make a subject like rhetoric resemble a dead horse that's been beaten into the ground, but I think it's saved when every once in a while we see a truly creative approach or a perspective that we don't normally hear from. These are the times that I remember the importance of rhetoric, not when I'm presented with another set of guidelines about speech that some old dead guy wants us to follow.
ReplyDelete