Kenneth Burke

1. Kenneth Burke 1897-1993

4. Wherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric. And wherever there is 'meaning' there is persuasion.

5. The Key Question

6. The Key Question What is involved, when we say what people are doing and why they are doing it?

7. “In a rounded statement of motives, you must have some words that name

8. “In a rounded statement of motives, you must have some words that name • Act– names what took place, in thought or deed

9. “In a rounded statement of motives, you must have some words that name • Act– names what took place, in thought or deed • Scene—the background of the act; the situation or conditions for what occurred

10. “In a rounded statement of motives, you must have some words that name • Act– names what took place, in thought or deed • Scene—the background of the act; the situation or conditions for what occurred • Agent—the kind of person that was involved

11. “In a rounded statement of motives, you must have some words that name • Act– names what took place, in thought or deed • Scene—the background of the act; the situation or conditions for what occurred • Agent—the kind of person that was involved • Agency– the tools or means used

12. “In a rounded statement of motives, you must have some words that name • Act– names what took place, in thought or deed • Scene—the background of the act; the situation or conditions for what occurred • Agent—the kind of person that was involved • Agency– the tools or means used • Purpose—the goal or end

13. Descriptions that feature… • Scene: draw attention to what is natural, necessary, inevitable • Actor/Agent: draw attention to rationality, personality, individuality, the “subjective,” freedom • Act: draw attention to the unique, the momentary, the unprecedented • Agency: draw attention to the tools, the instruments, the means and ways actors“make do” • Purpose: draws attention to the goal, the end, the ultimate, the mystery

15. Ratios People will disagree about how to describe meaning and motive.

16. Ratios People will disagree about how to describe meaning and motive. These disagreements typically entail different emphases regarding scene-act-agent-agency-purpose

17. For Example

18. For Example Gun control advocates may emphasize the role of the agency/instrument in a given crime

19. For Example Gun control advocates may emphasize the role of the agency/instrument in a given crime Gun rights advocates, by contrast, emphasize the role of the agent/actor and perhaps the scene (poverty, mental health care, etc).

20. For Example Pro-life advocates define the act as murder and describe the body of the mother as part of the scene

21. For Example Pro-life advocates define the act as murder and describe the body of the mother as part of the scene Pro-choice advocates define the act as choice and focus, often, on the agency/means (arguing about protecting safe, effective abortions).

22. For Example • Advocates for climate change policy typically highlight the impact of human agents, and especially the role of fossil fuels (agency).

23. For Example • Advocates for climate change policy typically highlight the impact of human agents, and especially the role of fossil fuels (agency). • Climate change skeptics often argue that the scene (earth) is so vast and/or resilient that human agents cannot change it.

24. For Example • Advocates for climate change policy typically highlight the impact of human agents, and especially the role of fossil fuels (agency). • Climate change skeptics often argue that the scene (earth) is so vast and/or resilient that human agents cannot change it. (some connect this with a “purpose” based theme– there is no need/way to intervene in the divine plan…

25. Critics

26. Critics • Ask how does a piece of public discourse organize scene-act-agent-agency-purpose?

27. Critics • Ask how does a piece of public discourse organize scene-act-agent-agency-purpose? • Can the account of motive be widened? (that is, would a description that highlights the role of individual actors benefit from an account of scene, or means, etc).

28. Rhetoricians • By contrast, speakers often seek to highlight one of the terms and lowlight the others… thus narrowing the range of interpretations on behalf of an audience.

29. Final note • “A perfectionist might seek to evolve terms free of ambiguity and inconsistency…what we want [however] is not terms that avoid ambiguity, but terms that clearly reveal the strategic spots at which ambiguities necessarily arise” (xviii).

30. Final note • “A perfectionist might seek to evolve terms free of ambiguity and inconsistency…what we want [however] is not terms that avoid ambiguity, but terms that clearly reveal the strategic spots at which ambiguities necessarily arise” (xviii). • “Hence…we rather consider it our task to study and clarify the resourcesof ambiguity” (xix).

31. Voice for the Voiceless Example of the agent-agency ratio http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/11/173816690/new-voices-for-the-voiceless-synthetic-speech-gets-an-upgrade

32. Crashing Motive • http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/us/ohio-deadly-crash/index.html

33. Nugent’s Rhetoric of Motives http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilUKCqmXwTQ

34. Scapegoating

35. Scapegoating • Burke’s theory of scapegoating begins with the realization that people use language to symbolically identify things otherwise different and divide things otherwise similar. • Identification and division are essential rhetorical processes

36. Scapegoating

37. Scapegoating • Anything that can be said to be a part of a whole can be equally said to be apart from the whole

38. Scapegoating • For example, where are we?

39. Scapegoating • For example, where are we? • Are we in Mckeesportor White Oak? Are we in Penn State? Are we in Pittsburgh? Are we in the United States of America?

40. Scapegoating • For example, where are we? • Are we in Mckeesportor White Oak? Are we in Penn State? Are we in Pittsburgh? Are we in the United States of America? • As with Burke’s other ideas, the issue is not which answer is correct but how a rhetorician/critic uses the ambiguity

41. Scapegoating • For example, where are we? • Are we in Mckeesportor White Oak? Are we in Penn State? Are we in Pittsburgh? Are we in the United States of America? • As with Burke’s other ideas, the issue is not which answer is correct but how a rhetorician/critic uses the ambiguity • Public discourse tends to amplify/exploit one answer to such questions • Critics can open up alternatives

42. Scapegoating Now add guilt

43. Scapegoating Now add guilt • If a crime is committed, do we identify or divide?

44. Scapegoating Now add guilt • If a crime is committed, do we identify or divide? • For instance, does crime in Renzie Park happen “in Penn State?”

45. Scapegoating Now add guilt • If a crime is committed, do we identify or divide? • For instance, does crime in Renzie Park happen “in Penn State?” • Is Jerry Sandusky part of the “We” in “We are Penn State?”

46. Scapegoating Now add guilt • Burke reveals two typical strategies for dealing with threats to order:

47. Scapegoating Now add guilt • Burke reveals two typical strategies for dealing with threats to order: • Mortification: Identifying as a part of the problem and so symbolically “killing” (transforming) that part of oneself to address the cause

48. Scapegoating Now add guilt • Burke reveals two typical strategies for dealing with threats to order: • Mortification: Identifying as a part of the problem and so symbolically “killing” (transforming) that part of oneself to address the cause • Scapegoating: Dividing apartfrom the problem; placing the burden on another and symbolically “killing” (transforming/exiling) the other to restore order.

49. Scapegoating Again,

50. Scapegoating Again, the rhetorician/public speaker tends to exploit ambiguity (and deny alternatives)