Holly Sands November, 2013 Essay Assignment #2 5th An Analysis of Truth in Classical and Burkean Rhetoric In my research, I have

been investigating the subject of truth in Burkean rhetoric as well as how it relates to traditional Platonic and Aristotelian rhetorical theory. I found that the role of truth is not as explicitly outlined in Burkes theory of rhetoric as it is in that of the classical. However, this is not to say that the truth has no role in Burkes new rhetoric; rather, its explication is so subtle, that it takes much careful attention to analyze and understand. As it pertains to the subject of truth and my understanding of it, I have found Kenneth Burkes work on rhetoric fascinating, as he contends that humans do not communicate upon what is actually true, but what they perceive to be true. Among the first to breakaway from traditional rhetorical theory, Kenneth Burke introduced a new rhetoric to the world in the 20th century. A literary critic, Burke theorized rhetoric as a theory of Identification, not Persuasion. He declared in his Rhetoric of Motives, The classical notion of clear persuasive intent is not an accurate fit for describing the ways in which the members of a group promote social cohesion by acting rhetorically upon themselves and others. (1325) To what does Burke refer? Rhetoric as a theory of persuasion has been the accurate fit for describing communication for thousands of years. Platos theory of rhetoric as persuasion is the movement of the soul through words, on any occasion, toward the good. It is a theory that connects the speaker and the audience on a moral foundation through persuasion in order to attain an

ultimate truth. Aristotles theory, on the other hand, is the faculty of observing any given case the available means of persuasion. It too theorizes the connection between the speaker and the audience, though now by virtue of a methodical foundation through the available means of persuasion. Aristotle believes that a truth exists, but he holds that it is unattainable by humans, and we will only ever know as much as what is probable or common knowledge. For these philosophers, rhetoric is concerned with speech spoken and written in order to learn, or get as close to learning some truth. Burke differs from Plato and Aristotle not only on the truth, but also on his definition of rhetoric as a whole, owing to the fact that his theory is entirely separate from traditional rhetoric. Burke theorizes rhetoric as Identification. Refer to the quote previously mentioned. He asserts that persuasion is not a sufficient rhetorical explanation for the ways humans in nature function. Instead, identification is. The reason is that in order to persuade, one must first identify. Burke holds that identification is an extension of persuasion. This is an important point when comparing old rhetoric with new rhetoric because Burke does not condemn traditional rhetoric as persuasion; rather he expands on it, and suggests an alternative way of understanding rhetoric through identification. To identify with someone is to share substance - common beliefs, ideas, and traits - with him. Humans are all divided until identification is discovered. For example, A is not identical with colleague, B. But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B. (Rhetoric of Motives 1325) They are consubstantial. I would argue further that some truth lies in where individuals share substance. I think this is a valid claim because their

consubstantiality implies cohesion within society, which is a fundamental aspect in the study of human nature that Burke is so concerned with. It is also worth pointing out that Burke is concerned with human relations and our perception of reality, as opposed to how and why humans communicate, as is the focus of the traditional philosophers. Burkean theory of rhetoric is the use of words as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols (Rhetoric of Motives). What does this mean? In order to understand this theory, I found it helpful to break it down as we did for Aristotles theory: The use of words as a symbolic means refers to language as a symbol. Inducing refers to influencing or persuading. Cooperation comes from the discovery of identification, and therefore reducing division among individuals. And lastly, in beings that by nature respond to symbols refers to man as the inherent symbol-using animal. (Language as Symbolic Action 3) Therefore, Burkes rhetoric can be thought of as replacing division in human nature with identification which would induce cooperation through language as a symbol. Unlike old rhetoric, Burkean rhetorical theory is not concerned with an external truth. According to Burke, humans communicate rhetorically about what they perceive to be true, instead of what is actually true. What is true in nature is that all human beings are divided, and once humans acknowledge identification, where they share substance is also true. The symbols through which they communicate however, such as language, do not reveal the truth, but an apparent and perceived truth of the world and reality.

Kenneth Burke set forth a number of ideas in order to relay his rhetorical theory. Most notable among these ideas is his Definition of Man outlined in his work, Language as Symbolic Action. The subject of truth can also be studied here. Burke contends that human nature depends on action, and language he believes, is an action. Moreover, our actions are symbols, thus, language is a form of symbolic action. He organizes his definition into five clauses, the first being Man is the symbol-using animal. (3) Humans have the ability to communicate through symbols, such as language, unlike other organisms. What we perceive the world to be is but a construct of our symbol systems, (5) not actually what the world is. Man clings to a kind of nave verbal realism that refuses to realize the full extent of the role played by symbolocity in his notions of reality. (5) In other words, we are so caught up in our communication systems that we accept the image of reality that language creates instead of the true substance of reality. Language is sheer emptiness, as compared with the substance of the things they name. (5-6) Therefore, I would argue that language, or any other symbol, acts as a sort of metainstrument for abstracting our minds from what is concrete and true about the world. Burke then offers the second clause, the inventor of the negative. (9) What is true in nature is that no negatives exist. This ingenious addition to the universe, Burke argues, is solely a product of human symbol systems. (9) This reinforces the fact that humans do not communicate rhetorically upon the truth. Through language we can talk about things that do not even exist in nature. But how can this be so? Why has man created the negative perspective to perceive reality? Burke goes on

further to say, Words are NOT the things they stand for, (12) even though we communicate freely and undisturbed with these exact words. The way we communicate through metaphors and irony, for example, is not literal. Though what is ironic is that Burkes primary concern with these tropes are not with their purely figurative usage, but with their role in the discovery and description of the truth. (Four Master Tropes 1) To what truth does Burke refer? This incongruity, not only in language, seems to be apparent in many aspects of Burkes theory of rhetoric as identification. I think it would be reasonable to suggest that this incongruity reflects the way that Burke sees human nature. Burkes definition of man continues in three final clauses: separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy, and rotten with perfection. (Language as Symbolic Action 16) Our division in nature is true, and our need to identify with others creates a social hierarchy that determines the way we live. But unlike traditional rhetoric, man is driven by perfection, not the truth. Man has a propensity for identification so as to survive in nature. Man identifies through language, a terministic screen that abstracts man from understanding true and concrete reality. Burke likens a terministic screen to a window. It directs and focuses our attention to particular aspects of reality (44). To further understand language as symbolic action, he states: Even as any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function also as a deflection of reality. (45) How can selections of reality both reflect and deflect reality? Again, Burke plays with the concept of incongruity.

Through language, we can never get out of our terministic screens. Or in other words, through language we dont have access the truth, only what we perceive to be true. Language thus, is only a means for man to view life as he perceives it, but not life itself. I think Plato and Aristotle would have different views on Kenneth Burkes development of their classical rhetorical theories. First, I think Plato would disagree with Burke on the conclusion that there is no attainable truth in rhetoric. That language merely reflects an apparent truth would be considered flattery to Plato, and would be ruled unethical and likened to the false rhetoric used by the Sophists. On the other hand, I think Aristotle would be more likely to agree with Kenneth Burke. The reason is that Aristotle holds that there is a truth, but mankind cannot know it. Burke holds that a truth can be known, but we cannot know it through language, or any symbol for that matter. Further, Burke does not disprove appropriate means for persuasion, and therefore identification. What I find interesting however is that classical rhetorical theory as persuasion, outlined by Plato and Aristotle, both have specific boundaries as to whom rhetoric concerns, and it is the speaker and the audience. As for Burke, however, it seems as though rhetoric concerns everyone in human nature that communicates with one another. The role of rhetoric finds its significance collectively among an entire community or nation, not just one specific discourse or audience. Burke expands rhetoric from spoken and written speech, to all varieties of action, and I think this is huge when comparing old rhetoric with new rhetoric.

On a more contemporary note, rhetoric as identification as theorized by Burke is a fascinating subject to study, especially as it pertains to truth. Humans communicate everyday through language, and to realize that the world as we know it is only a perception of what we think is true as opposed to an absolute truth is kind of daunting. Kenneth Burkes theory of rhetoric as identification really is a boundless and unending study. He grapples with so many specific ideas and situations, that it would take eons for a beginner in rhetoric studies, like me, to figure out. Again, I am eager to study the role of truth in the upcoming theories of rhetoric.

I pledge that I have neither given nor received unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.

Works Cited
Aristotle. "Rhetoric." Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1990. 179-236. Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1945. . "Four Master Tropes." Kenyon Review (1941): 421-438. . Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966. . Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Plato. "Gorgias." Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1990. 87-138. Plato. "Phaedrus." Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1990. 138-168.