Counterpoint: Kenneth Burke and Aristotle’s Theories on Rhetoric

By L. Virginia Holland

Kenneth Duva Burke (1897-1993) was an American literary theorist, poet, essayist, and novelist, who wrote on 20th-century philosophy, aesthetics, criticism, and rhetorical theory. As a literary theorist, Burke was best known for his analyses based on the nature of knowledge. One of the first individuals to stray away from more traditional rhetoric and view literature as “symbolic action,” Burke was unorthodox, concerning himself not only with literary texts, but with the elements of the text that interacted with the audience: social, historical, political background, author biography.

“It is not our purpose to discover Burke’s indebtedness, conscious or unconscious, to Aristotle. The problem of influence is a difficult one and it is not at issue here. Rather, we merely hope to discover in what respects Burke’s rhetorical theory and Aristotle’s appear to be like or unlike.

“We shall attempt, first of all, to set forth Kenneth Burke’s basic assumptions regarding the nature of man, society, and the function of the speaker in that society. With these assumptions serving as the matrix of his theory, we shall next attempt to make Burke’s theory of rhetoric explicit. We shall consider Burke’s conception of (1) the function of rhetoric, (2) its definitions, (3) its scope, and (4) the methodological devices of which it makes use. Finally, using this same fourfold perspective, we shall compare Burke’s conception of rhetorical theory with Aristotle’s.”—L. Virginia Holland

• Language: English
• Publisher: Valmy Publishing
• Release date: Dec 2, 2018
• ISBN: 9781789127546

L. Virginia Holland

Laura Virginia Holland (1915-2010) was an American author. She was born in Lincoln, Illinois on November 10, 1915, to David Logan Holland (1888-1981) and Helen Richards Holland (1890-1953), and went on to teach English and speech at various high schools and colleges, including Roosevelt High School in St. Louis, Missouri. She published Counterpoint: Kenneth Burke and Aristotle’s Theories on Rhetoric in 1959. Ms. Holland passed away on December 24, 2010, aged 95, and was buried at Oak Grove Cemetery in Bel-Nor, St. Louis, Missouri.

Book preview

This edition is published by Valmy Publishing – www.pp-publishing.com

To join our mailing list for new titles or for issues with our books – [e-mail]

Or on Facebook

Text originally published in 1959 under the same title.

© Valmy Publishing 2018, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Publisher’s Note

Although in most cases we have retained the Author’s original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern reader’s benefit.

We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.

Counterpoint:

KENNETH BURKE AND ARISTOTLE’S

Theories Of Rhetoric

by

L. Virginia Holland

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

DEDICATION 4

PREFACE 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 7

INTRODUCTION 8

CHAPTER ONE — Some Basic Assumptions of Kenneth Burke, Critic and Rhetorician 10

The Nature of Man 10

Burke’s View of Society 14

The Speaker’s Function in Society 18

CHAPTER TWO — The Function and Definition of Rhetoric 24

Function of Rhetoric 24

Burke’s Definition of Rhetoric 26

CHAPTER THREE — The Scope of Rhetoric 37

CHAPTER FOUR — The Methodological Devices of Identification 52

CHAPTER FIVE — Burke and Aristotle on the Function of Rhetoric 64

The Nature of Man 64

Aristotle’s Views of Society 65

The Speaker in Society 66

CHAPTER SIX — Burke and Aristotle on Definition and Scope 71

CHAPTER SEVEN — Burke and Aristotle on Methodology 79

CHAPTER EIGHT — Conclusion 85

REFERENCE LIST 86

Primary Sources 86

Articles 86

Secondary Sources 88

REQUEST FROM THE PUBLISHER 89

DEDICATION

For My Father

and

In Memory of My Mother

Whose Life Was and Is an Inspiration

PREFACE

The ideas of Kenneth Burke have for some years now been the subject of heated discussion. Intellectual combats have been waged by those who would ask, What IS Burke saying? of those who are willing to rise to the challenge and answer, Plenty!

It is no secret that sociologists, philosophers, educators, literary critics and students of rhetoric are both stimulated and baffled by the intellect of this 20th century figure. As evidence of this statement one has only to consider the namings which they have placed upon his writings. He is, so the story goes, revealing and imaginative, but often esoteric, obscure and unsystematic. His thoughts, they imply, are sometimes as elusive as shadows. Getting the jist of him is like trying to put salt on the tail of a brilliantly plumaged bird. Once you think you have him firmly in hand, you find yourself clutching a vivid tail feather or two while he has gone soaring off again, singing, like Shelley’s cloud of fire into the blue deep.

Now revealing and imaginative Burke certainly is, but obscure and unsystematic, never! Soar, Burke does into the deep blue; but he can still be heard by those who have their inner ear sensitized to variations on a theme.

Shadows come, you know, from things of substance. Since the substance upon which Kenneth Burke so roguishly perches is the word symbol, it is my hope that a discussion of Burke’s conception of the word symbol and the rhetoric in it will dispel any shadows that may remain.

In the allegory of the cave Plato shows man in the role of a prisoner needing liberation. Analogically speaking, Burke like Plato’s instructor in the myth is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring us to name them, believing that the dramatistic method of language analysis which he suggests we use is a practical means that man can take to avoid mistaking shadows for realities, and throw off his chains. Showing us how he makes use of this method Burke tackles the problem of naming with all of the systematization of approach of that ancient, hard-headed philosopher, Aristotle; and although Burke’s melody is independent, it does in some respects act as a counterpoint to that of Aristotle’s.

Burke admittedly aligns himself with the intelligentsia which he believes carries the major burden of revising the materials of social relationships and evolves new solutions to society’s problems. Most of us would agree, I think, that it is on the shoulders of the intellectual that the problem of social criticism rests most heavily, and like myself, will welcome any method which brings the problem and its solution into better focus.

Many, however, and I am one of these, will be at loggerheads with Burke on the political solution towards which he aims his method, in the same way that one can admire the mechanism of a cleverly designed high powered rifle, but wish to shoot it at a target quite different from the one the inventor has chosen.

Consequently, there would seem to me to be no reason why Burke’s political and social views need impair the effectiveness of his methodologies for linguistic analysis. I believe that a critic with a less liberal frame of reference than Burke’s can utilize the dramatistic approach to criticism and the methodological devices within it in the interest of conservatism. The pertinent point here, as I see it, is that when the conservative critic functions dialectically he is in the position through the use of the very tool Burke advocates to discover and discount radical prejudices of any nature; and when he functions rhetorically he is in the position of being able, also, to coach the right kind of word magic to replace the wrong kind of word magic. The important difference it seems to me is that in the case of the conservative critic, his conception of the right kind of word magic, will in the majority of instances, be quite different from K. B’s.

As I have said at the beginning, Burke is anything but unsystematic. The song he sings is perfectly audible to the ear trained in language analysis, and it is my belief that America needs more such educated ears; for if it is heard by all there is no doubt in my mind that it will receive the proper evaluation. It is my hope that my book will serve as something of a Burke primer, and that it will prove to be an eye opener which will remove the bafflement from the baffler and make all students of language more aware that their own dialectical aptitude is a must, and that rhetoric is indeed a weapon which can be used for offense or for defense depending on their own dialectical analysis of the social scene.

In one respect Burke is something like Emerson’s poet—the Namer or Language-maker, naming things sometimes after their appearance, sometimes after their essence.... There is, however, this difference. Κ. B. although an intuitive man does not name intuitively like the poet, but scientifically and analytically with a purpose in mind, completely aware when he is naming rhetorically and when he is naming dialectically.

For those who are still bent on classifying Burke, so that they may rub his wings in the same cage with the sociologist, or the literary critic, or the philosopher, or the educator, or the rhetorician, and on ad infinitum, I would offer this opinion. He is all of these. He is an educator operating rhetorically and propagandistically to persuade the public of ideals which he wishes to see put into practice. These ideals pertain to the subject matter of the political philosopher, the sociologist and the economist. He is extremely circumspect and the subtlety with which he advocates his policies to avoid irritating others with a manner of approach that might initiate counter-policies is, I think, the basis of the bafflement so many find on reading him. It is, I believe, this same subtlety of approach which causes so many readers to confuse the minor theme with the major theme and to place him primarily in the field of literary criticism, when his major field, I believe, lies squarely in the area of social criticism.

L.V.H

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To those persons who in one way or another have been instrumental in the writing of this book, I would like to express my appreciation. The critical comments which I received from Dr. Karl R. Wallace, Chairman of the Speech Department of the University of Illinois, Dr. Marie Hochmuth of the same department, Dr. Nicholson of the Philosophy Department of the University of Illinois, and the other members of my doctoral committee who generously took time from their own scholarly pursuits to read these chapters in their manuscript form, were certainly appreciated. To Kenneth Burke for the most obvious of reasons, I extend my thanks. To Margaret L. Gilliam for her loyal belief in my efforts, and to Dr. Ralph Brundrett and Bert Gibson who were friends in need, indeed, I want to express my gratefulness. And finally, because this book would never have reached completion without their ministrations to the frail chariot in which the spirit rides, it is with a warm and grateful twinkle’ in my eye that I salute Dr. Robert G. Warner and Dr. Henry T. Cooper, physicians from St. Louis, Missouri.

L. V. H.

INTRODUCTION

Critical comments upon the works of Kenneth Burke have been numerous and laudatory. In a review of Burke’s A Grammar of Motives, Charles Morris has said, It is the same Burke with the same quest and the same strategy, as baffling, as inconclusive, as penetrating, as rewarding as ever, working on the largest and most important job of criticism that is being done among us.{1} W. H. Auden writes, No isolated quotations can do justice to Mr. Burke’s subtlety and good sense, and no doubts that one may entertain about the soundness of his critical position can obscure the fact that he is unquestionably the most brilliant and suggestive critic now writing in America.{2} Malcolm Cowley remarks, By touching and asking questions and taking nothing for granted he has come to be one of the few truly speculative thinkers of our time.{3} Isidor Schneider comments, Mr. Burke says that rhetoric, far from being artifice, is the most natural and constant feature of literature.{4} Kenneth Burke, himself, says, The main ideal of criticism, as I conceive it, is to use all that is there to use{5} It would appear, therefore, that Burke is worth studying.

Although the student of rhetorical theory is immensely interested in Burke, no one, except Professor Hochmuth, has attempted to systematize his view of rhetoric. And certainly no one has attempted the large task of deciding whether Burke has contributed significantly to rhetorical theory. This book makes a start in that direction. Specifically, its purpose is to investigate the Aristotelianism in Kenneth Burke’s rhetorical theory. Aristotle was chosen as a standard for comparison for two reasons. First, throughout his works, Burke makes numerous references to Aristotle which show his familiarity with the Stagirite. Burke has contended that the main ideal of criticism is to use all there is to use. He makes it clear that he is familiar with Aristotle’s works, especially his contribution to rhetorical theory. Consequently, we should like to discover in what ways Burke’s rhetorical theory parallels Aristotle and in what ways it differs from him, if it does. Second, Aristotle’s Rhetoric is recognized as the first systematic body of rhetorical theory extant. It is Aristotle who has provided the rhetorical framework upon which such later famous theorists as Cicero and Quintilian built their own theory of rhetoric. Moreover, we especially wish to compare Burke with Aristotle because the principles of persuasion set forth in the Rhetoric comes from the mind of a philosopher who is interested not only in rhetoric per se, but in politics and ethics also. It is Aristotle who first his theory of rhetoric with his theory of both these sciences.

It is not our purpose to discover Burke’s indebtedness, conscious or unconscious, to Aristotle. The problem of influence is a difficult one and it is not at issue here. Rather, we merely hope to discover in what respects Burke’s rhetorical theory and Aristotle’s appear to be like or unlike.

We shall attempt, first of all, to set forth Kenneth Burke’s basic assumptions regarding the nature of man, society, and the function of the speaker in that society. With these assumptions serving as the matrix of his theory, we shall next attempt to make Burke’s theory of rhetoric explicit. We shall consider Burke’s conception of (1) the function of rhetoric, (2) its definitions, (3) its scope, and (4) the methodological devices of which it makes use. Finally, using this same