Kenneth Burke, George Carlin, and Language as Symbolic Action
Today is our second day working through Kenneth Burke’s rhetorical theory. I want to open by listening to George Carlin, since we didn’t get to it last class:
Today we work through two more of Burke’s central essays, one on metaphysics and the other on language (and the way language structures/impacts our relation to the world).
I want to spend the beginning of class dealing with the former, and the end of class dealing with the latter. So, first, I will ask you to pair up. Each pair will deal with one clause of Burke’s definition. Working together, submit a five sentence summary of your clause to Canvas.
First, Carlin’s bit on euphemism:
As I mentioned last class, one of my good friends argues that Carlin’s resistance to euphemism reflects the very kind of verbal realism that Burke works against. On the other hand, I would argue that Carlin’s rant–while a redress of overly complicated language–also testifies to the idea that words themselves have agentive power, that words aren’t merely neutral carriers of information, but rather that they are symbolic actors, shaping the way we feel about what they/we think.
I would also argue that the most (in)famous bit of Carlin’s career, his “7 dirty words” routine, provides a concrete example of how words can have symbolic power beyond their mere meaning. We could trace the rhetorical effect (not affect!) of this speech, noting all of the actants (people, laws, places, ideas, morals) it pulls into conversation, and its impact on cultural practices.
All of this is a very roundabout way to get at what is at stake in Burke’s insistence that language is “a deflection of reality.” Earlier in the semester we talked about stasis theory, and the idea that the first stage of an argument is to agree on what something is, to label it. Burke reminds us that there is no such thing as a neutral or innocent naming–that any entity could be named otherwise, and that the decision what to name something is, potentially, momumentally important, ethically loaded, or downright dangerous; we will see this in the terms of technical communication when we read Steve Katz’s “The Ethic of Expediency” later this semester. For now, I would offer this tweet to set a conversation about the importance of recognizing the non-essential nature of our terminologies:
'Terrorist attack in Chapel Hill…'
'Victims are Muslim'
'Ehem, A man shot 3 terrorists in self defense'
#foxnews pic.twitter.com/mVsoZo2zGK
— Basit (@iBasitt) February 12, 2015
Because that leads to this.
Writing a Longer Paper
Since I know a few people are intimidated by the thought of a 20 page paper, I wanted to break the process down a bit to show you what it looks like. First it is helpful to think about what kinds of research questions often drive rhetorical scholarship:
- What do people think about X? [Bibliographic survey, review essay]
- How does X compare to Y? [Compare and contrast essay]
- What can X tell us about Y? [Analysis essay]
Each of these questions (modes of invention) leads to a slightly different kind of arrangement (or outline). The third example above is the standard analytical essay format. Here’s what the third paper comes to look like:
- Introduction: 2-3 pages, argues why the research is necessary now (kairos), why you/I should be interested in it (nomos, identification, who are “we the audience,” identifies the exact object of study, and what research argues–what new thing does it offer?
- Previous research: 2-3 pages, what previous research does this work extend? what similar studies are there? Sometimes this is part of the introduction, but usually it comes next. Not all analytical essays need this, either.
- Theoretical Lens: 3-4 pages. At its heart, and analytical essay is an attempt to look at something in a new way. As such, these essays have to build a lens. In Burke’s language, let’s call this “a way of seeing.” What theoretical ideas or writers are you using to look at an object?
- A core part of any research paper is the thesis, which begins as a question, but should end up as a very, very specific statement. This is why it is important to compose the thesis LAST. This might be something like: “This paper uses Kenneth Burke’s notions of identification and symbolic action, combined with a recognition of Diogenes’s notion of cynicism, to explicate and trace the impact of George Carlin’s infamous speech. By shocking Americans sense of “good taste,” Carlin’s comedy engendered a Supreme Court case that reshaped both American law and American attitudes by fundamentally altering the American ethos, our shared identity, and amplifying our fundamental belief in free speech.”
- Let’s think about this thesis mathematically, as: This paper uses A.1 and A.2 along with B to [VERB] [OBJECT OF STUDY]. Such analysis [VERB] [IMPORTANCE OF WORK]. The object of study can be a text, person, idea, event, building, object, film, piece of music, etc. The verbs can come from a long list: examine, engender, reveal, enforces, supports, contradicts, challenges, questions, problematizes, complicates, echoes, urges us, etc.
- In the case of my hypothetical paper here, then, we would take 4 pages to explicate those theoretical concepts using primary and secondary sources: what is Burke’s theory of identification (1 1/3 page), what is his notion of symbolic action (1 1/3 page), and who is Diogenes and what is his notion of cynicism (1 1/3 page)?
- Examination of A.1: 2-3 pages How Carlins’s speech identifies its audience, who are “we”?
- Examination of A.2: 2-3 pages
- Examination of B: 2-3 pages
- Conclusion 1 page: what have you proved? why should we care again? what can we (that audience you shape in the introduction) do next, do tomorrow, do to make this scholarship relevant to our lives?
So that gives us a minimum of 14 pages. But, let me assure you, the minimum will NOT be the problem. Once you start following this format the challenge will be squeezing everything I am asking you to do in ONLY 20 pages.
If you choose to write the shorter paper, the analytical paper, then you are doing the same work I have outlined above, but in a more narrow scope (a smaller, more defined, single object) and with a far more specific lens. But the structure of the paper is the same (i.e., this paper reveals the pivotal role kairos, ethos, and pathos play in Alex Rodriguez’s recent attempt to apologize for using performance-enhancing drugs). You are performing the same kind of close reading, but I do not expect the additional research into prior scholarship or the larger scope.
Homework
There’s three essays on the homepage to read for homework. Each work with Kenneth Burke, but I offer them also as examples of research projects–to what extent do they follow the archetype that I offered above?
