Transcript Burke, Scapegoating, and the Pentad

Kenneth Burke
1897-1993
Wherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric.
And wherever there is 'meaning' there is
persuasion.
The Key Question
The Key Question
What is involved, when we say what people are
doing and why they are doing it?
“In a rounded statement of motives,
you must have some words that name
“In a rounded statement of motives,
you must have some words that name
• Act– names what took place, in thought or
deed
“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
“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
“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
“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
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
Ratios
People will disagree about how to describe
meaning and motive.
Ratios
People will disagree about how to describe
meaning and motive. These disagreements
typically entail different emphases regarding
scene-act-agent-agency-purpose
For Example
For Example
Gun control advocates may emphasize the role
of the agency/instrument in a given crime
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).
For Example
Pro-life advocates define the act as murder and
describe the body of the mother as part of the
scene
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).
For Example
• Advocates for climate change policy typically
highlight the impact of human agents, and
especially the role of fossil fuels (agency).
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.
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…
Critics
Critics
• Ask how does a piece of public discourse
organize scene-act-agent-agency-purpose?
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).
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.
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).
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 resources of ambiguity”
(xix).
Voice for the Voiceless
Example of the agent-agency ratio
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/11/1
73816690/new-voices-for-the-voicelesssynthetic-speech-gets-an-upgrade
Crashing Motive
• http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/us/ohiodeadly-crash/index.html
Nugent’s Rhetoric of Motives
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilUKCqmXw
TQ
Scapegoating
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
Scapegoating
Scapegoating
• Anything that can be said to be a part of a
whole can be equally said to be apart from
the whole
Scapegoating
• For example, where are we?
Scapegoating
• For example, where are we?
– Are we in Mckeesport or White Oak? Are we in
Penn State? Are we in Pittsburgh? Are we in the
United States of America?
Scapegoating
• For example, where are we?
– Are we in Mckeesport or 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
Scapegoating
• For example, where are we?
– Are we in Mckeesport or 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
Scapegoating
Now add guilt
Scapegoating
Now add guilt
• If a crime is committed, do we identify or
divide?
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?”
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?”
Scapegoating
Now add guilt
• Burke reveals two typical strategies for dealing
with threats to order:
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
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 apart from the problem;
placing the burden on another and symbolically
“killing” (transforming/exiling) the other to restore
order.
Scapegoating
Again,
Scapegoating
Again, the rhetorician/public speaker tends to
exploit ambiguity (and deny alternatives)
Scapegoating
Again, the rhetorician/public speaker tends to
exploit ambiguity (and deny alternatives)
And
The critic tends to reveal ambiguity and open up
alternatives.
Scapegoating
Scapegoating in the Art of Enemy Making:
Sam Keen Lecture: Making Enemies