As always Burke
still highly confuses me but I tried to pay close attention to the ideas he was
trying to convey. When he mentions the five terms; act, scene, agent, agency,
and purpose this made some sense to me. To me primarily all situations can be
analyzed using these five characteristics. It is especially easy to analyze TV
shows and movies based on these characteristics. I know this because in several
of my previous COM classes we have used Burke’s dramatic pentad to analyze
messages in the media, movies, and TV shows. However, in this introduction
piece reader can learn about these five terms and how they explain the motives
of people.
He discusses how
these terms can be used to simplify a much bigger picture. He believes that
these terms could be easily understood by anyone and do not require much
explanation. I think he makes a very good point, for instance explaining a
movie would be much easier by using the pentad to break down the plot, instead
of just rambling on about the movie. He also brings up that even with how
simple these five components are there is still available room for confusion to
occur. He discusses how vastly different people are and that therefore
situations are interpreted vastly different. For instance everyone has a
different interpretation for what family means to him or her. This is caused by
the fact everyone had a different experience when it comes his or her personal
family.
Burke also
brings up this whole notion of the symbolic. As I have learned previously Burke
had this notion that man is the symbol using, symbol making, and
symbol-misusing animal. I think we will read more on it but Burke is heavily
into the notion of the symbolic. He
brings up the idea of the symbolic in order to Segway into his ideas regarding
transformation. When talking about transformation Burke discusses that it is
ambiguity that leads to transformation. This makes sense because, from what I
understand transformation is when an individual changes their mind because they
were influenced or persuaded to do so. Essentially rhetoric influences the
motives of an individual causing him or her to change their mind. However, if a
statement or an idea had no room for ambiguity then the individual would never
change their mind. However, because an argument or statement has multiple
interpretations and is seen to be ambiguous then a persons mind can be changed
too. Do you guys think it is easy to have a term that is not ambiguous? For
instance is there a term you think everyone would interpret the same?
Although I do
find Kenneth Burke to be super confusing I also find him to at least be less
conceited than the previous rhetoricians we have read about. He seems to try to
understand people more than Plato and the other rhetoricians we have read.
Burke searched to understand humans and how they think. Whereas the previous
philosopher are searching for an absolute truth and do not strive to understand
people because, they already feel they know everything. Do you guys agree? Or do you see previous
concepts we have learned about in Burkes work too?
Claire,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post and had a similar understanding of Burke after the first reading. After the second reading, about terministic screens, I felt like I better understood some of the points made in the introduction.
You mention how Burke notices that people are all very different and interpret situations differently as a result. I picked up on that same idea in the introduction and appreciated him making that point because it is very relevant to many modern issues. We see this idea really come to play in Burke's terministic screens because each individual perceives the world through a different screen. These screens explain why disagreements occur, since we interpret situations and messages based on the background we come from and the personal experiences we have had. My own screen is influenced by my experiences as a WSU student, a middle child, a Catholic, a daughter, and so much more.
Because everyone has a different system of perceiving the world around them, ambiguity will always exist. Burke accepts this idea and encourages us to use language as a way to resolve some ambiguity in the world, although we will never fully escape it. You wonder if there is any term that is not ambiguous and I don't think there is... I considered many different terms such as food, water, paper, ground, and they all would probably cause people to identify with dissimilar notions of these terms. For example, people would probably imagine their favorite kind of food, bottle of water, kind of paper, or ground outside their house. None of these identifications would be exactly the same, just as Burke says, "no one's 'personal equations' are quite identical with anyone else's" (52).
I also agree with you that Burke can be confusing but is admirable for attempting to really understand humans and the way they communicate with one another. This was probably a result of some of the psychology influences that were surrounding him during the time period he studied in. Even so, Burke does value humans as special and unique because of our symbol-using abilities. This ability is "a distinguishing characteristic of the human animal in general" according to Burke (52).
-Kaitlyn
Claire,
ReplyDeleteI know I was warned before I read Burke from you and others in our class, but I was still surprised at how confusing he was. I agree with you that he does seem more down to earth and approachable in his work than others we have read. I think it will still take a while for me to get used to his writing style. His work is definitely something you have to re-read a second time to make sure you have comprehended every element of his work. I enjoyed your post!