Theoretical Analysis Paper
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 17013
Theoretical Analysis Paper
Aristotle and Kenneth Burke belong to two different times in the history. Aristotle’s conception of rhetoric is classical while Burke is an authority in the modern rhetoric. Kenneth Burke’s theories have been largely credited with drawing philosophers’ attention to contemporary and classical rhetoric. This discussion is an attempt to compare and contrast the tenets of Aristotle and Burke’s conceptions of rhetoric.
One similarity between Aristotle’s view of rhetoric and that of Burke is the concept that considers man as an animal that uses language to unite emotion and reason in discourse with each other. Language as a tool for the creation of knowledge is central to the concept of the language using animal or man. The concept is sometimes described as the belief on how it is related to the knowing mind. According to Aristotle, there is a system of language where all of an individual’s resources are united. These include will, intellect, and emotion. All these unite and communicate with each other. Consequently, rhetoric acknowledges that both emotion and knowledge play critical roles in moving human beings to crisis. The audience can be either opposed, in agreement partially or indifferent in rhetorical discourse. Consequently, one must aim at bringing them both the significance and relevance of the knowledge of the subject. Moreover, Aristotle’s views on rhetoric, epistemology, ethics, and logic demonstrate he recognized the power of dynamism involved in the creation of the human mind. The views further show that Aristotle knew a man had immense ability to make use of symbols because he viewed language as a medium for communicating judgments about worldly issues (Bizzell and Herzberg 50).
Burke also posits language as the basis of rhetoric. Burke articulates his view in a famous statement where he claimed rhetoric has its roots in one essential, wholly realistic function of language. This function, he asserted, continually underwent regeneration. Burke further looked at language as a way of inducing cooperation in symbol-using and responding beings. However, as expected in classical rhetoric, the system of language of Aristotle differs from that of Burke. The distinction that results from the two periods is analyzed. While Aristotle’s focus was primarily on oral discourse, Burke addressed himself to written discourse. By the time Burke was conceiving his views on rhetoric, there had been a split of departments into that of philosophy, English, speech, as well as linguistics. This hampered Burke’s understanding of the methodological and historical ramifications of the writing or speaking distinction. Burke and other contemporary theorists like Jacques Derrida and Walter Ong have been able to answer questions relating to the link between written and spoken discourse.
Another major similarity between Burke’s contemporary and Aristotelian classical rhetoric lies on the methodology. Both view rhetoric as a dynamic or technical methodology where joint technology may be accessed by a self and other as well as by a rhetor and audience. Aristotle explains the nature of enthymeme, which is dynamically related to logos, pathos, as well as ethos. Only joint production of enthymemes by the audience and speaker makes them occur. Intimately uniting the speaker to his or her audience, they provide extremely strong proofs. Rather than being monologic or even manipulative, the classical perspective of rhetoric by Aristotle provides a description of the dynamism of the interaction language mediate between the rhetor and his or her audience. In Aristotle’s school of thought, classical elements of rhetoric among them subject matter, rhetor, and audience are dynamic forces that interlock. Modern perspectives, in particular those of Kenneth Burke may provide the way through which people identify with each other while understanding such identification through attributing it to their motives. Similarly, the system of rhetoric posts discourse as a process that facilitates a speaker and audience’s access to common knowledge (Garver 34).
The preceding conception of rhetoric as an epistemic or creative may be viewed as a prerequisite to developing a viable and dynamic discourse. Theorists, both classical and contemporary, may consider any other perspective as reducing the importance of rhetoric to a stylistic embellishment or naming of parts, which characterizes most of the theories of rhetoric. However, this baseline similarity ought not to mask the distinction between Aristotle and Burke’s conceptions of rhetoric, the differences of which are equally important. As previously stated, the distinction is not about the characteristics of proof, notion of man, relationship of the audience to the speaker, nor the purpose for which rhetoric is intended. Rather, the distinction is about the status as well as the nature of knowledge (Rorty 89).
Knowledge in the classical perspective, Aristotle concedes, can be of the contingent or universal. Knowledge of the universal is necessary. It may operate in either the scientific or the theoretical realm. Unlike Burke, Aristotle introduces the knowledge of the contingent, doxa. Doxa has been described as the act of people knowing the world around them, of which change limits and characterizes. That is the reality of contingency. The realm of rhetoric does not go beyond contingency, and the linkages among reality, thought, and language are based on an epistemology that posits contingent reality notwithstanding the knower. Put in other words, thought and language find an application in rhetoric where they influence the formation of krisis (judgment) as an ideal basis of worldly matters. Aristotle believes contingent reality has its world in a flux state. Understanding how this world works requires one to apply his or her intellect as this reality itself is believed to be informed by strong first principles (Bizzell and Herzberg 61).
Burke’s conception of rhetoric, in its modernity, fails to rest on confident epistemology of this kind. Knowledge also does not enjoy a status as clearly defined as that in classical rhetoric. Indeed, this disharmony between the two theorists put people in serious disagreements over the definition of knowledge. Nevertheless, human beings agree, in general, on the ability of man to articulate such disagreements. The link between language, reality, and thought in Burke’s contemporary perspectives is thought to be based in the knower’s nature rather than an independent reality. In addition, it is not discoverable fully because the interplay of language and thought constitute what Burke considers modern reality. Burke has done much work to investigate into the discourse of the interplay between thought and language. Other contemporary philosophers have dedicated so much of their time in the same activity. However, there still lacks a totally articulated theory of how this interplay works. Diverse disciplines such as literary criticism, philosophy, language, psychology, physical sciences, as well as anthropology suggest the lack of such a theory. According to his contemporary views, Burke believes the universe is a center within people that should be spoken of in terms of language, the latter of which ought to be shaped by intercourse exigencies. Absurdity arises whenever humans try to eliminate their perspective from the picture within themselves.
Aristotle’s and Burke’s conception of rhetoric bears another compelling similarity based on the potential of language to link a speaker to his or her audience as they discover shared knowledge. In both perspectives, rhetoric can inform and clarify activities into various interrelated fields. Aristotle thought, places rhetoric thought, and on the same platform with other areas of knowledge, a task he achieves through the establishment of rhetoric as the corollary or antistrophes of dialect. In the Organon, he works out these relationships painstakingly. Shifting reality, doxa, and contingent reality all get application in rhetoric, ethics, as well as poetry. Hence, where certainty cannot be achieved, rhetoric comes in handy as it can help to solve complex problems (Wess 98).
Aristotle’s conception of rhetoric saw the development of a theory that was closely practice-related. For the Greek civilization, and later the Roman one, rhetorical was made a practical discourse that found major applicability in society and had an integral role in ancient education. While Aristotle’s views established a working relationship between language and thought, Burke adapted those relationships, acted out the theory, and used it to base rhetoric that served a means of guiding action and knowing (Bizzell and Herzberg 84).
There is a gaping distinction between Aristotle’s and Burke’s rhetoric theory. Whereas the conception of Aristotle is revolutionary, that of Burke is not in any way systematic. Aristotle describes rhetoric as an art, relating it to a variety of fields of knowledge. In spite of the efforts Burke and other contemporary rhetoricians have put, they have not come up with a theory as convincing as that of Aristotle. In fact, the age of Kenneth Burke has been characterized by what has been seen as a divorce of practice and theory of rhetoric from a radical fragmentation of various disciplines. Burke’s theory has been shown to be characterized by mutual sharing, understanding, as well as a two-way communication. However, Burke has not been able to explain how well this theory accounts for the practice of rhetoric of the twenty-first century, which is now escalating new heights of using language manipulatively.
Burke’s conception of rhetoric is fraught with massive fragmentation in both theoretical and practical education. In the speech department, theorists focus only on theoretical aspects of dialogue. Nonetheless, those in the department of English find themselves struggling with abstrude queries in texts of literature. In the linguistic department, theories aim at describing the grammatical aspects of sentences. Burke’s views practical rhetorical instructions in reading, writing, and speaking as relegated to part-time lecturers and undergraduate students. Consequently, most of Burke’s works provide compendia of tips on how to approach rhetorical discourse. Nevertheless, they fail to base such evidence theoretically in a framework related to belief, action, and language (Bygrave 12).
Such a perspective is obviously very different compared to the elegant theory of Aristotle. Failure to come up with a systematic theory that informs modern practice makes the current needs for elaborate explanations great. It is believable that Kenneth Burke’s perspectives offer a contemporary basis for reuniting rhetorical practice and theory. However, such a reunion requires one to reinstate the art near the center of his or her curriculum (Bobbitt 450).
The distinctions drawn persistently between Aristotle and Burke’s conceptions of rhetoric may be placed in four areas. However, in this discussion, they have been stated in terms that vary widely. One area theorists cite as distinguishing the two philosopher’s conceptions frequently is the image of man and that of society. Aristotle’s classical view takes a man as an animal that can deal with problems in the world using logic and reason primarily because of his rational nature. Furthermore, the man Aristotle describes lives at a time when social cohesion, stable values, and harmonized cultural ideals abounded. In contrast, Burke’s conception views man as a communal, rhetorical, and symbol-using animal that uses private as well as shared symbols to constitute the world. This man, according to Burke, lives in an aleatoric world where unifying values and norms may be scarce or even non-existent.
The other distinction usually drawn between Aristotle’s and Burke’s perspectives is based on proofs. While Aristotle emphasizes on logical proofs, Burke stresses psychological or emotional ones. The proof by Aristotle influences his rhetoric proof directly. Aristotle recognizes that people may often experience passions that sway them, but unlike other animals they reason and as such logical argument is central to persuasive discourse. His classical belief held that the subject matter ought to be analyzed, requiring a classical orator to be a logician and the modern one a practical psychologist (Connors and Ede 130).
The relationship between the audience and rhetor has been cited as another major difference between the perspectives of Aristotle and those of Burke. In Aristotle’s conception, this relationship is characterized by unidirectional, manipulative, and antagonistic communication. According to Burke, rhetoric posits a relationship of cooperation between a rhetor and his or her audience, rather than an antagonistic one. This relationship is based on mutual trust, understanding, two-way communication, as well as empathy. Aristotle, on the other hand, supports the Rogerian rhetoric; this entails enlightened cooperation and verbal coercion. While Burke has been praised for his sociological rhetoric, as well as social discourse, Aristotle has been criticized for his coercive approach.
Importantly, the goals of rhetoric as described by the two authors can be used to draw a distinction between them. Aristotle believes rhetoric is meant to persuade an audience to agree with an individual’s point of view. In other words, Aristotelian rhetoric emphasizes winning or success above everything else. It often depicts the rhetor as trying to coerce other people or impose his or her will on them. The orator may or may not manage to impel the audience fro, their opinion to his or induce them to spring into action. To achieve this, the rhetor has to appeal to reason, will, as well as emotion. Burke stresses on not only communication and understanding, but also minimization of threat as tools of persuasion. Thus, Burke asserts contemporary rhetoric should embrace communication and exposition as its goals (Ballif and Moran 120).
Classical Aristotelian rhetoric is based on the artistic truths: the logos, pathos, and ethos. On the other hand, Burke’s perspective favors scientific facts and/or inartistic proofs. Burke, however, has denied that he has relied on any facts; he claims he has only applied theories meant to explain all the situations he describes. This means that when a novel theory that looks more sensible in a given situation comes along, he is likely to adopt it instead. Sure Burke relies on some empirical evidence. Nevertheless, unless there are theories to accord meaning to the evidence or make it knowledge, this evidence becomes meaningless. As a humanist of the 21st century, Burke understands knowledge may change due to reframing. Therefore, science as the modern search for truth is quite a popular science conception, but rhetoric involves the science of pursuance of the audience. Aristotle, on the other hand, thinks mostly of the rhetoric in contexts like campaign speeches.
Burke’s perspective of rhetoric on politics have to do with the political center, one is not allowed to identify with the center. In his view, a person whose stance is developed based on practical exigencies and existing viewpoints has to gravitate to the middle. In fact, he praises revolutionist parties from both left and right for their being contempt in some circumstances. Being foundational himself, he views foundational and sophistic rhetoric as progressive and revolutionary. While Burke and Aristotle may agree on liberal rhetoric, nobody knows whether there is an agreement on the political ideology associated with such rhetoric. In describing how politics and liberal rhetoric relate, Burke suggests that by identifying.
Aristotle agrees with his teacher Plato, who coined the term rhetoric. This Greek philosopher obtained the term ‘rhktfr’, that meant orator in ancient Greece. Aristotle views rhetoric as the practice and skill of issuing ceremonial, persuasive, or formal public addresses. According to Burke, however, rhetoric in the modern context may be used occasionally in a semi-derogatory manner. In this context, the speaker is being considered as using an overly pretentious language. In addition, a flowery speech or a written text that is overly descriptive but lacks true value also fall under contemporary rhetoric, according to Burke (Carta 111).
A major difference lies in the scope of rhetoric as conceived by Aristotle and Burke. Aristotle limited classical rhetoric to political discourse realm. Aristotle believed rhetoric taught speakers on how to become good persuaders in public institutions like assemblies and courtrooms, as well as forums. In ancient Greece, political participation was valued highly, and this made rhetoric emerge as a critical tool for political persuasion. Consequently, Aristotle associated rhetoric with those political origins and the association remains in some quarters. On the other hand, Burke liberates rhetoric to encompass all aspects of human culture. Burke believes that modern rhetorical study addresses highly diverse domains. His opinion is that rhetoric should entail discourses of various domains such as fine art, journalism, digital media, cartography, social sciences, fiction, architecture, and history, as well as the classical domains of law and politics. Concisely, Burke approaches rhetoric as a way of communication, which entails strategic and purposeful manipulation of figures and symbols. Burke recommends trial of rhetoric in technical writing, public relations, lobbying, as well as advertising.
Burke’s position on rhetoric has helped to mirror the line between contemporary and classical rhetoric. Burke’s conception of rhetoric goes for its study as a political discourse. Nevertheless, Aristotelian rhetoric objects to such limitation. To characterize the conflict ensuing between the two views, rhetoric has been viewed as a container versus the contained. Aristotelian perspective forcibly restrains rhetoric study to an extremely limited field. It ignores numerous crucial applications of rhetoric, practice, as well as criticism. Simultaneously, Burke’s perspective wants to stretch out rhetorical study beyond a theoretical value of coherence. Through the influence of Burke, individuals studying rhetorical discourse have developed a tendency of expanding its domain beyond texts of speech and written passages. Kenneth Burke suggests human beings should utilize rhetoric in resolving conflicts. This becomes extremely easy when shared interests and characteristics in symbols are identified. Naturally, human beings tend to engage in processes of identification; one is identifying within a certain group. This additional perspective of rhetoric as the process of identifying human beings broadened the rhetorical scope from overt and strategic political influence and persuasion to implicit identification tactics (Eden 206).
Numerous other theorists have since pursued Burke’s school of thought like Boyd White. These have helped to elaborate Burke’s views further as they understand some of the rhetorical concepts better than average readers do. Rhetoric is viewed in the broad social experience domain in Burke’s notion of rhetoric of constitution. When there is influence from any social construction theory, culture reconstitution is done through thought and language. People can influence language just as the latter can influence them. Burke observes language as a social construct that depends solely on the meaning society attaches to it. Since language is extremely flexible and changes readily, its usage is rhetorical, but this depends on the circumstances. Authors, Burke believe, always try to construct their world anew and to persuade the audience to share this world through a persuasive text (Worthington 25).
Anytime individuals produce meaning or speak, they engage in some form of rhetorical process. This has permeated all fields as Burke suggests. Even in science, the behaviors of which people once thought were the objective reporting knowledge after testing it, the scientist has to persuade his or her audience to approve the findings. This only happens when the scientist demonstrates sufficiently that his or her experiment or study was done reliably, resulting in evidence that sufficiently supports the inferences (Bizzell and Herzberg 105).
Aristotelian view is patterned structurally after that of dialectic as both involve production of discourse. Techniques of dialectic are, therefore, a prerequisite in finding of truth in all theoretical matters. Practical matters like adjudicating an individual’s innocence or guilt in court or even adjudicating a reasonable action to be executed in an assembly all require rhetorical methods. According to Aristotle, the prominent characteristics of dialectic are the explication of the objectives, lack of a determined matter, utility type, elaboration on previous practice, as well as its definition of the function. For Aristotle and other classical theorists, dialectic entails persuasion. Therefore, by saying, rhetoric can be considered a dialectic antistrophe; Aristotle implies that rhetoric has a scope or domain of application parallel to the scope or domain of the use of dialectic. By characterizing rhetoric as a dialectic antistrophe, Aristotle implies that rhetoric can be applied instead of using dialectic when discussing legislative issues in an assembly or civic issues in court (Dixon 90).
In conclusion, Aristotle’s conceives rhetoric as a tool that facilitates the unification of theory and practice, rhetor and audience, as well as action and language. When rhetoric is viewed this way, it becomes a useful model for people’s antistrophes. For rhetoric to attain the full potential in modern times, some of the perspectives Burke tried to indoctrinate in his audience have to be discarded, with subsequent adoption of the Aristotle’s classical model. Only then will rhetoric inform a framework for conduct and instruction in speaking, writing, and reading.