Romancing the Difference: Kenneth Burke, Bob Jones University, and the Rhetoric of Religious Fundamentalism (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Romancing the Difference: Kenneth Burke, Bob Jones University, and the Rhetoric of Religious Fundamentalism Phil Chidester Romancing the Difference: Kenneth Burke, Bob Jones University, and the Rhetoric of Religious Fundamentalism. By Camille K. Lewis. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007, pp. xii + 161. $44.95 cloth. In his "Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle,'" celebrated critic and philosopher of language Kenneth Burke entreats rhetorical scholars to avoid the tendency to dismiss or ignore those moments of public address that mainstream societies have found to be objectionable or even immoral. Instead, Burke urges, it is our responsibility as scholars to discover what kind of "medicine" these amoral shamans have concocted and to understand how audiences are influenced by these rhetorical remedies. Examining speeches that are all the more repugnant because of their seeming success might reveal more about the power of public address than we might ever glean from studying the virtuous masterpieces of our most cherished rhetors, past and present. Burke's challenge to turn scholarly attention to less savory examples of the rhetorical arts is the fuel that drives Camille K. Lewis's Romancing the Difference. Lewis sets out to interrogate various facets of the public communication generated by one of the most controversial and broadly despised organizations of our contemporary American times, Bob Jones University of Greenville, South Carolina. As a framework for understanding BJU's often puzzling interactions with the rhetorical Other, those outside of the university's strictly separatist, sectarian universe, the author turns to Burke's treatment of art as "equipment for living." According to Burke, humans tend to approach their life situations through either a tragic frame, which leads to cycles of sacrifice and purification as a way of dealing with life's ills, or a comic frame, which allows for a humorous correction of society's many foibles. Lewis argues that BJU's rhetorical efforts embody a third dramatistic strategy, a romantic frame that is situated somewhat uncomfortably between Burke's comic and tragic standpoints. It is Lewis's contention that a romantic approach to being and knowing allows the university and its supporters to woo the rhetorical Other with visions of beauty and rightness, even while reinforcing their identity as a people and a cause wholly separate from contemporary American secularism. Lewis's textual scope in Romancing the Difference is impressive. After briefly introducing her concept of the romantic frame in the Burkean tradition, she addresses in separate chapters four dimensions of BJU's public rhetorical identity: the university's public historical museums, including the Jerusalem Chamber, the Archives Room, and the Evangelism Museum; the Bob Jones University Museum and Gallery, BJU's renowned collection of Renaissance-and Baroque-period art; the university's various student outreach programs, many of which target BJU's host community of Greenville; and the university's public response to the scandal that erupted in the wake of George W. Bush's [End Page 320] visit to the campus during his 2000 presidential campaign. If Lewis's insights and skills as a rhetorical critic are evident throughout the pages of Romancing the Difference, her argument in favor of BJU's turn to a romantic frame as a rhetorical strategy is most compelling in her examination of Bob Jones's amassing of a world-class collection of fine paintings. Why would a separatist, fundamentalist Christian organization expend so much effort and capital acquiring paintings commissioned by the Catholic Church, many of which portray the lives and adventures of Catholic saints? As Lewis notes, "while the art itself is eloquent and moving, the collecting and displaying of the art within these fundamentalist walls seems somewhat defiant and even impious" (42). But Lewis argues that it is just such a stunning visual contradiction that allows BJU to woo outsiders with the beauty of the sectarian lifestyle—a mode of living that can freely blend Catholic devotion and fundamentalist doctrine, that is somehow able to defy the extremes of tragedy and humor to forge a true romantic comedy. Lewis is much less convincing in her analyses of BJU's other forms of public address as the book proceeds. Although her romantic frame easily explains the university's motives in assembling...