Critics rely on diverse writings of Kenneth Burke to provide an orientation for examination of rhetoric.(1) Among elements of Burke's dramatistic perspective applied in rhetorical studies are pentad, representative anecdote, form, identification, and scapegoating. While rhetorical theorists and critics have drawn upon Burke's ideas, scholars analyzing nature of argumentation have generally ignored utility of a Burkean outlook.(2) Even a cursory examination of contemporary texts reveals that works of Kenneth Burke have gone relatively unnoticed in field of argumentation theory.(3) Several essays by Burke provide clues about his likely outlook toward argumentation. By examining elements of those essays, this paper will initially develop relationship between dramatism and argumentation. This essay specifically examines dangers inherent in mindset that existing power structures exhibit as they attempt to uphold status quo. This mindset prevents arguments leading to creation of broader frames of reference that would better serve societal needs. The second section analyzes task of dramatistic critic of argument. Central to essay is an examination of how a dramatistic perspective on can serve to counter dangers inherent in bureaucratic mindset. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRAMATISM AND ARGUMENTATION Burke focuses, in many of his early writings, on art and literature. It is only in his later works that he turns to explicit considerations of rhetorical practice. As a result, argument per se is a Burkean term or focal point (Kneupper 894).(4) Thus, in most cases argumentation scholars must infer a Burkean view of argumentation from his various writings. One apparent Burkean treatment of argumentative principles lies in his consideration of syllogistic progression. This is the of a perfectly conducted argument, advancing step by step.... To go from A to E through stages B, C, and D is to obtain such form (Counter-Statement 124). However, Burke later argues that normal practice reverses usual progression of moving from data to conclusion. Instead, the conclusion had led to selection and arrangement of data.... From what we want to arrive at, we deduce our ways of getting there, although conventions of logical exposition usually present things other way round (Permanence 98; see also 98-99). Similarly, response to an usually does follow traditional form. One person may logically lay out an from point 1, through point 2, to point 3. However, a second person responding to that often answers, not by taking up each point in turn and refuting it, but by saying simply, 'The man is a bourgeois,' or 'He has a mother complex,'--or 'He wants job instead' (Burke, Permanence 109). Another treatment by Burke of argumentation principles lies in his consideration of facts. Burke's essay Fact, Inference, and Proof in Analysis of Literary Symbolism considers relationship of those three terms in analyses of literary texts (Terms 145-172). Burke argues goal of essay is to ask: ... how to operate with |the facts of a text~, how to use them as a means of keeping one's inferences under control, yet how to go beyond them, for purposes of inference, when seeking to characterize motives and salient traits of work.... (Terms 145) Burke argues many observations normally treated as fact are actually inferences, as authors smuggle interpretations into their reports of factual (Terms 147). Beyond specific passages identified above, Burke often instead relies on metaphors when discussing argumentation. One of Burke's metaphors for is that an author exploitsa set of terms, advocating a cause like a lawyer would plead a case in courtroom (Attitudes 293). A second Burkean metaphor for is gaming. …
Read full abstract