Kenneth Burke (1897-1993) by  Ricki Higdon

For Burke the rhetorician, or KB, the professor and mentor, the above quote, gleaned from a "future cookie" from the Chinese takeout that Burke enjoyed on his last day, seems a fitting epitaph for a man who contributed so much to the study of human communication (Burks). Throughout his prolific career, Burke served in a variety of capacities and explored an array of sub-culture lifestyles, including a stint as editor and contributor " for the avante-garde magazine The Dial," rubbing elbows with Hart Crane and e. e. cummings as a member of the "Greenwich Village Bohemian group of writers," and serving as professor, or visiting professor, at various colleges, including Bennington, and the New School for Social Research (Bizzell, Herzbog 989). In his 1931 publication, Counter-Statement, Burke debuted his argument, "that effective literature could be nothing else but rhetoric," which invited criticism from both the literary world and the proponents of rhetoric for "muddling literature and nonliterature, poetic and rhetoric, language and life" (990). In the many texts that followed, including the 1945 publication of A Grammar of Motives, and the 1950 text, A Rhetoric of Motives Burke successfully forges ahead with his own insightful brand of rhetoric, which is, at the same time, both cumbersome—at least—and powerful reading. This paper will focus on A Rhetoric of Motives, specifically on Burke’s discussion of "identification," with an aim to finding ironic the fact that the original criticism with which Burke’s work was met serves as a perfect example of Burke’s philosophy.

In the introduction to A Rhetoric of Motives, Burke points out that "Traditionally, the key term for rhetoric is not identification but persuasion" (1019). For Burke, though, "persuasion," as a term representative of rhetoric, is lacking in its ability to describe the ultimate function of rhetoric, that is, "the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols" (1032). In support of "identification" as the better term, Burke cites W. C. Blum who stated, "In identification lies the source of dedications and enslavements, in fact of cooperation" (1019). As examples of each, Burke offers "persuasion ranges from … sales promotion or propaganda, …courtship, social etiquette, education… . And identification ranges from the politician who, addressing an audience of farmers, says, ‘I was a farm boy myself" (1019).

Burke links identification with "consubstantiality," or the connections human make with one another through shared experiences or goals. Burke writes,

A is not identical with his colleague, B. But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B. Or he may identify himself with B even when their interests are not joined, if he assumes that they are, or is persuaded to believe so. Two persons may be identified in terms of some principle they share in common, an identification that does not deny their distinctness. To identify A with B is to make A consubstantial with B. (1020)

Herein lies the irony of the criticism aimed at Burke’s earliest proposals. Burke’s early assertion, "that literary forms are best understood by their effects on readers and that the study of rhetoric, … is precisely what is needed to understand the effects … of literature," garnered opposition from both "literary critics and rhetoricians" (990) However, in using Burke’s example of identification and consubstantiality, the two camps form an alliance in their attack on Burke. Despite their separateness and their individual concerns, their actions serve to fulfill the philosophy that Burke explores in A Rhetoric of Motives, "that terms used to create identification work to include the members of a group in a common ideology" (990). Human nature to identify oneself with a group, though, is but a small portion of the Rhetoric. Burke goes on to explore a variety of aspects of identification.

In The Identifying Nature of Property, Burke writes, "In the surrounding of himself with properties that name his number or establish his identity, man is ethical." "Man’s moral growth is organized through properties, properties in goods, in services, in position or status, in citizenship, in reputation, in acquaintanceship and love" (1021). If it is true that it is ‘clearly a matter of rhetoric to persuade a man by identifying your cause with his interests," property then serves as an expression of interests and as a means for identification, and ultimately, persuasion. Simply by means of ornamentation, the surrounding of oneself with property, as defined above, one initiates a non-verbal rhetoric which invites identification by another who may or may not have any other apparent connection.

In Ingenuous and Cunning Identification Burke examines rhetoric and self-deception that we "impose upon ourselves in varying degrees of deliberateness and unawareness, through motives indeterminately self-protective and/or suicidal" (1028). As example, Burke offers, "a misanthropic politician who dealt in mankind-loving imagery could still think of himself as rhetorically honest, if he meant to do well by his constituents yet thought that he could get their votes only by such display" (1028). Despite the difficulty one can encounter when reading Burke, here is an instance of insightfulness that rings with crystal clarity and invites the reader into an exploration of his or her personal rhetorical dialogue.

In summing up, Burke offers,

As for the relation between identification and persuasion: we might well keep it in mind that a speaker persuades an audience by the use of stylistic identification; his act of persuasion may be for the purpose of causing the audience to identify itself with the speaker’s interests; and the speaker draws on identification of interest to establish rapport between himself and his audience. (1034)

The Kenneth Burke that one encounters in taking up the text, seems nothing like the KB described by Emeritus Professor Don M. Burks of Purdue University. In an impromptu epitaph written for the Kenneth Burke Society upon hearing of the news of Burke’s death, Burks repeatedly distinguishes between Kenneth Burke, when referring to the texts, and KB when referring to the man. Burks writes, "I try to preserve the distinction, keeping KB and Burke apart. To me, the distinction between the two has always been abundantly clear. To talk or correspond with Burke would have been so intimidating that I could never have enjoyed any minute of it. With KB I loved every minute of it" (Burks). Describes as a family man devoted to his wife and children, and "an unassuming, lovable jester-prince," who invited friendship with colleagues and students, Kenneth Burke, poet, lecturer, philosopher, rhetorician, … has made an astounding contribution to the study of human communication. In light of his many accomplishments, the fortune cookie message is most fitting—To affect the quality of the day is no small achievement.

Works Cited

Bizzell, Patricia, Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition. Ed. Boston: Bedford Books, 1990.

Burke, Kenneth. "From A Rhetoric of Motives." The Rhetorical Tradition. Ed.

Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford Books, 1990. 1018-1034.

Burks, Don M. The Kenneth Burke Society. 25 March 2000.

http://www.home.cc.duq.edu/~thames/kennethburke/Defalult.htm.