Kenneth Burke on Dramatism and Rhetorical Theory

I find it regrettable that social scientists automatically ignore Aristotle's Rhetoric. I don't say Aristotle has given us the last word on these matters. But I submit that his actual treatment of topics is fundamentally correct. You could add new topics and develop accordingly. But what you got 2,000 years ago was the kind of approach that can be built on in principle. (Burke 1967:327).

While researching many of Kenneth Burke’s books and essays I found that Burke's writings on rhetorical theory demonstrate his passionate concern with artistic communication within social life. His work provides a broad, useful approach for understanding various ways theorists have constructed in the development of their theories of how people use language within social contexts. The theory of Dramatism, constructed by Kenneth Burke, is one of the most radical and complex theories in communication studies. Kenneth Burke struggled for many years to build, reconstruct, and define the aspects of his theory. The use of different articles that either focus on certain aspects of Dramatism and rhetorical theory provide examples of how they can be applied, to simply make more sense of Burke’s concepts and in turn, assert its legitimacy as a very important interpretive theory. Undoubtedly, Dramatism has sparked much debate about rhetorical criticism. It is also undeniable that the heart of Burke’s research and the theory of Dramatism in general is the dramatistic pentad.
Burke regarded his theories as a contribution to the "new rhetoric." The key term of the "old rhetoric," he argued, was "persuasion" (Burke 1951:203). Unlike classical rhetoricians who set resources to use in developing the persuasive design of their speeches, Burke regarded his modern rhetorical theorists as creating broader concepts of the social use of language. He and other communications scholars planned that "identification" should be the central concern within the new rhetoric (1951:203). The new rhetoricians regarded persuasion as only one potential function of discourse, and their analyses frequently focused on the use of language as a means for addressing social exigencies. Burke's use of his key term "identification" has special consideration. He agrees with Aristotle's observation that identification can be a function of persuasive appeal "as when the politician seeks to identify himself with his audience" (1951:203). Identification in this reverence is an appeal to the speaker's ethos. But Burke's primary interest in "identification" is as an end in itself "as when people identify themselves with some group or other" (1951:203). Thus, from his perspective on rhetoric, communication is a means for establishing and maintaining social life. "Identification" as the key term within Burke's rhetoric demonstrates some of the depth and elegance of Burkean thought. On a simplistic level, it is linked to the use of language as an act of naming: a speaker identifies aspects of experience through language. In other approaches, such as the one provided previously, Burke interprets identification as the use of language to give identity within groups. A third usage of his key term is his consideration of how rhetoric negotiates personal identity, in which he terms the "paradox of substance" (Burke 1967:330). Using the simile of drama to illustrate everyday social realities, Burke argues that language ironically creates interdependent identities among people in the same way that characters in a play mutually allow each other to enact their roles (1967:330). According to Burke, an individual's identity is defined by their actions within various social contexts, and to a large extent these actions are linguistically defined. The result is that communication does not play a role in establishing group identity; it also plays a vital role in establishing an individual's identity. To get a better understanding of Burk’s view of identification and dramatism is the use of his dramatistic pentad. One logical opening point for understanding dramatism is Burke's "Definition of Man." Burke described a human being as:
(1) The symbol-using animal
(2) The inventor of the negative
(3) Separated from his [and her] condition by instruments of his [and her] own making
(4) And goaded by the spirit of hierarchy. (Burke 1964: 199)
This definition in its complete form is to emphasize how Burke considers the use of symbols vital to social life. Through this definition, one can begin to explore various aspects of Burke's thought. Unlike earlier rhetorical theorists, he focuses on the symbols themselves, not exclusively on prescriptions and descriptions of their use. It is goaded by the spirit of hierarchy and "rotten with perfection," the everyday philosophy of a human being is not one of being or becoming but one of "the bin" (Burke 1967:329 and 303). "The bin" refers to the categories and classifications into which humans characteristically place the phenomena they name. The building and filling of "the bin" is a natural part of symbolic expression and of the use of language as an act of naming. Through the symbol's ability to create terms for order, language emerges as a tool. Burke's theories address the implications of considering language as a tool that separates us from our natural state. He suggests that through linguistic categories and the use of "the bin" we are deluded into imagining that we control the natural world (1967:329). By being able to say "no," one can make distinctions within a hierarchy and pronounce value judgments. Burke credited Henri Bergson with discovering that negatives do not exist in nature, and his perspective is that value judgments are possible through the use of the word "no." Burke asks that a critic use the negative to consider the underlying assumptions and conceptions inherent within human beings' systems of order. The use of the negative in forming value judgments supports Burke's grounds for making the "action-motion distinction," the central concept of his dramatistic position. The ability to use symbols and values purposefully, Burke argues, makes "action" different from "motion" (Burke 1978:810). By studying people's actions, Burke theorizes that a researcher could track down the implications expressed through symbolic forms. The method he proposes is the use of the "dramatistic pentad." The pentad's five terms: act, agent, scene, agency, and purpose-are a paradigm for making a "prophecy after the event," or an account of how actors size up the situation within which action occurs (Burke 1972:44). People express their assessments of the situation through symbolic forms, and their concepts about what is occurring is at the root of the action-motion distinction. He develops his theory further and argues that dramatistic analysis could be applied to any human interaction. Therefore, many communication scholars have devoted their time to focus on certain aspects of the theory, provoking discussion about how Dramatism and Burke’s famous Pentad and how it can be applied to communication research and public relations, among other areas of communication. Burke’s, “method of dramatism is useful because it is intended to reveal the messy and complex nature of human interactions, rather than clarifying or reducing these interactions to the real.” This only strengthens the argument that Dramatism can be used to explain different parts of life and by using Dramatism, one can view many aspects of life, for example, in a workplace setting, as a stage where a drama is performed, “complete with protagonists, antagonists, and minor actors, a setting, purpose, and a plot. In all, I feel Griffin did an exceptional job in summarizing Burke’s dramatism and rhetorical theories. In the text, Griffin pointed out the main ideas and concepts that were the most monumental ideas of Burke’s theory, including the dramatistic pentad, guilt-redemption cycle and the key term, identification. He thoroughly broke down Burke’s main perspectives in a clear and outlined format. I also felt that Griffin did do an adequate job in accurately describing Burke’s theories. For example, when it came to describing “Identification,” Griffin’s definition, for the most part mirrored what he believed to be the foundation of the meaning. Griffin stated that Identification meant the common ground that exists between speaker and audience (Griffin 290). Quoting from Rhetorical and the New Journal of General Education, Identification stands, “as when the politician seeks to identify himself with his audience" (Burke 1951:203). Another main point Griffin made to accurately describe one of Burke’s key elements of his Rhetoric theory is the explanation of the guilt-redemption cycle. In the text Griffin goes on to affirm the ultimate of all public speaking is to purge ourselves…guilt is his catch-all term to cover every form of tension, anxiety, embarrassment, shame, disgust, and other noxious feelings…His “Definition of Man” is discouraging counterpoint to the optimism of Carl Rogers (Griffin 292). This definition that Griffin gave is merely the similar to what Burke felt a human being is characterized as in his Perspective by Incongruit (Burke 1964:199). I don’t feel that Griffin was off in any way on the perception of Burke’s ideas of Dramatism and rhetoric theory. The only difference I saw between the text in the book and some of Burke’s work I research was that Griffin had to pull out Birke’s main points and narrow his wide-ranging thoughts. But as a whole, all of Burke’s principals and beliefs are essential in group and public communication, and I do feel like Griffin focused on the main points that have gained the most approval. What ethnographers regard as a "cultural theme" bears a certain similarity to a Burkean "motive." As does the term "motive," a "cultural theme" identifies how people assess speech situations. Burke's theory of dramatism and the pentad provides useful models for adapting an approach to literary criticism and rhetorical theory to analyze cultural expression within the social sciences. Something I feel that many students should focus on with studying Burke’s dramatistic and rhetorical theory, that they may not get a true understanding with just reading Griffins text, is that the majority of Burke’s theory can be applied to our everyday lives, in particular when it comes to social injustice issues. One example I found while gaining more information on Burke’s theories was the concept of criminal profiling and Burke’s dramatistic pentad. I propose to demonstrate that the technique of criminal profiling, as a system of interpreting the symbolic “text” of the crime scene for evidence of the criminal’s personality, is essentially a rhetorical method that employs—albeit with slightly different names—the elements and ratios of Kenneth Burke’s dramatistic pentad. As Burke explains, “any complete statement about motives will offer some kind of answer to these five questions: what was done (act), when or where it was done (scene), who did it (agent), how he did it (agency), and why (purpose)” (Burke 1969). Burke believed that, since all human action is filled with symbolicity, “a rhetorical motive is often used where it is not usually recognized, or thought to belong,” and he sought to expand the scope of rhetorical analysis not only to cover instances of overt discursive persuasion, but to illuminate “human relationships generally” (Burke 1950). He proposed dramatism, with its five key terms and its emphasis on the relationships between scene-act and scene-agent, as the primary method. Burke’s approach treats dramatistic analysis not as a metaphorical or analogical system of enquiry; instead, it is a practical method that can be applied directly to human behavior, because “people do literally ‘act’” (Burke 1972). Burke places the key ratios of scene-act and scene-agent “at the very center of motivational assumptions” (1969), thus emphasizing the shaping power of scene in all rhetorical interactions. Scene is definitely the general term in profiling, a predictable focus since the profiler’s analysis has to begin with the crime scene. By studying the relationship between this scene and the violent act, an experienced profiler can make inferences about the offender’s attitude and motivation, two important features in eventually discovering his identity, leading why at times many feel Burke’s theories and principles can be somewhat intricate, but yet so vital.
Many people have had trouble grasping the theory of Dramatism and Burke’s ideas as Griffin explains when he says, “Burke’s mental leaps and breadth of scholarship will prove more frustrating than informative,” (Griffin 296). Dramatism is built on the thought that it is our human nature to, “create use and abuse language,” as Griffin states in his text book (296). Griffin also explains that Burke’s pentad is his most notable contribution to communication studies and his most widely accepted (296). Burke’s focus on motives and rhetoric have been advances in a field that most already thought was complete. Some of Burke’s ideas and thoughts may prove to be abstract but others have become focal points of communication. Burke’s work proved complex and at times challenging to grasp, but when you can truly wrap your head around his ideas, Burke’s theory is one of the most intelligent and innovative theories in communication studies. Dramatism is a theory full of information and ideas, which many people are still trying to digest, but Burke’s contributions to communication like and especially his dramatistic pentad have proved to have a lasting effect in the field.

Works Cited
Griffin, Em. A First Look At Communication Theory. 7th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008. 289-96.
Kenneth Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives (1950; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).
Burke, "Key Terms," A Grammar of Motives (1945; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).
Kenneth Burke, Dramatism and Development (Barre, MA: University of Massachussetts Press and Barre Publishers, 1972).
Kenneth Burke, "Container and Thing Contained," A Grammar of Motives.
Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose, 3rd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954).
Kenneth Burke, Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action (Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press, 1967).
Kenneth Burke, (Nonsymbolic) Motion/(Symbolic) Action. Critical Inquiry, 1978. 4:809-838.
Kenneth Burke, Perspective by Incongruit (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1964).
Kenneth Burke, Rhetorical and the New Journal of General Education, 1951. 5:202-209.