Appel “I have had the benefit of helpful responses on initial drafts from a number of knowledgeable scholars. Chief among these is Ed Appel . .” Clarke Rountree, University of Alabama Huntsville, Judging the Supreme Court: Constructions of Motives in Bush vs. Gore. “A special note of thanks for your service [to his “honor roll” of 20 Associate Editors from his large Editorial Board] as a vintage of these desperate years, and still extra appreciation to Ed Appel and Keith Ericson who have written fluent, rapid, brilliant reviews and who have taken up difficult manuscripts that made other reviewers wring their hands.” Andrew King, Louisiana State University, Editor, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1999-2001. “The article [on the rhetoric of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.] was a tremendous help to me as a literary critic. It gave me a deeper understanding of Dramatistic theory, and how it relates to discourse. The subject matter was inspirational, in and of itself, but more so after reading the critique.” Nathan Fisk, Chairman, Ironwood Public Relations, in “Nate’s Writing Samples.” “To what extent does the rhetorical criticism published within these pages Language, meet the criteria outlined earlier? Some of the articles are exemplars of discovery Action Language as Dramatic research. For example, in ‘Kenneth Burke: Coy Theologian,’ Appel argues that despite Burke’s claim to the contrary, the noted rhetorical critic was at least a generic theologian. To support his contested claim, Appel uses his encyclopedic Life, Literature, knowledge of Burke’s writing plus a command of metaphysical thought.” Em Griffin, Wheaton College, in theJournal of Communication and Religion. Rhetoric and Question: “Are you a theologian?” Answer: “Well, Ed Appel has made a powerful argument that I am.” Kenneth Burke, at a gathering of scholars the first evening of the Kenneth Burke Conference on Discourse Analysis, Philadelphia, Composition PA, March 1984, as reported by Herbert W. Simons, Temple University. Edward C. Appel, Lock Haven University, holds an M.A. in Communication (University of Delaware), an M. Div. (Lancaster Theological Seminary), and a Ph. as Dramatic D. in Rhetoric and Communication (Temple University). Action A Burkean Primer By: Edward C. Appel Language, Life, Literature, Rhetoric and Composition as Dramatic Action: A Burkean Primer Edward C. Appel By: OarPress Copyright© 2012 OarPress 69 Hickory Lane Leola, PA 17540 Phone: (717) 656-7652 Fax: (717) 656-8388 Email: [email protected] All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Control Number: 2012901225 ISBN 978-0-578-08246-2 (paper) In cooperation with NeFra Communication www.nefra.com To Ruth Anne Contents Foreword: v Introduction: ix Chapter 1: The General, Implicitly Moral Pattern of Verbal Action 1 Wherein we root Burke’s pentad/hexad in the content parts of speech, and demonstrate the ethical/dramatic implications of those fundamental grammatical elements. Chapter 2: The Specific, Explicitly Moral Pattern of Verbal Action 13 Wherein we introduce Burke’s “Terms for Order,” or “Guilt-Redemption Cycle,” show the connection between those terms and the pentad-hexad/content-parts-of-speech, and illustrate the ubiquity of these dramatic stages in six venues of life. Chapter 3: A Paradigm for Invention of Discourse and Analysis of Texts That Combines the Two Patterns 27 Wherein we offer a fusion of Burke’s pentad/hexad and ii terms for order as global tool of analysis, and elaborate thereon. Chapter 4: “Hark Ye yet Again---the Little Lower Layer” I: The Negativity of Dramatic Action 43 Wherein we delve more deeply into the origins and dynamics of drama in the life of symbol-users. The quotation comes from the “Quarterdeck” chapter in Melville’s Moby-Dick, which plays a prominent part in the chapters on Burke and literary analysis. The dramatistic approach to language is especially contrasted with the representationalist, positivist, scientist, or empiricist positions. Five overt and six covert manifestations of negative intuition in symbol-use are offered and explored. As mentioned in the text, this chapter and the two that follow could be skipped at the discretion of the instructor, with students moving on directly to the literature section, beginning with Chapter 7. Chapter 5: “Hark Ye yet Again---the Little Lower Layer” II: The Theology of Dramatic Action 71 Wherein a case is made for Burke as a “generic” theologian, what with his “theological motive of perfection”--- terminology taken from The Rhetoric of Religion---as the basis for the human drama, and both the “glory” and often the “sickness” the resultant human striving can manifest. Six reasons are offered in support of this claim on the basis of Burke as a theologian by his own account. Five implicit arguments are adduced, in addition. Support for the theological view is garnered from several other interpreters of Burke, including his close friend and correspondent Wayne Booth. Burke’s dramatism/logology is characterized as a quasi-gnostic universalism friendly to process theology. At the 1984 Burke Conference in Philadelphia (sponsored by Temple University), Burke was asked whether he was a theologian. We were told Burke’s reply was, “Well, Ed Appel has made a powerful argument that I am.” Chapter 6: “Hark Ye yet Again---the Little Lower Layer” III: The Anthropology of Dramatic Action 87 Wherein we cite and elaborate on fourteen aspects of human life that illustrate the ubiquity of Burke’s dramatism, distinguish the actions of symbol-users from the motions of nonverbal animals, and show how those symbol-modified actions run counter to the tendency of ethologists and biologists in general to conflate too readily the human with the nonhuman. iii Chapter 7: Application of Our “Fit-All-Finger” Paradigm of Dramatic Action to Some Well-Know American-English Literary Texts 113 Wherein we apply the synthetic paradigm explained in Chapter 3 to Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter and Melville’s Moby- Dick, the stages of the drama in those standard works boldly foregrounded. Chapter 8: From a Burkean Perspective, the “Little Lower Layer” of Moby-Dick as Dramatic Action I 139 Wherein we explain and illustrate analysis of Moby- Dick in terms of Burke’s notions of fatalistic foreshadowing, form (repetitive, syllogistic progressive, qualitative progressive), eloquence, double-vision, paradoxical ambiguity, and “truth.” Chapter 9: From a Burkean Perspective, the “little Lower Layer” of Moby-Dick as Dramatic Action II 155 Wherein we illustrate, in this novel, Burke’s emphasis on a piece of literature as strategic encompassment of a problematic environing situation, with extended treatment, and application to the present day, of Burke’s concept of nature as the “unanswerable opponent,” prominent in this novel, very definitely of momentous importance to verbal and nonverbal animal life in the present and the future. Chapter 10: Rhetoric as Dramatic Action I 177 Wherein we treat Burke’s antipodal conceptions of tragedy and comedy, necessary alterations in point of view being made between imaginative literature and practical persuasion in the public square. The tragic-frame rhetors exemplified and probed are Adolf Hitler, Jerry Falwell, and the Rev. Dr. Wallace E. Fisher, our dissertation subject. Each of these orators illustrates somewhat unique use of this genre of discourse. Possible adumbrations of melodrama will be noted. The featured comic-frame communicator is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Due consideration is given to changes in nomenclature between classic social-movement theory and “new” social-movement theory. Chapter 11: Rhetoric as Dramatic Action II 199 Wherein we deal with an “in-between” category of political and social discourse, burlesque, again of course, ala Burke. Our exemplars are William F. Buckley, Jr., and radio iv talkshow host Rush Limbaugh, who turns out to be a mixed-genre rhetor, both a burlesquer and a tragedian. Their seat in life as explanatory background, as dialectical source of motivation, is placed front and center. Chapter 12: Rhetoric as Dramatic Action III 219 Wherein we focus on the “in-between” genre of political and social discourse, melodrama. Our featured archetype is former U.S. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay. Major attention is given here to an “exigence” in generic criticism in the communication field: Several significant scholars in rhetoric/communication are employing the term “tragedy” in a manner quite different from that of most Burkean interpreters and critics. A set of four taxonomies across rhetorical tragedy, burlesque, melodrama, and comedy is broached as a “rapprochement” in this implicit dispute. Chapter 13: Putting One Word, One Thought, after Another, Burke Style 245 Wherein we build especially on the work of Michael Hassett and Tilly Warnock, two interpreters of Burke who have done superbly well in making sense of Burke’s anfractuous style and its utility in overcoming the pinched and blinkered perspectives inherent in what Alfred Korzybski would call the “allnesses,” and Burke calls the “all-or-none[nesses],” of typical composition. We illustrate “burking oneself” with some of our own postings on the Burke discussion list. We also grant and illustrate the utility of conventional “radiation” of thoughts via brainstorming and free writing, and show how Burke puts his imprimatur on these approaches, too. Chapter 14: The Broad Sweep and the Pith and Marrow 265 Wherein we summarize the multiple Burkean ideas--- thirty-four in particular---presented and illustrated in this study, and home in on what we think readers and students should especially take away in respect to each of the five topics highlighted in the title of this volume. We conclude with a whimsical “drama review” of a book that claims Burke is a Cartesian representationalist. Appendixes 281 Notes 289 Works Cited 315 Indexes 349 Addenda 367 Foreword I want to acknowledge and thank various journals and an encyclopedia for permission to reproduce materials that first saw the light of day in their publications.