Language As More Than Symbolic Action: Kenneth Burke on Tonal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
LANGUAGE AS MORE THAN SYMBOLIC ACTION: KENNETH BURKE ON TONAL TRANSFORMATIONS by NICHOLAS STEPHEN CRAWFORD (Under the Direction of Michelle Ballif) ABSTRACT In the last several decades, Kenneth Burke’s philosophy of language, a philosophy that famously flouts disciplinary conventions, has found its disciplinary home in rhetoric studies. Rhetoricians have found myriad points of inspiration in Burke’s capacious philosophy, and several of Burke’s concepts have become touchstones for contemporary rhetorical theory. One concept, however, has received little attention from rhetoricians or anyone else. Burke’s theory of tonal transformations—his term for a kind of unconscious punning that disguises unutterable words and ideas in socially acceptable language, thereby allowing the utterer to say the unsayable—has, along with the attendant theory joycing, been largely ignored. And yet Burke himself, in his brief discussion of tonal transformations and joycing, encourages readers to consult other areas of his oeuvre to develop a more thorough understanding of these concepts. This dissertation takes up Burke’s suggestion and examines works from across Burke’s oeuvre to develop a more complete understanding of tonal transformations and joycing, leading me to explorations of Burke’s theories of nonsymbolic motion, catharsis, and the sublime, among others. This examination reveals productive connections between tonal transformations, joycing, and current interest in the rhetoric of affect. Rhetoricians studying affect aim to theorize the persuasiveness of physiological and emotional phenomena, phenomena that escape meaning. More often than not, this means studying phenomena other than language, which is often characterized as a force that limits affective phenomena because of its link to meaning. Burke does not deny language’s link to meaning. However, tonal transformations and joycing posit language as an affective force. This dissertation illustrates that in tonal transformations and joycing affect and meaning are inextricably intertwined and that often the persuasiveness of language’s meaning depends upon the persuasiveness of language’s affect. Ultimately, I argue that for Burke language is always already an affective phenomenon and that rhetoricians should be more willing to see language from such a perspective. INDEX WORDS: Kenneth Burke, Tonal transformations, Joycing, Rhetoric, Affect, Aesthetics, Symbolic action, Catharsis, Unconscious, Sublime, Equipment for living, Composition, Pedagogy, Invention, Style LANGUAGE AS MORE THAN SYMBOLIC ACTION: KENNETH BURKE ON TONAL TRANSFORMATIONS by NICHOLAS STEPHEN CRAWFORD B.A. The University of North Carolina Wilmington, 2005 M.A. The University of North Carolina Wilmington, 2008 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2015 © 2015 Nicholas Stephen Crawford All Rights Reserved LANGUAGE AS MORE THAN SYMBOLIC ACTION: KENNETH BURKE ON TONAL TRANSFORMATIONS by NICHOLAS STEPHEN CRAWFORD Major Professor: Michelle Ballif Committee: Christy Desmet Jed Rasula Electronic Version Approved: Suzanne Barbour Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia December 2015 iv DEDICATION For Molly v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the patience and encouragement granted me by my gracious committee members. Many of ideas expressed herein can be traced to their excellent graduate seminars. I would like to thank Christy Desmet for my first real encounter with Aristotle and for helping me to see the slipperiness between the rhetorical canons. I still speak highly of your encyclopedic knowledge of Shakespeare’s rhetoric. To Jed Rasula, your wit and enthusiasm never fail to inspire. Thank you especially for your keen response to my seminar paper on Walter Benjamin, which gave me a much-needed confidence boost at a crucial moment in my graduate career. I owe the most gratitude to my major professor Michelle Ballif. Not only have you always been able to direct me to the best resources, your kindness throughout this entire process has been immeasurable. Thanks, too, for putting up with KB for my sake. Of course there are others who deserve acknowledgement: my colleagues at the University of Georgia and the University of North Carolina Wilmington, Brad Holland (who’s still my best man), my parents. But most of all, my wife Molly deserves boundless thanks for putting her life on hold so that I could complete this project. It’s your turn, babe. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: CHARTING A NEW COURSE IN BURKE STUDIES ...............1 Between Rhetoric and Aesthetics ............................................................................5 Method ...................................................................................................................17 2 CUNNING PUNNING: ON TONAL TRANSFORMATIONS, JOYCING, AND THE “MUSICALITY” OF BURKE’S RHETORIC ...................................................24 On Musicality in Language: Form .........................................................................27 On Musicality in Language: Content .....................................................................35 Ecclesia Super Cloacum ........................................................................................41 Catharsis .................................................................................................................46 Fracking V. Frac’ing: What’s in a Name? .............................................................51 Conclusion .............................................................................................................55 3 ENDLESS MALADY: THE BURKEAN SUBLIME AS EQUIPMENT FOR LIVING ........................................................................................................................60 (I Kant Get No) Representation: A Brief History of the Sublime .........................65 Equipment For Living ............................................................................................74 Encompassing the Abyss, or, Representing the “Unpresentable” .........................80 vii Endless Malady ......................................................................................................88 Conclusion .............................................................................................................97 4 JOYCING TO INVENT: REINVENTING BURKE IN THE COMPOSITION CLASSROOM ...........................................................................................................102 Res and Verba ......................................................................................................109 All Res, No Verba: The Case Of Dramatism in Composition .............................112 Toward a Stylish Burkean Invention ...................................................................120 Linguistic Gargoyles ............................................................................................126 Invention in Distraction, Or Stylish Invention as Affective Invention ................137 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................141 5 CONCLUSION: LANGUAGE AS LANGUAGE AS MORE THAN SYMBOLIC ACTION ....................................................................................................................148 NOTES ........................................................................................................................................158 WORKS CITED ..........................................................................................................................191 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: CHARTING A NEW COURSE IN BURKE STUDIES In a recent interpretation of Kenneth Burke’s seminal A Rhetoric of Motives (hereafter, RM) for the Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Bryan Crable argues that in spite of the RM’s central place in rhetorical studies, scholars have for the most part neglected large swaths of the book. In Crable’s estimation, these scholars have instead taken William Rueckert (an early and influential champion of Burke’s work) at his word and equated Burke’s rhetoric with identification (215-6; cf. Rueckert Kenneth 152). The problem, Crable claims, is not just that other important ideas (for him, the notion of “pure persuasion”) fail to receive the attention they deserve, but that such oversight encourages narrow readings of RM and creates artificial separations between Burke’s rhetoric and other areas of his thinking (216). Crable’s push back against narrow readings of Burke echoes Victor J. Vitanza’s lament more than two decades before. In his introduction to the 1985 double-issue of PRE/Text devoted to Kenneth Burke, Vitanza decries what he sees as the narrow-mindedness of so many interpretations and extensions of Burke’s work. Too many nominally Burkean scholars, Vitanza complains, approach Burke’s extensive and encyclopedic work with blinders on, focusing their efforts on only a handful of key concepts: most notably, dramatism. “What I . have a major quarrel with,” he complains, “is the kind of reductionism that wants, first of all, to focus on only one of KB’s [sic] terminological methods of analysis . and then, secondly, to reduce this one analytical terminological method even further by not actually using the ‘ratios’ formed