The Consumed Expression

For Burke there is no rhetoric without identification and it must take place before the act. This identification occurs through the associations of shared properties/substance which Burke refers to as “consubstantial” (Foss 174), and in order for the rhetoric to happen there must be a perceived consubstantiality between the agent and the individuals who complete the communication cycle. This notion of identification is an a priori condition that distinguished from the neo Aristotelian construct of a rhetor. With a neo Aristotelian rhetor the aim was persuasion by collocation, for Burkeian rhetor the aim is persuasion by identification. Another major difference between the neo Aristotelian and Burkeian rhetoric is for the former the act of persuasion has to be articulated either in speech or in writing whereas in Burkeian constructs persuasion can occur without a single oral or verbal articulation.; it is the identification of the unconscious, which resonates Jungian idea of the “collective unconscious” or the “objective psyche.” This principle eventuates rhetoric to a very powerful realm of possibilities. It also clarifies Burkeian approach to rhetoric insofar as its medium is understood as language in all its symbolic manifestations and not as speech, which again is neo Aristotelian in form.

By ascribing descriptive privilege to language, Burke makes it possible to study the human motives as derivative of language use. In this way, I think we can see language as not merely prescriptive and restrained by its normative character, but as a protean compound capable of adding and subtracting symbols. In his diachronic analysis of Hitler’s rhetoric, he skillfully reveals the descriptive structure of language by identifying the numerous symbols underlying Hitler’s rhetoric. Burke showed that Hitler primarily used words and symbols from the religious domain and materialized them into a more rabid political form; this is a case of descriptive use of language as Burke points out, “One knows when to “spiritualize” a material issue, and when to “materialize” a spiritual one” (Burke 48). Had language been only prescriptive, the interplay of motives would not have been possible and hence, no rhetoric would occur. Burke also shows that Hitler not only manipulated the symbols (in this case religion) for instance, the idea of “individuals […] surrounded by a movement, the sense of “community”(48) associative of the notion of congregation but also predicated its use in systematic form (the idea of victimage of the Jews by contrasting their notion of individualism as selfish versus German sense of individualism as sacrificial).

Viewing language in such descriptive organic form, we can very well understand it as the fount of figures (of speech and thought), diction and tropes (Fahnestock 8). In her marathon of an article, Fahnestock is arguing the importance of figures as “epitome” of expression. Her contention is that figures baubles of language but they are the creative underlife of human expression contained in the scientific field as much as it is in the humanities. In this sense, I think, she classifies figures from diction by the principle of association and substitution— how closely it resembles ““normal” in the sense of acceptable usage” (15) and how easily it can be replace or reduced to “degree zero” choice (16). Is it then possible to measure or analyze metaphors by these benchmarks? W Thus, by this measure we can analyze how far the vehicle or the frame is removed from or can be reduced to the tenor or focus (Buurckholder & Henry 108) , the latter then being the Fahnstockiean notion of the “normal” or the “degree zero.” Thus, given the pervasiveness of symbols (seen in terms of figures, tropes, etc), I''m interested to know two things: Is it possible to create a value-neutral expression? and, Does metaphors control meaning or does meaning shape metaphors?

The Clash of Civilizations

To put this artifact into the Burkeian frame of dramatism would reveal some fascinating truth about the motives of this rhetoric. The act: balkanizing the ontological tenor of civilization; the agent: the political agenda (internal); a former conservative in the National Security Council (external); agency: rhetoric of identity strengthened by the fallacy of stereotyping –“Islam has bloody borders” (Huntington 12); purpose: arrogating the subjective thesis that “the clash of civilization will dominate global politics” (3); and, scene: post Cold War.

I am tempted to exhaust Burke, but to allow the privilege of completion, I will draw rein to my impulse.