Now that we have all had some time to digest the thought intensive prose of Kenneth Burke, please post an answer to at least one of these questions and feel free to post questions of your own for extra credit. Please try and make sure your post adds something new to each thread of question answers. Also, title your response in terms of which question you are answering: Answer to Question 1, Answer to Question 2, etc. Posts must be published by Saturday 9/12 at 12 PM.
1) pg. 13- Burke refers to the term "bastard" as undergoing a transformation wherein its new meaning was "as [an] epithet to describe a man's character." How can we apply this to terms such as "homeless," "hungry," and/or "poor." What impact does this have on our ability to persuade audiences to take action to ameliorate hunger in various communities?
2) pg. 15- The final paragraph of the section titled "Dramatic and Philosophic Terms for Essence" states that beginnings can overshadow ends and ends can overshadow beginnings. How can we apply this to our portrayal of hunger issues in an effective/persuasive manner?
3) pg. 20- Burke claims war is a special case of peace. Why is it important to view war in this fashion? What does that make hunger a special cause of? How can we apply this to our persuasive portrayals of hunger?
4) pg. 20- In “Identification and ‘Consubstantiality’” Burke writes about making two individuals feel a connection through mutual identification. “Consubstantiality” creates this identification. What are some of the “Consubstantials” (to butcher his terminology) we might use to create identification between the hungry and our target audiences?
5) pg. 22-3 In the same section on “Identification and ‘Consubstantiality’” Burke states, “Identification is affirmed with earnestness precisely because there is division.” Should we solely be concerned with using identification persuasively, or could division also pose some persuasive potential? Explain your position.
6) pg.39 Burke states, “Only the voices from without are effective which can speak in the language of a voice within.” How can we apply this to effectively/persuasively spreading our message of hunger relief?
7) pg. 45 Burke argues that the decisions of what is too much and what is too little are acts of rhetoric. How does this apply to our concerns regarding hunger issues?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7) pg. 45 Burke argues that the decisions of what is too much and what is too little are acts of rhetoric. How does this apply to our concerns regarding hunger issues?
ReplyDeleteDecesions of what is too little and what is too much can be acts of rhetoric. One may consider the sophistic view of rhetoric in which both sides of any issue may be argued for in the first argument as logos and the counterargument as anti logos. If someone were to state that $10 a day is plenty to live on another person can do a rhetorical act and present the anti logos, the argument that $10 dollars a day is not enough to live on. The same can be said for other perspectives about hunger such as what is enough money to have good enough quality of life and what is appropriate pay for a certain position. Testimony be persuasive technique in order to convey conviction about the subject matter can be given for both sides. Thus the decision of what is a rhetorical proposition.
3) pg. 20- Burke claims war is a special case of peace. Why is it important to view war in this fashion? What does that make hunger a special cause of? How can we apply this to our persuasive portrayals of hunger?
ReplyDeleteExplaining war as a special case of peace causes one to think about the attributes of both war and peace, and contrast them. War encompasses the extremes that peace does not, while the characteristics of peace are in stark contrast to those of war. By describing one as the other, it sheds light into the division between the two, and the unique (yet overlapping) attributes of both war and peace.
Following this logic, hunger would be a special case of food security and abundance. All of the attributes of abundant food supply are the very characteristics that are missing when someone goes hungry. By using comparisons and contrasts to describe words and situations, it allows the meaning of the word to evolve and allows the writer to dig deeper into description.
Response to emi470: "War encompasses the extremes that peace does not" Could we not argue that peace also encompasses extremes, just the polar opposite of the extremes present in war?
ReplyDeleteIf the purpose of comp/cont is to allow the writer to dig deeper into description, what impact does this have on the reader?
response to rachael: I agree that you have elucidated Burke's point on page 45. However, how does this understanding impact the rhetorical position within which we find ourselves in this course, given our message and audiences?
ReplyDeleteI was trying to say that peace encompasses the opposites of the extremes in war- perhaps i didn't word it correctly, but what you said is exactly what I was trying to say. I think that this technique impacts the reader by allowing them to analyze something from two different, opposite perspectives. By speaking about something and saying what it is, and then speaking about it and saying what it is not, allows for an all-encompassing description.
ReplyDelete4) pg. 20- In “Identification and ‘Consubstantiality’” Burke writes about making two individuals feel a connection through mutual identification. “Consubstantiality” creates this identification. What are some of the “Consubstantials” (to butcher his terminology) we might use to create identification between the hungry and our target audiences?
ReplyDeleteI think that there are many things we could use to connect our target audiences to hunger. Something we could say is "Thousands of parents struggle everyday so that they can feed their children. Can you imagine not knowing whether or not you could feed your children even one meal a day?" This would clearly connect to people that have children. I think it would hit the emotional appeal because it would make them think about how parents of hungry families must feel not knowing if they can feed their families, let alone themselves.
(Adding to what I just posted)...
ReplyDeleteThis shows 'Consubstantiality' because it connects these two parties (target audience and hungry people) to each other through a mutual identification of having children and needing to provide for them.
Answer to Question 2: Beginnings can overshadow ends and ends can overshadow beginnings. How can we use this in our portrayal of hunger issues in an effective manner?
ReplyDeleteIf beginnings can be powerful enough overshadow both body and end, and ends can perform the same function, than the beginning and end can be equally powerful. The most potential impact of a composition, then, lies at the start and at the finish. I think of this as a "U" shape of impact within a piece, and it means that to persuade an audience the most the beginning and end should be "sticky" (should stick with the audience by grabbing their attention and illustrating a point). Everyone has heard about hunger and as such it is not a very captivating subject. Our role is to make it interesting enough to spark action within the audience. Burke seems to argue that the key point to creating this interest is to focues on the beginning and the end of a composition.
-Anita
Answer to Question 1: When Burke talks about how the word bastard is used as an abusive word to describe someone, this could also be compared with the way we view and describe the words hunger, poor and homeless. We use they words not in a knowledgable way but to offend someone's character or their way of life. Using these hunger words as epithets could lead to people not working as hard to help impoverished people in their community because they look at these poor/hungry/homeless people in a degrading way. We view those words as lazy people who have soime sort of problem such as alcoholism, not as just normal members of society. Many won't spend their time or money helping "Homeless" people when they feel that these poverty stricken people did something to deserve this horrible way of life.
ReplyDelete7) pg. 45 Burke argues that the decisions of what is too much and what is too little are acts of rhetoric. How does this apply to our concerns regarding hunger issues?
ReplyDeleteWithin that same sentence involving "what is too much and what is too little," Burke also uses the word controversies. Regarding hunger, I think we could also use the term relativity interchangeably with controversies. Who is to say one person is hungry and another person is not? Depending on the person, there are different thresholds one can take. One person may be able to eat one meal every three days and then consider themselves hungry while another person will eat three meals in a day and still consider themselves hungry by the end of the night. It is all relative.
- Stevi
Question #1:
ReplyDeleteWhen referring to the word 'bastard', as well as other words that carry a heavy meaning, it has a subjective appeal that is different for those who read the word and assign a weight it its meaning. This Burke passage reminded my of the previous assignment where we had to define words that dealt with hunger; some very grave words had definitions that did not reflect the word's severity. This shows the importance that word choice has in persuasive writing.
(this sounds way better in my head so I can further explain in class. Im rambling so I should probably quit while I'm ahead)
Question 4.
ReplyDeleteI think a way to really get peoples attention and connect to our audience is to place them in someone who is hungrys shoes. Neal said something in class on Thursday that really got my attention. He asked us how hungry we would have to be to walk down to a shelter to get a meal. I really thought about it and it humbled me. I think posing questions like that forcing people to ask themselves the What ifs? creates a connection with people who really have to answer these questions.
Emily S
Question 6) Burke states, "Only the voices from without are effective which can speak in the language of a voice within." How can we apply this to effectively/persuasively spreading our message of hunger relief?
ReplyDeleteBurke also writes "The individual person, striving to form himself in accordance with the communicative norms that match the cooperative ways of his society, is by the same token concerned with the rhetoric of identification . Burke seems to be saying that when we attempt to identify with our audience, we are at our peak of persuasiveness. Burke's first statement, "the voices from without..."suggests that sometimes the most persuasive voice can be the voice of an objective third party. By attempting to relate to the audience we as rhetoricians may gain additional insight that can add to our arguments.
Hunger as a unique experience validates Burke's point. Without being able to provide the insight to the outside of hunger, we are unable to understand the differences within hunger, and thus, would not be able to effectively write about it. Burke is arguing that outside opinion provides significant contrast to the inside of an issue, thus allowing us to write in a rhetorical manner about a NEW experience.
2)
ReplyDeleteThe point that sometimes ends can overshadow beginnings, and vice versa, is relevant if you consider hunger from a persuasive perspective. It is extremely important for our internet marketing group to focus on the link between the beginnings of Conscious Alliances' efforts (which is the donors) and the results of alleviating hunger. It would not serve Conscious Alliance if the ends of their efforts seemed to materialize out of nothing, independent the donations they received. This specific of rhetorical trap is very importance to take note of, and in the marketing sense for Conscious Alliance, avoid. The solution for this problem is perhaps surprisingly simple. Continual emphasis on each aspect (the beginning and the end) of the effort to alleviate hunger should be a way to nullify the potential negative effects of overshadowing.
-Kyle
6) pg.39 Burke states, “Only the voices from without are effective which can speak in the language of a voice within.” How can we apply this to effectively/persuasively spreading our message of hunger relief?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alyssa on her point that we cannot effectively write about hunger because we haven't had the experience to internalize or externalize hunger. It is most likely that the people in our class are middle to upper middle class and are of a higher social economic status so we cannot "speak in the language of a voice within." While many of us do not have the experience of hunger we do possess the ability to evaluate. I think that this ability, while it may not provide a "voice within", does make our words and discussion of hunger important because we are spreading awareness and thus spreading the message of hunger relief.
-Kate
Answer to Question 4
ReplyDeleteI think making a mutual connection between you and the people you are helping is imperative to getting people to really donate and help. I think a way you can do this is by like Emily said putting yourself in their shoes, but most times people that have lived an upper scale life can't do that, so another wayis maybe find something in common such as say a woman that has a job and 2 kids and trying to make it, you could point out to someone that is a woman donater that she has that in common with her, than they can feel a connection and relate to the struggle and financial strains of that, and realise how much she has to buy to feed her kids and think of how hard it must be for that lady and want to help out
-Natasha
Question 3:
ReplyDeleteI believe war is a special case of peace because it is another part of society that is accepted. Similar to hunger, war is a societal norm that not many people can justify but many people accept. As a class our focus should be bring life to the reality of hunger as an issue that should not be so mundane and brushed off. This is important for us because we have to be conscious of hunger being accepted so that we can write in a manner that sways people to work against that.
Answer to question 1:
ReplyDeleteJust as Bastard has transformed into a derogatory word to describe someone's character, homeless has been naturally reconstructed in many of our minds to hold a negative connotation. What is easily overlooked is the fact that there are a vast number of reasons someone could go from a financially stable position in our society to being homeless. There are so many factors like your job, health, and transportation that can be unstable and out of your control. So many people see the homeless as alcoholics who made one too many mistakes in their life. Like the word bastard, when they hear the word homeless they automatically think about the negative picture they have constructed in their heads. By showing people that homelessness is a much more complicated situation than simply "being lazy," hopefully we can persuade them to adjust their present view of the homeless. The word should only be describing the fact that the person is "home-less" and shouldn't be a judgment of their character.
I believe that this relates to our course in that hunger is a highly contended issue. For example, take food stamps. One person may have the rhetorical position that they are a positive impact and one may have the opposite. However, the voice that speaks the loudest, with the most eloquence, and with the most support will gain the most supporters. I think that this relates to the course in that we must take the needs of our community partners and the hungry populations that we are representing, assess how those needs could be met and be a voice for them to the community that they don't have enough. Beyond this our rhetorical act must also be one of persuasion that our community can have an active role in changing this and should.
ReplyDelete