Burke

Let me just preface this by saying that I still haven't gotten a hold of Shusterman-- stupid half.com/ Amazon keeps canceling my orders. Sigh.

In A Rhetoric of Motives, Burke calls on classical interpretations of rhetoric to explore its ethical implications. He writes that considering rhetoric as connected to persuasion (and other offices) helps us to refigure its purpose in ethical discussions. In CounterStatement, Burke creates a taxonomy based on form (which he argues in the Preface is against prevailing trends) to show the interrelation of rhetoric and aesthetics. Underlying both of these pieces, I think, is the idea that the body and mind are not separate, but intimately connected -- especially when responding to form.

Burke's writing style is another breath of fresh air. While still academic, the "we" and "you" is not only interesting, but a move toward establishing a connection with his audience. A famous rhetorician, Burke assumes knowledge of rhetoric and classical texts, but at the same time, I think, tries to offer his readers this vast knowledge as well. I think his project focuses on the relevance of rhetoric to contemporary times (around 1940s) and suggests that rhetoric has connections to the present, even if we might not think it does.

I'm wondering about Burke's discussion of form and how it maps onto aesthetics. I kept thinking of Baumgarten as I read this. How does rhetoric mirror, or align with, aesthetics? Let me explain that a bit. When Burke talks about form, he's focusing on poetry and drama (Aristotle, anyone?) and suggests that bodies respond to rhythms in particular ways. These are ideas that the sophists toyed with, of course. Clearly, from this, we can see how questions of the body do come up again in discussions of aesthetics. So, are rhetoric and aesthetics actually more aligned than we think? (Note: this idea is something I've been toying with after the activity Anne asked us to do in class where we mapped out our own questions).

It's interesting, though, that Burke brings these discussions up as a "counter-statement." Who, exactly, is he "countering"? And why?

Finally, I'd like to talk more about the question of motive -- since it seems to me that it's not quite "intent" but something more than that.