Kenneth Burke was a literary theorist and philosopher perhaps best known for his Pentad. However, I–following in the tradition of Elizabeth Mechling, Ph.D.–came to seriously dislike the Pentad as a tool for analyzing texts, partially because it was so misunderstood. Here, I’d like to lay out some basic concepts of Burke’s method, which he called Dramatism, and elsewhere I’ll lay out seven related concepts that I believe are more useful than the Pentad: Literature as Equipment for Living, Terministic Screens, Perspective by Incongruity, Cluster-Agon, his Definition of Man [sic], Identification and Consubstantiality, and finally, the Representative Anecdote and Cult of the Kill.
Dramatistic vs. Scientistic
Burke contrasts his Dramatism with the traditional methods, which he calls Scientistic. The scientistic, he says, names and defines things; it says “It is, It is not.” So we might say the scientistic strives to be relatively objective [though there are problems here, as arguments of fact/definition are a basic level of argument. When we establish what something is and what it is not, we partially determine how we can treat it. Is it a baby, or a zygote? Can we treat one differently than the other, etc].
In contrast, the Dramatistic expresses, commands and requests. It is attitudinal and hortatory–it provides an emotional value and an urge to act. It stresses Language as Symbolic Action [see next section]. The Dramatistic says, “Thou shalt, thou shalt not.” Thus, the Dramatistic, is, for Burke, the realm of rhetoric, where we seek to persuade people to act.
Motion vs. Action
Burke differentiates, between what he calls Motion and Action. Motion, he says, is natural, it’s grounded in the physical realm, and follows the rules of simple cause and effect. Motion can occur without Action.
On the other hand, Action is a result of human activity, and it’s grounded in symbol use and a dramatic interpretation of situations. Action cannot occur without Motion.
This distinction is a bit like (and pre-dates) Michel Foucault’s concept of prediscursive, things–objects, bodies, events, practices and institutions–that exist in the world independent of how we talk about them (the discursive). But collapsing the two is a bit tricky. [I find Foucault much more expansive and nuanced.]
Foucault’s events, like rainfall, might best work with Burke’s concept of Motion. If rainfall is Motion, then we can add the “discursive” layer of news reporting: Should you bring an umbrella? Will there be enough rain for crops this season (and what should farmer’s do)? What’s the likelihood of flooding (and what should everyone do)? etc. That’s Action, it’s entirely conducted through the use of symbols and is dependent on–but in some respects untethered from–the event of the rain.
Conclusion
These distinctions are perhaps integral to everything Burke writes, and provide a basic understanding of what he means when he talks about symbolic action. Once we’re talking about human interaction with “facts,” we’re automatically adding layers of influence and persuasion.
Sources:
Burke, Kenneth (1966). Language as Symbolic Action. University of California: Berkeley, CA.
