As I said in a previous post, we have to realize, along with Kenneth Burke, that any discourse, any story, description or set of terms (“woman,” “heavyset,” “black,” etc.) must act as what Kenneth Burke calls a “terministic screen“–that it frames an issue. We should note the dual nature of screens: that they are both a surface upon which images can be projected, and also objects that block our view. Both these aspects come into play. The issue framed by a term is inevitably changed:
Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function as a deflection of reality. (45)
“A picture is worth a thousand words”–probably more like a million, and which thousand one chooses will never fully encapsulate everything that the picture is and can be. That’s the selection aspect. The deflection aspect is also important to note, because while we think we’re being shown all there is, what we see distracts us from the rest. For instance, when comics play on their marginal personas and identities for a laugh, it fails to represent other things those comics could be, and further entrenches the expectations we have for all comics of that type. These expectations, in turn may limit what we allow future comics who look like that to do.
Further, it’s not like we can escape this situation:
We must use terministic screens, since we can’t say anything without the use of terms (50).
The screens are a habit of symbolizing–in using symbols, we automatically create screens. The same is true of more complex symbols/screens, like identities and personas.
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?
References:
Burke, Kenneth (1966). “Terministic Screens.” Language as Symbolic Action. University of California: Berkeley, CA. 44-62.
