Hubbry Logo
DramatismDramatismMain
Open search
Dramatism
Community hub
Dramatism
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Dramatism
Dramatism
Dramatism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Rhetoric
History
Concepts
Genres
Criticism
Rhetoricians
Works
Subfields
Related

Dramatism, a rhetorical theory, was developed by Kenneth Burke as a tool for analyzing human relationships through the use of language. Burke viewed dramatism from the lens of logology, which studies how people's ways of speaking shape their attitudes towards the world.[1] According to this theory, the world is a stage where all the people present are actors and their actions parallel a drama.[1] Burke then correlates dramatism with motivation, saying that people are "motivated" to behave in response to certain situations, similar to how actors in a play are motivated to behave or function.[1] Burke discusses two important ideas – that life is drama, and the ultimate motive of rhetoric is the purging of guilt.[2] Burke recognized guilt as the base of human emotions and motivations for action. As cited in "A Note on Burke on "Motive"", the author recognized the importance of "motive" in Burke's work.[3] In "Kenneth Burke's concept of motives in rhetorical theory", the authors mentioned that Burke believes that guilt, "combined with other constructs, describes the totality of the compelling force within an event which explains why the event took place."[4]

Dramatism consists of three broad concepts —the pentad, identification, and the guilt-purification-redemption cycle.[1] The entry then considers five major areas in which scholars in a variety of fields apply dramatism: the dramaturgical self, motivation and drama, social relationships as dramas, organizational dramas, and political dramas.

To understand people's movement and intentions, the theorist sets up the Dramatistic Pentad strategy for viewing life, not as life itself,[5] by comparing each social unit involved in human activities as five elements of drama – act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose,[6] to answer the empirical question of how persons explain their actions,[2] and to find the ultimate motivations of human activities.

"Dramatism is treated as a technique for analyzing language as a mode of action in which specialized nomenclatures are recognized, each with particular ends and insights."[7]

Background and assumptions

[edit]

Background

[edit]

Kenneth Burke was an established literary critic who has contributed immensely to rhetoric theory.[1] Originally influenced by Shakespeare and Aristotle's rhetoric, he developed his theory of Dramatism, separating himself from the two by adding the importance of motive. Dramatism went on to be immensely important to communication studies and in understanding how language shapes perception.[1] Some argue that he was slightly ahead of his time when it came to his intense interdisciplinary approach to his theory. Using his classical education of literature and rhetoric as a foundation, Dramatism was largely influenced by the philosophies of Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud. Burke was said to refer to the work of Parsons, as well as of social thinkers such as Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Alfred Schütz and G.H. Mead, all of whom wrote extensively regarding social action. The joining of these ideologies pushed Burke's work from literary to cultural criticism.[2]

Influence of World War II

[edit]

In the years that Burke was working on crafting Dramatism, the second World War waged on, providing great context to his Grammar of Motives[8] by explaining the implications of motive on action and human communication.[9] Burke called this war the "mightiest war the human race will ever experience". This war played a major role in "rhetorizing" Dramatism. He wrote extensively about the war and its social, political and literary aspects which led him to create this theory. Dramatism emerged as the antithesis to war - it encouraged a poetic dialectic and variations in perspectives in order to come to a joint conclusion to appease all. This came as an opposition to how wars functioned, with "monolithic certainty in the rule of the strongman" and with the need for complete obedience.[10]

Drama as a metaphor

[edit]

The use of drama as a metaphor in order to understand human behavior and motivation forms the basis for this theory. According to West,[11] there are three basic reasons that drama is a useful metaphor to the idea of Dramatism.

  1. Drama indicates a wide range of human experience.
  2. There are typical genres that drama follows, which are similar to ways of communicating in human lives.
  3. Drama is closely related to audiences, which shows the struggles of audiences and also provides suggestions.

It is possible because Burke believes that Drama has recognizable genres. Humans use language in patterned discourses, and texts move us with recurring patterns underlying those texts.[12] And drama has certain audiences, which means rhetoric plays a crucial role when humans deal with experiences. Language strategies are central to Burke's dramatistic approach.[13]

This does not necessarily imply that Dramatism is also entirely metaphorical. Critics as well as Burke have debated whether this theory is literal or metaphorical.[14]

Assumptions

[edit]

Because of the complexity and extension of Burke's thinking, it is difficult to label the ontology behind his theory.

However, some basic assumptions can still be extracted to support the understanding of dramatism.

  1. Some of what we do is motivated by animality and some of it by symbolicity.[12] A human's purpose for drinking water is to satisfy thirst, which is an animal need; while the action of reading papers is influenced by symbols. Burke's position is that both animal nature and symbols motivate us. For him, of all the symbols, language is the most important. Barry Brummett shares a similar idea in his book Landmark Essays on Kenneth Burke, that "teeters between the realizations that some of what we do is motivated by animality and some of it by symbolicity (p. xii)."[15]
  2. When we use language, we are used by it as well. Burke held a concept of linguistic relativity similar to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis . Words set our concepts and opinions, which means people cannot see beyond what their words lead them to believe.[16] This assumption suggests that language exerts a determining influence over people,[17] which means meanwhile people's propositions are often restricted to be polarized by language, because some language cannot express much nuance of opinion.
  3. We humans are choice makers. Agency is another key point of dramatism; "The essence of agency is choice."[18] Social actors have the ability of acting out of choices.

Key concepts

[edit]

1. Dramatistic Pentad

[edit]

Pentad

[edit]

The dramatistic pentad is an instrument used as a set of relational or functional principles that could help us understand what he calls the 'cycle cluster of terms' people use to attribute motive.[19] This pentad is a dissolution to drama.[20] It is parallel with Aristotle's four causes and has a similar correlation to journalists' catechism: who, what, when, where, why, and how.[2] This is done through the five key elements of human drama – act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose.[6] The Pentad is a simple tool for seeing and understanding the complexity of a situation. It reveals the nuances and complications of language as symbolic action, which in turn, opens up our perspective.[21]

Dramatism Pentad
  • Act: "What", what has done. According to Burke, "the act" of the Pentad is which "names what took place, in thought or deed."[8]
  • Scene: "When" and "Where". According to Burke, "the scene" is defined as "the background of an act, the situation in which it occurred."[8]
  • Agent: "by Whom", who did it. Burke defines the "agent" as "what person or kind of person performed the act."[8]
  • Agency: "How", which is associated with methods and technologies. Burke defines the "agency" as "what instrument or instruments he used."[8]
  • Purpose: "Why", why it happened. This is associate with the motive behind the behavior, which is the main focus of the analysis.
  • Attitude: The preparation prior to performing an act

From the pentad to the hexad

[edit]

Over time, Burke realized that his pentad needed a sixth element, thereby turning it into a hexad. In the 1969 edition of Grammar, Burke added a new element, 'Attitude Frame'.[22] Attitude means "the preparation for an act, which would make it a kind of symbolic act, or incipient act."[23] Burke created this in order to account for the complexity of a responses that may arise within an audience. He includes Attitude as an aspect of his writings about Frame.

It can be used in place of an act or be the precedent to an act.[24] Mead's writings were interpreted by Burke as "delayed action", wherein people can arouse a change in attitude in themselves as well as others through verbal communication. Burke goes on to agree that attitude is impacted by social surroundings as well as verbal actions. Attitudes can influence how a person acts.[8] It is the conscious, calculated step in the pause before an act.

Pentad in action
[edit]

David Ling used the Pentad elements to evaluate Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy's now-infamous speech in 1969 to persuade the audiences to see him as a victim of his family curse instead of the one who should be responsible for an accident which caused death of Mary Jo Kopechne. From Kennedy's statement, Ling recognized several elements from the Pentad:[25]

Kennedy's response to the Chappaquiddick Incident:

  • Act: The failure to immediately report a fatal accident and its causes
  • Scene: The events surrounding Mary Jo Kopechne and the event's time in history
  • Agent: Senator Ted Kennedy
  • Agency: The method by which Kennedy eventually reported his involvement in the incident
  • Purpose: To fulfill legal and moral responsibilities
  • Attitude: The circumstances were out of Kennedy's control and his family history negatively contributed

Kennedy denied his relationship with the dead woman, described his survival as a fate, and described the difficulty of rescuing the woman at the scene. He pivoted the fact and described it as a circumstance that he couldn't control. Ultimately, Kennedy escaped the incident with very little damage to his social and political capital as demonstrated by the continuation of his 40-year career in the U.S. Senate. These events were eventually adapted into John Curran's film Chappaquiddick in 2018.

Dramatistic ratios

[edit]

Dramatistic ratios are the "proportions of one element relative to another in the Dramatism Pentad",[11] which can be used to find the dominant element in the interaction.

Any complete statement about motives will offer some kind of answers to the five questions above.[20] While it is important to understand each element of the pentad on its own, it is more important to understand how the elements work together. This is called a ratio, and there are ten possible ratios within the Pentad. Burke maintained that analyzing the ratios of a speaker's presentation would expose the resources of ambiguity people might exploit to interpret complex problems.[19] The most common ratios used by Burke are Scene-Act and Scene-Agent. When engaged in a dramatistic study, he notes, "the basic unit of action would be defined as 'the human body in conscious or purposive motion'", which is an agent acting in a situation.[2]

2. Identification

[edit]

Identification is the basic function of sociality, using both positive and negative associations. When there is overlap between two people in terms of their substance, they have identification.[26] On the other hand, division is the lack of overlap between two people in matters of essence.[27] According to Burke, identification is an inevitable, thus both beneficial and detrimental characteristic of language in human relations.[28] Identification has the following features:

The chief notion of a "new rhetoric"

[edit]

Examining Aristotle's principles of rhetoric, Burke points out that the definition of the "old rhetoric" is, in essence, persuasion.[29] Correspondingly, Burke proposes a new rhetoric, which discusses several issues, but mainly focuses on the notion of identification. In comparison with "old" rhetoric, which stresses on deliberate design, "new" rhetoric may include partially "unconscious" factors in its appeal.[30]

Burke's concept of new rhetoric has also been expanded in various academic disciplines. For example, in 2015 philosophers Rutten & Soetaert used the new rhetoric concept to study changing attitudes in regards to education as a way to better understand if Burke's ideas can be applied to this arena.[31]

Burke's new rhetoric has also been used to understand the women's equality movement, specifically in regards to the education of women and sharing of knowledge through print media. Academic Amlong deconstructed print medias of the 1800s addressing human rights as an aspect of educating women about the women's rights movement.[32]

Generated when two people's substances overlap

[edit]

Burke asserts that all things have substance, which he defines as the general nature of something. Identification is a recognized common ground between two people's substances, regarding physical characteristics, talents, occupation, experiences, personality, beliefs, and attitudes. The more substance two people share, the greater the identification.[6] It is used to overcome human division.[33]

Can be falsified to result in homophily

[edit]

Sometimes the speaker tries to falsely identify with the audience, which results in homophily for the audience. Homophily is the perceived similarity between speaker and listener.[6] The so-called "I" is merely a unique combination of potentially conflicting corporate "we's". For example, the use of the people rather than the worker would more clearly tap into the lower middle-class values of the audience the movement was trying to reach.[28]

Reflects ambiguities of substance

[edit]

Burke recognizes that identification rests on both unity and division, since no one's substance can completely overlap with others. Individuals are "both joined and separated".[29] Humans can unite on certain aspects of substance but at the same time remain unique, which is labeled as "ambiguities". Identification can be increased by the process of consubstantiation, which refers to bridging divisions between two people. Rhetoric is needed in this process to build unity.

3. Guilt and redemption

[edit]

According to Burke, guilt redemption is considered the plot of all human drama, or the root of all rhetoric. He defined the "guilt" as "the theological doctrine of Original Sin".[34] As cited in Littlejohn, Burke sees guilt as "all-purpose word for any feeling of tension within a person—anxiety, embarrassment, self-hatred, disgust and the like."[35]

In this perspective, Burke concluded that the ultimate motivation of man is to purge oneself of one's sense of guilt through public speaking. The term guilt covers tension, anxiety, shame, disgust, embarrassment, and other similar feelings. Guilt serves as a motivating factor that drives the human drama.

Burke's cycle refers to the process of feeling guilt and attempting to reduce it, which follows a predictable pattern: order (or hierarchy), the negative, victimage (scapegoat or mortification), and redemption.

Order or hierarchy

[edit]

Society is a dramatic process in which hierarchy forms structure through power relationships. The structure of social hierarchy considered in terms of the communication of superiority, inferiority and equality.[36] The hierarchy is created through language use, which enables people to create categories. Individuals feel guilt as a result of their place in the hierarchy.[11]

The negative

[edit]

The negative comes into play when people see their place in the social order and seek to reject it. Saying no to the existing order is both a function of our language abilities and evidence of humans as choice makers.[36] Burke coined the phrase "rotten with perfection", which means that because our symbols allow us to imagine perfection, we always feel guilty about the difference between the reality and the perfection.[37]

Victimage

[edit]

Victimage is the way that we try to redeem the guilt. There are two ways of victimage. The way of turning the guilt into ourselves is called mortification. It is engaged when we apologize or blame ourselves when facing the wrongdoing; the way of turning the guilt to external parties is called scapegoating. According to Burke, there are two different types of scapegoating, universal and fractional. In universal scapegoating, the speaker blames everyone for the problem, so the audience associates and even feels sorry for the victim, because it includes themselves. In fractional scapegoating, the speaker blames a specific group or a specific person for their problems. This creates a division within the audience.[38] The victim, whoever it may be, is vilified, or made up to violate the ideals of social order, like normalcy or decency. As a result, people who take action against the villains become heroized because they are confronting evil.[39]

Redemption

[edit]

This is a confession of guilt by the speaker and a request for forgiveness.[6] Normally, these people are sentenced to a certain punishment so they can reflect and realize their sins. This punishment is specifically a kind of "death", literally or figuratively.

Many speakers experience a combination of these two guilt-purging options. The ongoing cycle starts with order. The order is the status quo, where everything is right with the world. Then pollution disrupts the order. The pollution is the guilt or sin. Then casuistic stretching allows the guilt to be accepted into the world. Next, is the guilt, which is the effect of the pollution. After that, is victimage or mortification which purges the guilt. Finally comes transcendence which is new order, the now status quo.[6]

Emphasis on symbolic constitution

[edit]

Burke defined the rhetorical function of language as "a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols."[40] When talking about how the use of language can alter one's perceptions and beliefs entirely, Burke also wrote extensively about how symbolic action can even push man to war.

"Dramatism defines language as symbolic action."[14] At the very core of this theory and throughout its subsequent applications and critiques, there is a common underlying emphasis on symbolic interactionism and its impact on how the theory is perceived. Burke's goal is to explain the whole of human experience with symbolic interaction. He addresses how symbolic understanding can help encourage motives.[41] Burke emphasizes how the "reality" that we construct for ourselves is generated and altered through the use of symbols, which in turn affects language and ultimately motive.

Major areas of application

[edit]

Dennis Brissett and Charles Edgley examine the utility of dramatism on different levels, which can be categorized as the following dimensions:[42]

1. The dramaturgical self

[edit]

Dramaturgical perspective is vividly used to analyze human individuality. It views individuality as more a social rather than a psychological phenomenon. The concept of a dramaturgical self as formulated by sociologist Erving Goffman was inspired by the theatre, and also finds roots in relations to Burke's work.[43] Specifically, the concept of dramaturgy ideates life as a metaphorical theater, differentiating from Burke's concept of life as a theater itself.

Some examples of classic research questions on the topic involve how people maximize or minimize the expressiveness, how one stage ideal self, the process of impression-management, etc. For example, Larson and Zemke described the roots of the ideation and patterning of temporal socialization which is drawn from biological rhythms, values and beliefs, work and social commitments, cultural beliefs and engagement in activity.[44]

2. Motivation and drama

[edit]

Motives play a crucial role in social interaction between an acting person and his or her validating audience. Within the dramaturgical frame, people are rationalizing. Scholars try to provide a way of understanding how the various identities which comprise the self are constructed. For example, Anderson and Swainson tried to find the answer of whether rape is motivated by sex or by power.[45]

3. Social relationships as dramas

[edit]

As with any drama, there is the need for an audience to perform for. Within social contexts, this addresses how people encourage or discourage behaviors of others in the social group. Dramatists also concern the ways in which people both facilitate and interfere with the ongoing behavior of others. The emphasis is on the expressive nature of the social bond. Some topics as role taking, role distance are discussed. For example, by analyzing public address, scholars examine why a speaker selects a certain strategy to identify with audience. For example, Orville Gilbert Brim, Jr. analyzed data to interpret how group structure and role learning influence children's understanding of gender.[46]

4. Organizational dramas

[edit]

In addition to focusing on the negotiated nature of social organization, dramaturgy emphasizes the manner in which the social order is expressed through social interaction, how social organization is enacted, featured and dramatized. Typical research topics include corporate realm, business influence on federal policy agenda, even funerals and religious themes. For example, by examining the decision making criteria of Business Angels, Baron and Marksman identified four social skills which contribute to entrepreneurial success: social perception; persuasion and social influence; social adaptability and impression management. They employ dramatism to show how these skills are critical in raising finance.[47]

5. Political dramas

[edit]

It is acknowledged that the political process has become more and more a theatrical, image-mongering, dramatic spectacle worthy of a show-business metaphor on a grand scale. Scholars study how dramaturgical materials create essential images by analyzing political advertising and campaigns, stagecraft-like diplomacy, etc. For example, Philip.E.Tetlock tried to answer why presidents became more complex in their thinking after winning the campaign. He found the reason is not presidents' own cognitive adjustment, but a means of impression management.[48]

[edit]

Dramatism provides us a new way to understand people. Though Dramatism has some clear hindrances, many argue that Kenneth Burke and his theories are "still worth reading." Oratory and how and what people say continue to drive daily life continuing the usefulness of dramatistic analysis in a variety of fields.[49]

Communication and public relations

[edit]
  • Rempel Denise applies Dramatism to explore the social networking site MySpace.[50] She analyzed the architecture of MySpace, the identity presentation of users and the audience reception and finds out that legitimate communication is impossible, and consequently, cannot lead the users to act consubstantially.
  • The fundamentals of public relations, much to Burke's dismay, are very closely related to the key concept of Identification within Dramatism theory. The ability to recognize common ground between a speaker and his audience is vital in achieving effective persuasion and the ability to shift a particular narrative or "drama."[51]

Culture

[edit]
  • Gregory Clark addressed the Pentad to look into the sharing places in the United States.[52] He concluded that tourism sites, which work as the scene in Pentad, have the tendency to differentiate American people from other culture and therefore established a sense of national identity in terms of a common culture.

English

[edit]
  • Burke's technical term for drama representative anecdote[8] indicates that the compositionist's adage gives appropriate examples covers the case adequately. Winterowd suggests writers should present ideas dramatistically, not relying on argument and demonstration alone but grounding their abstractions in the concreteness of what being called as representative anecdotes.[53] Representative anecdote means conceptual pivot and is equated with a family of terms: enthymeme, thesis, topic sentence, theme. The representative anecdote, can be either support or conceptual pivot, and in the case of drama is both support and conceptual pivot.[54]

Healthcare, therapy, and social work

[edit]
  • In 2014, a methadone maintenance treatment center in Copenhagen applied Dramatism to staff member feedback in order to address their varying degrees of ethical concerns in regards to the center's practices and policies. This treatment center chose Dramatism as a guide because they understood that their staff are all driven by different motives and act and react differently based on their personal history and specific context within the treatment facility. The opportunity to discuss these differences helped staff members, who otherwise do not have any input, understand the driving forces behind the policies set by the center with hopes that understanding made them more effective and knowledgeable practitioners.[55]
  • Educational researcher at Ghent University, Kris Rutten chose to apply a dramatistic lens to Milos Forman's film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest because of its relevance to mental health and "disability treatment" to teach his social work students how to approach varying levels of ambiguity in their future practice. This application focused heavily on the dramatistic ratios of the Pentad elements to highlight various hierarchies and power structures showcased in the film's fictional mental health facility and the actions and reactions of the facility staff and patients. In essence, Rutten uses this example to offer "a perspective about perspectives" that ultimately prepare his students of social work for their future in other clinical settings.[56]

Politics

[edit]
  • David Ling uses the pentad to analyze Senator Edward Ted Kennedy's address to the people of Massachusetts after the Chappaquiddick Incident.[57] He regards the events surrounding the death of Miss Kopechne as the scene, Kennedy himself as the agent, Kennedy's failure to report the accident in time as act, methods to report as agency, and finds out that the purpose for Kennedy is to fulfill his legal and moral duty.
  • Another example of dramatism in politics is the use of Burke's rhetorical interpretations as a tool to understand presentations of terrorism in media. Researchers Gurrionero and Canel highlight the use of Burke's understanding of motives and identification within the context of the media's framing of terrorist attacks, saying that the words and symbols used are with specific motives to frame the pentad into the voice that benefits the media and viewers at the expense of the acclaimed terrorists.[58]
[edit]
  • Dwight Macdonald and Ernest Van Den Haag views that popular (or "mass"-) culture functions not as Scene, as one might ordinarily expect, but as Agency. "Masscult" itself is the force involved in the Act of brainwashing the public into accepting lower standards of art. This Act is accomplished with the "Sub-Agency" of modern electronic technology, the mass media.[59][page needed]

Scientific research

[edit]
  • As ethical concerns continue to move to the forefront of research concerns, Warren Bowen dedicated his doctoral thesis exploring the widely held acceptance that Burke's Pentad applies only to humans. Bowen raises the question, 'what happens when animals are the scene of a particular issue?'. Much of the research using animal testing fails to hold animal interests at the same level as their human counterparts, therefore ignoring some of the non-verbal cues or other symbolic feedback that would otherwise indicate distress. The scene:agent ratio here is clearly skewed. Ultimately Bowen shines a light on the extremely subjective nature of the Pentad and the power that humans hold over other beings that do not communicate in the same way.[60]

Sociology

[edit]
  • Some researchers, such as Robert Wade Kenny, addressed the use of the Pentad and Dramatism to look into the field of sociology. As Kenny states, that the pentad can be used to examine sociology because, "sociology is predicated on the notion that human action is neither random nor mystical, and this sets up the initial condition necessary for an inquiry into the motivating principles that give rise to social order and disorder."[61] He stated that sociology is a study of human action, human behavior and lifeworld "must be in play",[61] and the behaviors are motivated, so the dramatism elements can be applied to sociology field.

Critiques

[edit]

Burke's dramatism has been a great contribution to the communication field, which is praised by many researchers in this area. Chesebro commented on Burke's work that "few critics have revealed the scope, imagination, insights, and dazzling concern for symbol using which Kenneth Burke possesses (Chesebro, 1993, p. xii)".[62] The New York Times described Burke as a leading critic in the US, stating that Burke is recognized "as a major influence on critics like Harold Bloom and writers like Ralph Ellison".[63] Burke's work is widely praised and has influenced a significant number of researchers as well as students in the communication field.

There have been, however, criticisms of his work. Some of the most obvious being in regard to Burke's overall negative approach to interpersonal relationships. Within the Modern Rhetorical Criticism text, authors Hart, Saughton, and Lavally argue that Burke " look[ed] to the inevitable divisions among people and between people and their personal goals" when in reality relationships operate in the gray.[64]

Focus on criticism over composition

[edit]

Charles Kneupper states that several concerns arise when applying dramatism to the process of composition.[65] He presses on the need to consider the shortcomings of this theory. The theory can be examined by the criteria below:

  • Scope The theory of Dramatism is criticized for being too broad in scope because it aims to explain how humans interact with each other using symbols, which has been described as a general explanation that almost has no meaning as some critics believe.[27]
  • Parsimony Relatedly, some critique Burke’s theory as lacking parsimony, meaning it is unclear and too large to be useful.[66]
  • Utility Other theorists argue that Dramatism lacks utility because it leaves out topics of gender and culture.[67] Notably, Burke included women in his theory (unlike much of scholarship at the time), but feminist scholars, like Condit, found Burke's concepts inadequate to their critical concerns,[68] by using the generic "man" to represent all people.

Feminist critiques

[edit]

Feminist scholars also talked about our ability as a society to begin to think in new ways about sex and gender, to extent our language beyond duality to a broad "humanity" and to "human beings".[67] Since "being" is a state in which women simply experience life as freely, consciously, and fully as possible, realizing that this is not only the purpose of life but a genuine place from which change can occur.[69] Condit also went on to criticize Burke for assuming culture as a hegemony, specifically in relation to Burke's application of guilt purging within cultures as necessitating victims.

Later scholars, such as Anne Caroline Crenshaw,[70] went on to note that Burke did identify gender relations in one instance in relation to his arguments on social hierarchies through his analysis of socio-sexual relations present in Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis. However, this author notes that Burke's work wasn't a critique and examination of this relationship through dramatism, but the theory of dramatism does give space to make such analyses. Furthermore, scholar Brenda Robinson Hancock used Burke's dramatism to study women's movements, specifically with identification as actors.[71] Another scholar, Janet Brown,[72] made use of Burke's pentad in relation to understanding and identifications of feminist literature. Despite these works and incorporation of dramatism in feminist work, there remains the evidence that Burke did not use or intend his theory to account for gender.

Ontological and literal or epistemological and metaphorical

[edit]

Another critique of the theory is to ask whether the theory exists as a metaphorical or literal theory. In his work, Burke emphasizes that Dramatism is not epistemological but ontological and literal. However, Burkean scholars have argued time and time again that Dramatism is in fact, metaphorical and epistemological.[14]

Burke staunchly argued that his theory of dramatism is a literal theory, understanding reality as a literal stage with actors and enactment. He bases his conclusion on two claims:

1) Dramatism is ontological because it indicates language as "action" and as a representation.

2) The aforementioned point can be identified as literal because the approach to this topic is whole.

The reasoning for Burke to emphasize his theory as literal relates to the reasons to why others claim it to be metaphorical: the issue lies in the understanding of language's power as a symbol itself. Burke emphasizes the power and impact of literal speech in addition to the recognition of the possibility of the theory as metaphorical. However, future theorists, specifically Bernard Brock[73] and Herbert W. Simons,[74] went on to argue dramatism as metaphorical theory claiming that Burke's idea that all the world's a stage is mere a tool of symbolic interaction that signals life as a drama.

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Dramatism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Dramatism is a rhetorical theory and method of analyzing human motivation developed by the American literary theorist , who introduced it in his 1945 book A Grammar of Motives as a way to interpret symbolic actions through the structure of drama. At its core, dramatism posits that function as modes of action rather than mere knowledge conveyance, enabling the examination of motives by clustering terms into dramatic patterns that reveal how individuals frame and justify behaviors. Central to dramatism is the dramatistic pentad, a set of five interrelated terms—act (what took place), scene (the background or setting), agent (the actor), agency (the means employed), and purpose (the underlying intention)—which used to dissect communicative acts and uncover ratios or tensions between them, such as scene-act ratios that highlight contextual influences on behavior. This framework distinguishes purposeful symbolic action, driven by human capacities for and symbolism, from mere physical motion, emphasizing how terministic screens—chosen vocabularies—shape perceptions of and guilt in social interactions. Burke's approach has proven influential in fields like , , and , offering tools to analyze , , and conflict without reducing motives to deterministic or idealistic extremes.

Origins and Development

Kenneth Burke's Formative Influences

was born on May 5, 1897, in , , where he grew up in a middle-class family and graduated from Peabody High School in 1915. After brief enrollments at (1916–1917) and (1917–1918) without earning degrees—leaving the former amid personal and academic challenges and the latter to pursue independent writing—Burke eschewed formal academia for self-directed study, establishing himself as an autodidact whose intellectual pursuits spanned literature, philosophy, music criticism, and social theory. This period of voracious reading, documented in correspondence with peers like , fostered a synthetic approach to , blending aesthetic with critical analysis and laying groundwork for his later emphasis on symbolic motives in human action. Burke's early literary influences centered on fin-de-siècle aesthetics and modernist irony, with Walter Pater's Marius the Epicurean (read October 1915) proving pivotal in shifting his focus from raw sensation to intellectual form and exploring tensions between permanence and flux—themes echoed in his initial poems and fiction like "Beyond " (1917). Complementary readings included George Meredith's "Essay on Comedy" (shaping his ironic social lens, per a 1915 letter), (fostering ambivalence toward social pose), Fyodor Dostoevsky's (probing self-expression and despair), (critiqued for overemphasizing sensation), Arthur Symons's Studies in Prose and Verse, and André Gide's La Porte Étroite (refining artistic restraint). These works, drawn from high school curricula and personal crises (e.g., a 1916 mountain retreat), oriented Burke toward form as a tool for navigating personal and cultural transitions, evident in his evolving short stories. By 1917, philosophical engagements at Columbia expanded this foundation: Arthur Schopenhauer's On the Will in Nature influenced views of will versus intellect (though Burke favored empirical flux over metaphysical stasis); Henri Bergson's Creative Evolution informed concepts of temporal change and transitional form; introduced systematic ; and Cicero's Letters to Atticus and De Senectute sparked a "rhetorical awakening," highlighting epistolary rhetoric's blend of personal expression and public persuasion—prefiguring dramatism's scenic analysis. Later integrations drew from (profound on the younger Burke's ), ( reframed symbolically), (psychoanalytic motives as dramatized conflicts), and (social critique via ritualistic behaviors), often synthesized to prioritize linguistic and attitudinal causation over mechanistic . From 1918 onward, French Catholic authors like () and (18 works cited by 1920) deepened historical and rhetorical schematization, culminating in a "comic frame" that resolved antithetical impulses through ironic perspective.

Emergence During and After World War II

During , intensified his analysis of rhetorical strategies amid global conflict, viewing the war as a catalyst for examining how language framed human motives and divisions. He critiqued fascist rhetoric, such as in his 1939 essay "The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle,'" which dissected as a dramatistic appeal to and purification rituals, warning against simplistic unity in opposition that mirrored the enemy's binaries. Burke's wartime writings emphasized a "poetic " to navigate ideological extremes, promoting diverse perspectives over absolutism to prevent post-war dissipation of democratic clarity. This period shaped Dramatism's core as a tool for motive analysis beyond material causation, formalized in Burke's 1945 publication of A Grammar of Motives, released immediately after the war's end on September 2, 1945. The book introduced the dramatistic pentad—act, scene, agent, agency, purpose—as a framework for interpreting symbolic actions, drawing from Burke's observations of wartime propaganda's role in motivating masses without reducing humans to mechanistic responses. Burke positioned Dramatism as a response to conflict's rhetorical excesses, aiming to "purify war" through terministic screens that reveal multiple interpretive ratios rather than endorsing victors' narratives uncritically. Post-war, Dramatism evolved through Burke's 1950 A Rhetoric of Motives, which extended the theory to identification and consubstantiality, addressing tensions by analyzing how shared symbols bridge divisions without erasing differences. This development reflected Burke's ongoing engagement with , prioritizing symbolic causality over ideological purity, as evidenced in his essays on attitudes toward history amid uncertainties. Burke's framework gained traction in literary and rhetorical circles by the , influencing critiques of and applied to phenomena like McCarthyism, though it remained marginal in mainstream academia favoring positivist approaches.

Key Texts and Evolution of the Theory

Kenneth Burke's dramatism found its initial systematic exposition in A Grammar of Motives, published in 1945, where he outlined the theory as a method for interpreting human action through the lens of dramatic terminology, introducing the pentad of act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose as key analytical terms. This framework built upon Burke's earlier investigations into symbolic action in works such as The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action (1941), which explored as a mode of understanding human motives via form and ritual, and Attitudes Toward History (1937), which analyzed historical and poetic attitudes as responses to societal "" and division. In 1950, Burke extended dramatism's scope in A Rhetoric of Motives, shifting emphasis to and —processes of identification that bridge divisions in human relations—while integrating the pentad into analysis beyond mere literary critique. These core texts established dramatism as a for motive attribution, rejecting scientistic in favor of linguistic patterns that reveal how symbols shape perception and conduct. The theory evolved iteratively through Burke's subsequent writings and revisions, incorporating "dramatistic ratios"—dyadic relations between pentadic elements, such as act-scene ratios—to highlight interpretive ambiguities in motivation—as in The Philosophy of Literary Form's third edition (1957), which refined symbolic action concepts. By the and , Burke applied dramatism to broader sociocultural phenomena, introducing extensions like the hexad (adding attitude as a sixth term) and cycles of guilt, mortification, and redemption, as elaborated in Dramatism and Development (1972), a series tracing biological to symbolic stages of human development. This progression reflected Burke's ongoing between literary origins and interdisciplinary reach, adapting the method to , , and ethics without rigid dogmatism.

Fundamental Assumptions

Humans as Symbol-Using Animals

characterized humans fundamentally as symbol-using animals, emphasizing their unique capacity to employ linguistic and symbolic systems to interpret, construct, and navigate reality. This view posits that unlike other animals driven primarily by biological imperatives and physical motion, humans generate motives through symbolic action, where words and signs serve as tools for and social coordination. In dramatism, this assumption underpins the analysis of as inherently rhetorical and dramatic, shifting focus from mechanistic causation to the interpretive roles of symbols in shaping perceptions and interactions. Burke elaborated this in his 1966 essay "Definition of Man," outlining a multifaceted definition: humans are "the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal, inventor of the negative (or moralized anti-thesis), rotten with , separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of or moved by a sense of order, doomed to seek yet doomed to fail, hence forever condemned to the of purification and redemption." The symbol-using aspect highlights how enables , , and ethical hierarchies absent in non-symbolic , allowing humans to envision ideals, critique realities, and form cooperative yet competitive social structures. This capacity for symbolic misuse, such as through ambiguous or ideologically laden terms, further complicates human motives, often leading to conflict or via rhetorical strategies. In the framework of dramatism, the symbol-using nature of humans implies that motives cannot be reduced to empirical or material causes alone; instead, they emerge from symbolic dramas where individuals act as agents employing scenes, acts, purposes, and agencies defined linguistically. This perspective critiques reductionist views in or that prioritize or environment over the constitutive role of symbols in human agency. For instance, argued that symbols equip humans to "discount" immediate sensory data in favor of abstract hierarchies, fostering attitudes of order and perfectionism that drive historical and cultural developments. Consequently, dramatistic analysis treats human conflicts—such as political ideologies or moral dilemmas—as symbolic enactments, resolvable through identification rather than mere factual .

Drama as a Method for Motive Analysis

Burke conceived as a systematic approach to motive by framing actions as dramatic performances, wherein motives emerge from the interplay of symbolic rather than from mechanistic causation alone. In this view, motives are not intrinsic psychological states or material determinants but linguistic imputations shaped by the of , allowing for a nuanced of why agents perform acts within specific scenes using particular agencies toward defined purposes. This method prioritizes the symbolic of conduct, treating as the medium through which motives are articulated and contested. Central to this analysis is the dramatistic pentad, comprising five key terms—act (what happened), scene (the contextual backdrop), agent (the actor), agency (the means employed), and purpose (the intended end)—which Burke outlined in A Grammar of Motives to probe the structure of motives without reducing them to a singular causal factor. By examining "ratios" or dialectical relations between these terms, such as scene-act ratio (where the environment determines the action) or agent-purpose ratio (emphasizing the actor's intentions), the method reveals how different emphases yield varying interpretations of the same event, exposing the rhetorical framing of motives. For instance, a historical event like a political assassination might be motivated by agent-focused individualism in one ratio or scene-driven inevitability in another, highlighting interpretive flexibility inherent in symbolic action. Unlike positivist or scientistic approaches that seek unique, empirical causes for behavior, Burke's dramatistic method embraces multiplicity, positing that drama's form mirrors human motivation's complexity as "symbol-using animals" engage in and division through . This entails a rejection of reductive , favoring instead a "grammar of motives" that scrutinizes terministic screens—clusters of terms that direct toward certain aspects of while obscuring others. Empirical applications, such as rhetorical critiques of public , demonstrate how pentadic uncovers hidden hierarchies of motive, as in Burke's own examinations of literary and philosophical texts where purpose often subordinates other terms to reveal underlying orders of guilt and redemption. The method's strength lies in its applicability to diverse domains, from to , where it functions as a diagnostic tool for symbolic inducement rather than predictive , emphasizing attitude formation over behavioral . Burke maintained that such analysis fosters critical awareness of how motives are "dramatized" in everyday , enabling interlocutors to transcend partisan reductions by considering alternative pentadic emphases. Scholarly extensions, including applications to media and political campaigns, affirm its utility in decoding layered motivations, though critics note its interpretive subjectivity demands rigorous terministic consistency to avoid arbitrary ratios.

Rejection of Pure Materialism in Favor of Symbolic Causality

Kenneth Burke critiqued pure materialism, which posits that human behavior arises solely from physical, biological, or economic determinants akin to mechanistic causation, by distinguishing it from symbolic action inherent to human motives. In his framework, materialism corresponds to "motion," the realm of non-purposive, scientistic explanations where events follow deterministic physical laws without regard for interpretive symbols. Burke contended that such reductions fail to account for human agency, which operates through "action"—purposeful behaviors induced by linguistic and symbolic structures that frame perceptions and choices. This rejection stems from Burke's observation that human motives cannot be fully explained by material conditions alone, as symbols intervene to constitute and drive conduct. For instance, economic (a scene) may prompt varied responses not due to physiological imperatives but through symbolic interpretations that assign purpose, such as narratives of redemption or . argued that dramatism restores to the symbolic domain, where acts as an inducement: terms and vocabularies "select" certain facts for emphasis while "deflecting" others, thereby shaping what agents perceive as causal. This symbolic operates via terministic screens, linguistic filters that direct and motive attribution beyond empirical observables. Burke's preference for symbolic over material causality aligns with his view of humans as "symbol-using animals," whose dramas unfold through rhetorical inducements rather than Pavlovian reflexes or Marxist dialectics. He explicitly contrasted dramatism with scientistic in works like A Grammar of Motives (1945), warning against "scientism" that equates all causation with quantitative motion, thereby overlooking the qualitative, attitudinal layers of negotiation. Empirical support for this lies in Burke's analyses of historical texts, where motives emerge from dramatic ratios (e.g., scene-act pairings) rather than isolated triggers, as seen in his dissection of political where symbols like "guilt" propel cycles of accusation and purification independent of base economic forces. Critics of within Burkean reinforce this by noting its inadequacy for interpretive flexibility: materialist models predict uniform responses to stimuli, yet human actions diverge via reframing, as in wartime that transforms material defeat into purposeful narrative. did not deny material influences but subordinated them to ones, asserting that "" provides the causal for understanding why agents pursue ends amid material constraints. This positions dramatism as a corrective to , privileging causal realism through the pentadic analysis of symbolic inducements over unmediated physical .

Core Concepts

The Dramatistic Pentad

The Dramatistic Pentad, introduced by Kenneth Burke in his 1945 work A Grammar of Motives, comprises five key terms—act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose—designed to systematically investigate human motives by treating symbolic actions as dramatic performances. Burke posited these terms as generating principles for a "grammar of motives," emphasizing that a comprehensive account of any motivated action requires addressing all five elements without reducing motivation to a single deterministic factor. This framework rejects simplistic causal explanations, instead highlighting the interpretive ratios between terms to reveal underlying rhetorical strategies and worldviews. The act refers to the event or deed itself—what is done—which forms the central unit of analysis in Burke's dramatism, representing voluntary action imbued with symbolic meaning. The scene denotes the contextual backdrop, including the physical, temporal, or situational circumstances surrounding the act, often serving as a container that influences or determines the action's interpretation. Burke illustrated scene-act ratios by noting how environmental conditions might be invoked to explain behaviors, as in naturalistic philosophies where the setting predominates. The agent identifies the actor or entity performing the act, focusing on the human (or anthropomorphic) subject whose choices and capacities drive the . Agency pertains to the means or instruments employed to accomplish the act, encompassing tools, techniques, or rhetorical devices that mediate the agent's . Finally, purpose captures the underlying , , or "why" of the act, linking the other terms to motivational ends and revealing teleological aspects of human conduct. Burke stressed that the pentad's utility lies in its flexibility for ratio analysis, such as scene-agent ratios emphasizing contextual determinism or agent-act ratios prioritizing , allowing analysts to cluster terms and expose biases in motivational accounts. Originally formulated without a sixth term, the pentad was later supplemented by "attitude" in 's evolving , though the core five remain foundational for dramatistic critique.

Dramatistic Ratios and Interpretive Flexibility

The dramatistic ratios refer to the systematic interrelations among the five terms of Burke's pentad—act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose—serving as formulas for transitions between terms to uncover motives in symbolic action. Burke delineates ten principal ratios, each highlighting a distinct pairwise dynamic, such as the scene-act ratio, where the contextual scene shapes or contains the act, as illustrated in analyses of Ibsen's , wherein middle-class settings dictate the unfolding plot. Similarly, the scene-agent ratio posits that the environment molds the actor, evident in Wordsworth's linking a divine scene to a divine or workers formed by conditions.
RatioDescriptionExample
Scene-ActScene determines or contains the act.Darwin's "Conditions of Existence" influencing biological acts.
Scene-AgentScene shapes the agent's or role. scene forming worker identity.
Scene-AgencyScene prescribes the means or tools available. tools as agency within industrial scene.
Scene-PurposeScene defines or constrains purpose.Spinoza's as scene for rational necessity.
Act-PurposeAct reveals or advances purpose.Biblical Creation as act embodying divine purpose.
Agent-PurposeAgent's intrinsic motives drive purpose.Proletarian in Marxist analysis.
Act-AgentAct influences or reveals agent's character. altering the agent's disposition.
Act-AgencyAct requires or implies specific means. acts employing .
Agent-AgencyAgent selects or embodies means.Aquinas's co-agent in theological action.
Agency-PurposeMeans aligned toward ends.Aristotelian purging for via medical agency.
These ratios extend the pentad into a 25-term analytical device by considering directional influences and potential reversals, enabling dissection of philosophical and rhetorical texts, such as materialism's emphasis on scene over agent. Interpretive flexibility arises from the ratios' capacity to rearrange emphases among the terms, allowing multiple perspectives on the same event; for instance, prioritizing the scene-act ratio yields a deterministic reading where context dictates action, whereas an agent-act focus underscores volition and . describes this as the "slipperiness" at the operational level, where "the five key terms can be arranged in a variety of ways, depending on the emphasis of ," fostering nuanced motive imputation without rigid . This multiplicity counters simplistic reductions, as varying the "circumference" of the scene alters act interpretation, promoting comprehensive symbolic analysis over unilateral .

Extension to the Hexad and Attitude

Burke supplemented the dramatistic pentad—comprising act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose—with attitude as a sixth term, constituting the hexad and enabling finer-grained motive imputation in symbolic interactions. This extension, articulated in revisions and later reflections on his core framework, addresses motivational dynamics where full action remains unrealized or preparatory. Attitude functions as an "incipient act," a symbolic predisposition or orientation that mediates between deliberate human action (infused with purpose and meaning) and non-symbolic motion (pure physiological response). It embodies ambiguity, serving either as a substitute for action—through delay or internalization—or as its initial phase, thus highlighting how rhetorical and psychological stances shape behavioral trajectories without necessitating physical completion. In analytical application, attitude integrates into dramatistic ratios by qualifying other pentadic elements; for example, an agent's attitude toward a scene might alter the interpretive emphasis from purpose-driven agency to attitudinal equipoise, revealing concealed motives in or . Burke exemplified this through bodily-symbolic tensions, such as a patient's composed facade masking involuntary salivation at the dentist, or as stylized attitude expressing unacted intents. This hexadic augmentation reinforces dramatism's focus on persuasion's attitudinal inducement, positioning attitude as "equipment for living"—a strategic for confronting situational hierarchies and conflicts via symbolic adjustment rather than material confrontation. By privileging such extensions, Burke's method accommodates human hesitation and rhetorical prophylaxis, distinguishing it from reductive causal models that overlook pre-actional symbolism.

Identification as Rhetorical Bridge

In Kenneth 's dramatistic framework, identification emerges as the core rhetorical strategy for bridging the fundamental divisions inherent in human social life. , for , originates from the reality of division—stemming from individuals' distinct motives, statuses, and perspectives—yet seeks unity through symbolic means. Identification counters this by creating consubstantiality, a perceived sharing of substance where disparate parties recognize common ground, enabling cooperation and without erasing underlying differences. posits that "to identify A with B is to make A 'consubstantial' with B," allowing A to act rhetorically toward B as if they share motives, even as uniqueness persists. This process functions explicitly as a "bridge," with serving to span gaps in , , or , as seen in 's of how symbols like or titles foster illusory mergers of interests. Within Dramatism, identification integrates with the pentad by emphasizing ratios—such as agent-purpose or scene-act—that highlight unifying elements over divisive ones, thus framing motives symbolically rather than mechanistically. For example, a speaker might identify with an audience's scene (contextual hardships) to align purposes, transforming potential conflict into shared drama. illustrates this in historical orations, where leaders invoke common "we" identities to transcend divisions, as in appeals to national or class during crises. This rhetorical bridge extends beyond overt to subtle, pervasive forms, including nonverbal cues or institutional symbols that tacitly induce alignment. Unlike simplistic unity, stresses its dialectical nature: identification thrives on division, as "division provides a basic motive for ," ensuring 's ongoing relevance in symbolic action. Burke's conception underscores rhetoric's realism, grounded in the causal role of symbols in constituting , rather than mere ornamentation. In A Rhetoric of Motives (1950), he argues that doctrines of underpin any viable "way of life," from religious sects to political ideologies, where failure to bridge divisions leads to or reinforcement. Empirical applications, such as analyses of wartime , reveal how identification ratios mitigate existential guilt through collective purpose, affirming Dramatism's utility in dissecting motive-laden discourses. This mechanism thus positions identification not as epiphenomenal but as causally pivotal in human dramas, privileging symbolic inducement over material .

Guilt, the Negative, and Redemption Cycles

In Kenneth 's dramatism, the invention of the negative represents a distinctive achievement through symbolic action, absent in but emergent in via prohibitions like "thou shalt not." This symbolic negation introduces guilt as a core motivator, manifesting as tension, anxiety, , or when hierarchies of order are violated. argues that guilt pervades motives, stemming from the "yes" of contrasted with the symbolic "no," which seeks to address through purgation. The redemption cycles form a recurring dramatic pattern: an initial stage of order or gives way to the negative's disruption, engendering guilt or ; this prompts purification, followed by redemption and often a return to hierarchy. Purification occurs via two primary modes—mortification, involving , , and internalization of blame to achieve governance over one's flaws; or (victimage), externalizing guilt onto an other, such as a sacrificial victim, to restore communal order. These cycles underscore dramatism's view of as a motive for resolving symbolic-induced tensions rather than mere . Burke elaborates this framework in A Grammar of Motives (1945), linking guilt-redemption to the dramatistic pentad by analyzing how act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose cluster around negation and resolution. The cycle extends to social and religious dramas, where redemption temporarily alleviates guilt but perpetuates the pattern, reflecting humanity's perpetual symbolic striving. Empirical applications, such as in organizational or political , reveal how these dynamics drive , with Burke emphasizing their universality over cultural variance.

Methodological Framework

Logology and Terministic Screens

Logology, in Kenneth Burke's dramatistic framework, refers to the systematic study of —particularly —as a means to uncover the inherent properties and structures of symbolic action. By analyzing "words about words," especially those concerning the divine (Word), logology parallels but remains a secular enterprise, examining how religious terminologies reveal universal linguistic mechanisms such as the invention of the negative, the pollution-purification cycle, and hierarchical orderings. Burke developed this approach in his 1961 work The Rhetoric of Religion: Studies in Logology, where he posits that patterns in mirror empirical language use, providing insights into human motive formation without invoking supernatural claims. This method equips dramatists to dissect how symbols generate guilt, redemption, and , treating as a "logological model" for broader rhetorical analysis. Closely intertwined with logology is the concept of terministic screens, which Burke introduced to explain how vocabularies function as selective filters shaping perception and interpretation. In his 1966 "Terministic Screens," argues that terms do not merely reflect reality but actively direct attention toward certain aspects while obscuring others, much like photographic filters emphasize specific colors at the expense of the spectrum. For instance, a "substantivist" screen might prioritize static entities and causes, whereas a "dramatistic" screen highlights action, agents, and scenes, influencing how motives are attributed in any situation. Within dramatism, these screens underpin the pentad's ratios, revealing interpretive biases; shifting terminologies can reframe the same event—from to moral drama—thus exposing the symbolic constitution of . Burke's integration of logology and terministic screens emphasizes dramatism's anti-reductionist stance, rejecting materialist accounts of behavior in favor of linguistic mediation. Logology supplies the analytical toolkit by deriving principles from sacred texts (e.g., the Genesis creation myth as a model for linguistic "making"), while terministic screens demonstrate their application in everyday , where competing vocabularies vie for dominance in defining . This duo enables critics to unmask hidden assumptions in , such as scientistic screens deflecting ethical dimensions or ideological ones amplifying conflict over , fostering a meta-awareness of language's directive power. Empirical applications, like Burke's analysis of biblical terms for "" and "entelechy," illustrate how such screens embed perfectionist drives in human symbolicity, often leading to hierarchical strife resolvable only through symbolic redemption.

Emphasis on Symbolic Constitution of Reality

In dramatism, Kenneth Burke posits that human reality emerges not from unmediated material processes but through the constitutive power of symbols, which actively shape perception, motivation, and social order. Symbols, as performative elements of language, do not merely reflect an objective world but select, organize, and infuse it with meaning, distinguishing symbolic action—purposeful, interpretive behavior—from nonsymbolic motion, such as mechanical or biological causation devoid of rhetorical intent. This framework critiques reductionist materialisms by emphasizing how linguistic structures generate the "dramas" of human existence, where motives are imputed via symbolic clusters rather than deduced from physical determinism alone. A pivotal mechanism in this symbolic constitution is the terministic screen, Burke's term for how vocabularies of motive function as interpretive filters that "direct the attention" toward preferred while screening out alternatives. For instance, adopting a theological screen might frame natural events as divine interventions, constituting a reality of purpose and , whereas a scientific screen deflects such attributions in favor of empirical regularities, yet both impose selective distortions rather than neutral representations. Burke elucidates this in his analysis of how even precise disciplines like chemistry rely on symbolic terminologies that precondition what counts as "," illustrating that no escapes the constitutive influence of its linguistic frame. This emphasis extends to broader social and psychological realms, where symbols enable the "negative"—a uniquely invention absent in —allowing critique, , and redemption cycles that define ethical and political . Burke contends that such symbolic capacities render humans "rotten with ," perpetually constituting and reconstituting through aspirational dramas that bridge the gap between "is" and "ought." Empirical applications, such as rhetorical analyses of public discourse, reveal how competing terministic screens vie to monopolize reality's , as in ideological debates where one frame's "" deflects another's "exploitation." Thus, dramatism methodologically privileges symbolic to unpack these processes, revealing as a rhetorically negotiated construct rather than a fixed substrate.

Distinction from Literal vs. Metaphorical Ontology

characterized dramatism as a literal ontological method for analyzing human motives, emphasizing its foundation in the inherent dramatic structure of rather than epistemological inquiry or metaphorical analogy. Unlike a literal rooted in materialist —which reduces to mechanical motion and physical causation—dramatism posits humans as agents who "act" purposefully within frameworks, distinguishing their being from non- "motion." This ontological priority stems from functioning as action, not mere representation, thereby constituting reality through dramatistic terms like the pentad that literally map motivational patterns in human experience. In response to queries on its status, affirmed dramatism's literality, noting that while dramatic terminology involves metaphorical elements in everyday use, the method itself literally explicates the relational dynamics of and purposes. It avoids metaphorical , where drama serves only as an illustrative device detached from being, by treating symbolic dramas as the actual mode of human existence—encompassing guilt, redemption, and identification as constitutive processes rather than figurative overlays. Thus, dramatism's integrates the poetic and rhetorical as essential to what humans are, rejecting both reductive and abstract idealism for a grounded of motive-laden . Critics, including James Chesebro and Bernard Brock, have contested this by portraying dramatism's evolution from epistemological metaphor to ontological literalism, arguing its theatrical roots imply interpretive flexibility over fixed essence. Defenders counter that its comprehensive scope—beginning with action's ontological primacy—confers literal privilege, as it aligns directly with the symbol-using animal's capacity for purposeful without subordinating to non-human literalisms like positivist certainty. This distinction underscores dramatism's commitment to causal realism in symbolic terms, where human emerges from enacted scenes of division and .

Applications in Analysis

Literary and Rhetorical Criticism

Dramatism provides literary critics with a method to analyze texts as symbolic actions that dramatize human motives, using the pentad to map elements such as the act (what is done), scene (contextual setting), agent (actor), agency (means), and purpose (intention). Kenneth Burke outlined this approach in A Grammar of Motives (1945), where he applied the pentad to literary forms to reveal how authors employ "terministic screens"—selective vocabularies that direct interpretation toward specific ratios, like the scene-act ratio, which suggests actions arise from situational contexts rather than pure agency. This framework treats literature not as mere representation but as equipment for living, offering readers rehearsed strategies for confronting social and psychological conflicts, as Burke elaborated in his 1937 essay collection Attitudes Toward History, later revised to emphasize dramatistic patterns in genres from to . In practice, dramatistic examines how narratives cluster pentadic terms to cluster motives, enabling critics to uncover implicit hierarchies of emphasis; for example, modernist novels often prioritize scene over agent, portraying individuals as products of environmental forces, while heroic epics elevate agent-purpose ratios to affirm willful achievement. Burke himself demonstrated this in analyses of works like those of , where tragic arcs cycle through guilt attribution and redemptive victimage, purifying audiences symbolically. Such applications extend to theater and , where dramatism highlights how function as agencies for attitude adjustment, fostering without literal enactment. Rhetorical criticism via dramatism focuses on as dramatic inducement of identification, where speakers bridge divisions through shared pentadic terms, transforming antagonism into . In A Rhetoric of Motives (1950), positioned as the art of symbolic redemption from the "negative"—inherent guilt arising from hierarchical order—using ratios to diagnose motivational appeals in oratory and . Critics apply this to dissect historical speeches, identifying, for instance, how scene-agent ratios in wartime addresses frame collective purpose against scapegoated enemies, as in 's own 1939 dramatistic reading of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, which exposed scapist projections of purity via victimage. Contemporary extensions include pentadic analyses of political debates, revealing how ratio emphases—such as agency over scene in libertarian —shape audience attitudes toward policy acts. This method underscores 's causal role in constituting social realities, prioritizing empirical patterns of symbolic inducement over subjective intent.

Social and Organizational Dynamics

In social contexts, Kenneth Burke's dramatism frames human interactions as symbolic dramas where identification serves as the primary mechanism for achieving cohesion amid inherent divisions. Burke posited that individuals and groups promote social unity by rhetorically acting upon themselves and others, creating a sense of —shared substance—through language and symbols that bridge differences. This process counters division, a core human condition arising from symbolic capacities, by emphasizing common ground in motives and purposes. extended this to everyday social performances, applying Burke's scene-act ratio to analyze how individuals adapt behaviors to situational contexts, such as in public interactions where the "scene" dictates appropriate "acts" to maintain group harmony. Organizational dynamics, similarly, manifest as dramatistic enactments where the pentad—act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose—dissects rhetorical strategies for alignment and control. Barbara Czarniawska applied dramatism to view organizational identity as a collective dramatic , where narratives construct shared realities through recurring roles and plots that sustain member commitment. Pentadic ratios, such as agent-purpose or scene-agency, reveal how leaders frame actions to motivate employees; for instance, emphasizing purpose over scene can shift focus from environmental constraints to collective goals, fostering resilience in crises. In practice, scholars have used dramatism for organizational praxis, testing it in settings to diagnose symbolic conflicts and promote reflective change, though with partial success due to challenges in translating critique into action. Dramatism highlights guilt-redemption cycles in group behaviors, where organizations symbolically purge tensions through or ritualistic reforms, mirroring broader social patterns. Hugh Dalziel Duncan's sociological extensions integrated the pentad to study societal structures as dramatic forms, arguing dramatistic framings outperform rational-choice models by accounting for symbolic motivations in . This approach underscores causal roles of in perpetuating or disrupting hierarchies, as seen in analyses of corporate events where pentadic scrutiny exposes underlying purposes masked by narratives.

Political and Ideological Dramas

Burke applied dramatism to political by interpreting ideologies as dramatic scripts that dramatize historical scenes to purify collective guilt through and reordering. In his 1939 essay "The of Hitler's 'Battle'", he dissected Hitler's (1925) as a symbolic drama where Germany's post-World War I humiliation—framed as a polluted scene of defeat and —generated unbearable guilt, resolved via the negative (rejection of the status quo) and victimage of as the polluting agent. Hitler positioned Aryans, led by himself as heroic agent, to enact purification through conquest and extermination, achieving redemption in a reordered ; this pentadic structure emphasized scene-agent ratios to consubstantiate supporters in a of existential struggle, deflecting internal divisions onto external enemies. Burke argued this rhetorical pattern, rooted in poetic naming rather than empirical causation, enabled by transforming abstract grievances into concrete dramatic action, a mechanism observable in Nazi propaganda's exclusionary slogans like " not admitted" at rallies. This framework extends to broader ideological dramas, where political actors use the pentad to frame conflicts as inevitable acts within constraining scenes or as willed choices by decisive agents, revealing underlying terministic screens that prioritize certain motives. Totalitarian ideologies, such as , often dominate via agent-agency ratios, glorifying individual leaders' tools and will to impose order, as in the Führerprinzip's emphasis on Hitler's personal agency over situational . In contrast, materialist ideologies like stress scene-act ratios, portraying economic base as the deterministic scene dictating class-based acts, with agents () as reactive instruments of historical purpose; critiqued such views for reducing human symbol-using freedom to scenic inevitability. Pentadic analysis of modern political controversies illuminates ideological divides by exposing ratio preferences that construct reality symbolically rather than literally. For instance, in 1970s U.S. debates over gay rights ordinances in Dade County and St. Paul, conservative favored agent-purpose ratios, framing as a deliberate act by culpable agents redeemable through , while opponents emphasized scene-agent ratios, attributing it to innate or environmental conditions beyond individual control. Similarly, a 2017 pentadic examination of President Donald Trump's Obamacare repeal highlighted purpose-agent dominance, attributing policy stasis to villainous obstructive agents (e.g., Democrats) rather than flawed systemic scenes, thereby rallying support through dramatized heroic intervention. These applications underscore dramatism's utility in decoding how ideologies, as clusters of motives, foster division or identification without resolving empirical causal disputes, often amplifying symbolic guilt cycles over pragmatic governance.

Contemporary Uses in Media and Culture

Scholars have applied dramatism to dissect narrative structures in contemporary television series, such as the BBC's . In a 2012 rhetorical analysis of Series 5 (aired 2010), the pentad reveals a dominant purpose-agent ratio, where the Doctor's heroic acts—such as confronting the Atraxi in "The Eleventh Hour" or relinquishing the in "The Big Bang"—stem from ego-driven masked as , fostering viewer identification through with the protagonist's . This approach highlights dramatism's utility in uncovering symbolic motives in serialized storytelling, portraying the series as a "tool for living" that promotes anti-materialism while critiquing individualistic deflection from communal realities. In film and animation criticism, the pentad has illuminated environmental and spiritual motifs in Disney/Pixar productions. A pentadic examination of Monsters, Inc. (2001), Finding Nemo (2003), and WALL-E (2008) employs scene-act ratios to argue that these films frame human agency within ecological scenes, urging redemption through harmonious purpose amid scenes of corporate exploitation or oceanic/polluted dystopias. Such analyses demonstrate dramatism's role in revealing how popular cinema dramatizes guilt-redemption cycles to embed causal critiques of consumerism and environmental neglect. Media studies have integrated dramatism with framing theory to probe news coverage of crises, enhancing motive revelation in partisan reporting. A 2016 study of the 2006 bombing by applied pentadic ratios to politicians' speeches and Spanish press: Prime Minister Zapatero's purpose-scene ratio emphasized dialogue for resolution, echoed in left-leaning , while opposition leader Rajoy's agent-scene ratio blamed governmental incompetence, aligned with right-leaning El Mundo and ABC. This reveals dramatism's value in dissecting frame contests, showing no dominant frame but parity in symbolic attributions of agency and purpose. Emerging applications extend to digital and graphic media, including social platforms and . During the , a Burkean pentadic lens analyzed , identifying act-purpose ratios in viral posts that dramatize responses as scapegoats for broader societal guilts, aiding causal unpacking of symbolic contagion. In , a 2021 exploration posits dramatism for gutter analysis—pauses between panels—as ratios of scene-agency, offering untapped potential for probing sequential motives in graphic narratives like arcs. These uses underscore dramatism's adaptability to fragmented, interactive cultural forms, prioritizing empirical motive mapping over superficial narratives.

Criticisms and Controversies

Overemphasis on Criticism Versus Creation

Critics associated with the movement, including and , contended that Kenneth Burke's dramatism prioritizes extrinsic analytical dissection of human motives and symbolic actions over the autonomous creative integrity of literary artifacts. , in a 1933 review, derided Burke's method for subordinating poetic form to motive-hunting, likening it to an obsessive focus on underlying "bacteria" while neglecting the organism's holistic structure, thereby transforming literature into a mere vehicle for socio-political critique rather than a self-contained creation. Similarly, Ransom's 1942 address labeled Burke's pentadic framework "sophistical," arguing it imposes scientific and experiential onto , eclipsing aesthetic transcendence and the work's internal formal achievements in favor of perpetual motive attribution. This critique highlights dramatism's emphasis on ratios within the pentad—such as scene-act or agent-purpose—which reveal tensions and subordinations in symbolic dramas, fostering a hermeneutic of suspicion that uncovers hidden agendas but offers limited tools for generative appreciation or reconstruction of the creative act itself. René Wellek echoed this in 1961, dismissing Burke's categories as a "baffling " that treats instrumentally as of behavioral patterns, thereby diminishing its status as an independent aesthetic creation. New Critics viewed such approaches as diluting the text's intrinsic ambiguities, ironies, and organic unity—hallmarks of authorial craft—with external interpretive overlays, potentially leading to reductive readings that prioritize conflict-laden dramatic interpretations over celebratory engagement with form. Proponents of dramatism counter that its structure, rooted in 's 1945 A Grammar of Motives, enables both critical unveiling and inventive rhetorical production by modeling as dramatic clusters, yet detractors maintain this dual claim falters in practice, as analyses often devolve into endless terministic reframing without yielding constructive alternatives to the original symbolic order. The tension underscores a methodological divide: dramatism's strength in demystifying persuasive structures risks fostering cynicism toward creation, as motive analysis eclipses the affirmative act of symbolic invention that himself valorized in works like The Philosophy of Literary Form (1941).

Debates on Literalism and Universality

A central surrounding dramatism concerns whether intended the theory to be interpreted literally or metaphorically. Burke explicitly argued that dramatism constitutes a literal description of human symbol-using behavior, rather than a mere metaphorical device, as he stated during a 1984 panel discussion where he insisted on its descriptive accuracy for understanding motives. This position aligns with Burke's broader ontological framework, where dramatism posits action as the fundamental substance of human reality, deriving from the intrinsic nature of symbolic action itself, not merely as an epistemological tool for analyzing . Critics and interpreters, however, have often reframed dramatism as primarily epistemological and metaphorical, emphasizing its role in revealing perspectives on through terministic screens rather than asserting a fixed . countered this by distinguishing dramatism from purely metaphorical approaches, claiming it offers a "literal statement about " grounded in the dramatic inherent to motives, as articulated in his methodological writings. This tension persists unresolved in scholarship, with defenders arguing that treating dramatism metaphorically dilutes its explanatory power for causal patterns in conduct, while metaphorical readings prioritize its flexibility in rhetorical analysis over rigid literalism. Regarding universality, Burke presented the pentad—act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose—as a universal heuristic for charting motives, applicable to all instances of symbolic action across human contexts, deriving necessarily from the conditions of action itself. Scholars defending this view, such as Rountree, contend that the pentad's ratios provide a comprehensive grammar of motives without cultural or temporal limitations, enabling consistent analysis of diverse dramas from literature to politics. Critiques of this universality are less formalized but arise in applications questioning the pentad's adequacy for non-Western or pre-symbolic phenomena, where the dramatic metaphor rooted in theatrical traditions may impose ethnocentric biases, though Burke maintained its scope encompasses all motivated action by virtue of human symbolicity. Empirical tests in cross-cultural rhetorical studies have generally supported its broad applicability, but debates continue on whether ratios like scene-act hold invariantly or require contextual adaptation.

Feminist and Ideological Critiques

Feminist scholars have critiqued Kenneth Burke's dramatism for its emphasis on and division as inevitable aspects of human motivation, arguing that these elements perpetuate structures of dominance potentially aligned with patriarchal norms. Celeste Condit, in her analysis, contends that Burke's framework, centered on the "sub-stance" of division leading to guilt and redemption cycles, inadequately addresses embodiment and relational unity in , proposing a transcendence toward more holistic models that prioritize interconnection over inherent conflict. This perspective highlights dramatism's potential oversight of gendered power dynamics, where —described by Burke as a "rotten with " —may normalize vertical orders that disadvantage marginalized voices without sufficient emphasis on subversive or egalitarian alternatives. Such critiques extend to the pentad's agent-act orientation, which some feminists view as androcentric, presuming universal motives rooted in male-dominated symbolic patterns while underemphasizing embodied experiences specific to women. For instance, reformulations of Burkean concepts seek to interrogate whether his terministic screens inherently reflect male biases in rhetorical theory, though direct applications of dramatism to feminist texts often reveal adaptive potential rather than outright rejection. Nonetheless, Burke's limited engagement with gender-specific ideologies leaves dramatism vulnerable to charges of universality that mask contextual exclusions, as noted in discussions of its failure to foreground intersectional critiques of order and pollution cycles. Ideological critiques, particularly from Marxist perspectives, fault dramatism for prioritizing symbolic action over material conditions and unconscious drives in human motivation. Fredric Jameson, in his 1978 essay, argues that Burke's method reduces ideology to surface-level symbolic inference, lacking a robust account of the unconscious or genuine otherness, thereby evading deeper structural analyses of class and economic determinism essential to ideological critique. This symbolic focus, Jameson posits, coordinates superficially with Freudian or Marxist insights but ultimately dilutes them into a dramatic grammar that sidesteps the "social totality" and historical materialism, rendering it ill-suited for uncovering exploitative ideologies. Further ideological objections highlight dramatism's relativistic tendencies, which postmodern and critical theorists see as insufficiently disruptive of hegemonic narratives, preferring instead methods that dismantle rather than dramatize power relations. While incorporated ideological scrutiny through his later work on and motives, critics maintain that the pentad's ratios fail to prioritize scene-act —aligning with causal material forces—over agentic , thus underplaying how ideologies embed in economic scenes rather than merely dramas. These assessments, drawn from literary and rhetorical , underscore dramatism's strengths in interpretive flexibility but its evasion of prescriptive ideological intervention.

Conservative Objections to Symbolic Relativism

Conservative objections to symbolic relativism in dramatism center on the theory's emphasis on and symbols as constitutive of human motives, which critics argue fosters interpretive fluidity at the expense of fixed, objective realities. Burke's pentad, with its multiple ratios (such as act-agent or scene-act), allows for shifting emphases in analyzing any situation, implying that understandings of causation and purpose are relative to the selected symbolic frame rather than anchored in invariant truths. This , while intended by as a for and resolution, is faulted by traditionalists for approximating sophistic , where no single interpretation holds primacy, thereby weakening claims to universal moral or causal principles derived from or empirical invariance. From a Christian conservative standpoint, symbolic relativism contravenes the of absolute , reducing and to contingent dramatic enactments rather than eternal verities. Critics contend that 's distinction between symbolic action and nonsymbolic motion, while acknowledging physical , overprivileges linguistic , inviting a constructivist view that aligns human agency with subjective symbol systems over God's ordained order. This is seen as eroding the foundations of social hierarchy and , as enduring traditions—tested by time and aligned with providential realism—demand precedence over pluralistic reinterpretations that could justify ideological drift or moral equivocation. For instance, Robert L. Heath's analysis highlights how navigates realism against , yet conservative interpreters prioritize the former to avoid the "abyss" of in motive attribution, insisting on hierarchical norms grounded in transcendent realism over dramatistic multiplicity. Such critiques also extend to practical implications in political and , where symbolic is accused of enabling the of authoritative narratives (e.g., constitutional or scriptural) in favor of competing "dramas," potentially destabilizing institutions reliant on shared, non-negotiable truths. himself resisted pure by advocating synthesis toward "ultimate" terms, but conservatives maintain this falls short of affirming non-symbolic anchors like empirical or divine , risking a slide toward that privileges over substance. Empirical studies of rhetorical effects, such as those examining in ideological conflicts, underscore the need for causal realism beyond symbolic frames to discern veridical motives, aligning with conservative preferences for literal over metaphorical equivalence.

Legacy and Influence

Impact on Communication and Rhetoric Studies

Kenneth Burke's dramatism, articulated in A Grammar of Motives (1945), revolutionized by framing human action as dramatic performance analyzable through the pentad: act (what was done), scene (where and when), agent (who), agency (means), and purpose (why). This allows critics to probe ratios between terms, such as the scene-act ratio, which posits that actions are shaped by contextual scenes, uncovering implicit motives in texts. By treating as symbolic action rather than mere , dramatism shifted focus from logical appeals to the dramatistic reconstruction of motives, influencing neo-Aristotelian and cluster criticism methods. In , dramatism provides a systematic tool for interpreting symbolic inducements in discourse, emphasizing how language constitutes social reality and fosters identification between communicators. Burke's emphasis on —shared substance through alignment—underpins analyses of interpersonal dynamics, , and media narratives, enabling scholars to dissect how communicators divide or unite audiences via dramatic framing. For instance, the pentad has been applied to deconstruct political speeches and organizational , revealing how agents attribute agency to scenes or purposes to justify acts. Dramatism's integration into rhetorical pedagogy and theory has endured, forming the basis for contemporary approaches to analysis and motive attribution in symbolic exchanges. Scholars utilize it to critique power structures in communication, as the framework highlights terministic screens—linguistic choices that direct and interpretation—without presupposing universal truths, thus promoting contextualist over essentialist readings. Its flexibility has extended to and , where pentadic ratios illuminate how scenes of uncertainty prompt agentic responses via mediated agency. Dramatism has been extended into , where Kenneth Burke's framework informs analyses of and social structures, treating societal relations as dramatized performances shaped by linguistic motives. Burke's dramatism aligns with by emphasizing how agents negotiate meanings through symbolic acts within scenes of social interaction, influencing sociologists like those in the who adapted pentadic ratios to examine ideological formations and knowledge production. This extension posits that emerges from dramatistic hierarchies of guilt and redemption, providing a pragmatic lens for causal explanations of over purely structural . In and , dramatism facilitates pentadic critiques of dynamics, such as analyzing change processes as dramatic conflicts between agents (employees), agencies (tools or policies), and purposes ( or ). Scholars apply cluster criticism to uncover terministic screens in corporate , revealing how motives are framed to foster identification amid tensions like and division. For instance, Burke's ratios help dissect in organizational crises, where scenes (market pressures) dominate acts (), promoting realistic assessments of causal agency rather than scapegoating individuals. Extensions into education leverage dramatism to interpret pedagogical motives, viewing classrooms as scenes where teachers as agents employ to purify student "guilt" through symbolic redemption arcs. This approach critiques by prioritizing analysis of student-teacher interactions, emphasizing purpose-driven agency in curriculum design. Further adaptations appear in and , where the pentad structures construction by balancing act-scene ratios to model plausible human responses to environmental scenes, enhancing predictive realism in and strategic disciplines. These applications underscore dramatism's versatility in causal realism, extending beyond to dissect motives in interdisciplinary contexts while maintaining fidelity to Burke's original emphasis on .

Enduring Relevance in Causal Realism

Dramatism maintains relevance in causal realism by furnishing a structured method to probe the multifaceted causation underlying actions, eschewing monolithic explanations in favor of relational analyses via the pentad's ratios. mapped the pentad's elements to traditional causal categories: scene as efficient cause, agent as formal cause, act as final cause, and purpose with agency as subdivisions of final cause, enabling analysts to trace how contextual, agential, and instrumental factors interlink in motivating behavior. This framework rejects simplistic, reductive , instead emphasizing perspective-dependent ratios—such as scene-act for or agent-purpose for idealistic —that reveal how shapes perceived causal chains without denying underlying realities. In applications to real-world events, dramatism facilitates causal realism by dissecting rhetorical narratives to expose concealed motives, countering biased interpretations prevalent in institutionally skewed sources like , which often prioritize symbolic or ideological causation over empirical sequences. For example, Burke's approach highlights how terministic screens—vocabularies selecting and deflecting interpretive emphases—can obscure agentive responsibility in favor of scenic excuses, as seen in analyses of social conflicts where holistic pentadic uncovers overlooked purposive drivers amid deterministic framings. By integrating symbolic action with material contexts, dramatism supports first-principles reasoning in causal inquiry, applicable to contemporary domains like policy or , where multi-ratio examination yields more verifiably grounded understandings than unexamined partisan attributions. Its endurance derives from adaptability to empirical , as pentadic ratios can be tested against observable outcomes, aligning dramatism with causal realism's demand for evidence-based validation over unfalsifiable . Scholars note its utility in bridging rhetorical theory with action-oriented studies, where it models causality in human-symbolic interactions without subordinating realism to or scientistic reduction. Thus, in an age of proliferation yet interpretive contestation, dramatism equips analysts to navigate causal , privileging comprehensive, ratio-informed models that withstand from diverse evidentiary angles.

References

  1. https://www.ucpress.edu/books/a-grammar-of-motives/paper
  2. http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/burke2.html
  3. https://zimmer.fresnostate.edu/~johnca/spch100/5-3-burke.htm
  4. https://open.lib.umn.edu/rhetoricaltheory/chapter/the-symbol/
  5. https://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/literary-cultural-heritage-map-pa/bios/burke__kenneth
  6. https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/etd/1572/
  7. https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2680&context=etd
  8. https://www.kbjournal.org/benedict_giamo
  9. https://src-online.ca/index.php/src/article/view/371/721
  10. https://ourspace.uregina.ca/bitstreams/1b4308bd-3e1a-4deb-9ed3-7d687253d886/download
  11. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07350190701419848
  12. https://www.academia.edu/21839178/Burke_and_War_Rhetoricizing_the_Theory_of_Dramatism
  13. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/literature-and-writing/grammar-motives-kenneth-burke
  14. https://www.kbjournal.org/content/book-review-burke-war-words-rhetoricizing-dramatism
  15. https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/p-n-r/article/54/2/198/264433/The-War-of-Words
  16. https://pressbooks.pub/divingintorhetoric/chapter/kenneth-burke-and-the-rhetorical-situation/
  17. https://interactivemedia.bradley.edu/ell/burke.html
  18. https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520015463/a-rhetoric-of-motives
  19. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/communication-and-mass-media/dramatism-communication-studies-theory
  20. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00209747
  21. https://www.kbjournal.org/content/revisiting-controversy-over-dramatism-literal
  22. https://rhetoricspring2015.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/burke-definition-of-man.pdf
  23. https://kbjournal.org/landes
  24. https://kbjournal.org/appel
  25. https://thecriticalcomic.com/kenneth-burkes-definition-of-man-sic/
  26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/656954
  27. https://ia801306.us.archive.org/17/items/grammarofmotives1945burk/grammarofmotives1945burk.pdf
  28. http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/kenneth_burke_-_a_grammar_of_motives_1945.pdf
  29. https://rshare.library.torontomu.ca/articles/thesis/Racing_Rhetoric_A_Burkean_Analysis_of_Ecodocumentary_Rhetoric/14657910/1/files/28139916.pdf
  30. https://fsuprelims.weebly.com/rhetoric/burke-kenneth-a-grammar-of-motives-new-york-prentice-hall-inc-1945-part-1
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3886226
  32. https://wagner.radford.edu/636/
  33. https://kbjournal.org/beasley
  34. https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jklumpp/kbworkshop08/readings/weiss.pdf
  35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3885480
  36. https://tzmvirginia.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/burke-a-grammar-of-motives.pdf
  37. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~social/reading/Burke-GrammarOfMotives.pdf
  38. https://www.academia.edu/95187730/Burkes_dramatism_and_action_theory
  39. https://www.thoughtco.com/pentad-rhetoric-and-composition-1691602
  40. https://journals.uu.se/IJRP/article/download/275/206
  41. https://kbjournal.org/petermann_attitudes
  42. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:605340/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  43. https://www.kbjournal.org/anderson
  44. http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/kenneth_burke_-_a_rhetoric_of_motives_1950.pdf
  45. http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/burke.html
  46. https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Rhetoric_of_Motives.html?id=y44o7549eC8C
  47. https://kbjournal.org/oldenburg
  48. https://www.afirstlook.com/edition-10/theory-resources/by-type/outline/Dramatism
  49. https://archive.org/details/rhetoricofreligi0000burk
  50. https://www.persee.fr/doc/ranam_0557-6989_1979_num_12_1_1045
  51. https://rhetoricspring14.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/kenneth-burke-notes.pdf
  52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4335027
  53. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED360626.pdf
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233159693_Defending_Dramatism_as_ontological_and_literal
  55. https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3392&context=etd
  56. https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/wjel/article/download/25497/16100
  57. https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/00/09/79/67/00001/dramatismtheatre00kirkrich.pdf
  58. https://kbjournal.org/kenny
  59. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07350190701419848
  60. https://www.emerald.com/jocm/article/14/3/280/244045/Dramatism-as-method-the-promise-of-praxis
  61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240260434_The_purpose_of_the_picnic_Using_Burke%27s_dramatistic_pentad_to_analyse_a_company_event
  62. http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/442/txt/burke.pdf
  63. https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/rhetor-journal/2004/schmidt.pdf
  64. https://www.kbjournal.org/content/criticism-context-kenneth-burkes-rhetoric-hitlers-battle
  65. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10510977909368018
  66. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/jd473265h
  67. https://methods.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-communication-research-methods/chpt/pentadic-analysis
  68. https://opus.govst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=theses
  69. https://search.proquest.com/openview/55f94b05f62ff4b2f952ddf099e7f1a4/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750
  70. https://revistas.unav.edu/index.php/communication-and-society/article/download/35811/30238/99990
  71. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=hcas_etd_all
  72. https://imagetextjournal.com/burke-in-the-gutter-dramatistic-criticism-of-comics/
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348654737_Kenneth_Burke_and_the_New_Critics
  74. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01463370009385602
  75. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/cultural-studies/theory-of-dramatism-and-kenneth-burke.php
  76. http://ac-journal.org/journal/vol1/iss3/burke/rountree.html
  77. https://www.kbjournal.org/mckenzie
  78. http://www.csun.edu/~hceng028/Thesis/Theory/burk-def.html
  79. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/370778/summary
  80. https://benwetherbee.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/wetherbee-jameson-burke.pdf
  81. https://louis.uah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=uah-theses
  82. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3031368
  83. https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-challenge-of-relativism
  84. https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/09/burke-principle-order-russell-kirk.html
  85. https://www.mupress.org/Realism-and-relativism-a-perspective-on-Kenneth-Burke-P208.aspx
  86. https://www.marccsantos.com/eng-640-week-6-kenneth-burke-identification-dramatism-and-victimage/
  87. https://divingintorhetoric.com/chapter/kenneth-burke-and-the-rhetorical-situation/
  88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316958190_Kenneth_Burke%27s_Dramatistic_Pragmatism_A_Missing_Link_between_Classical_Greek_Scholarship_and_the_Interactionist_Study_of_Human_Knowing_and_Acting
  89. https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/qualit/article/download/11434/11069/29240
  90. https://central.bac-lac.canada.ca/.item?id=TC-SSU-12052010122034&op=pdf&app=Library&oclc_number=1032879719
  91. https://www.kbjournal.org/communication
  92. https://ivypanda.com/essays/dramatism-theory-and-its-applications-in-education/
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016328704000102
  94. https://kbjournal.org/rangoonwala
  95. https://emeryross.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/pentadic-ratios-in-burke_s-theory-of-dramatism.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.