[KB] Hottentots Redux

[Carrol Cox]

Query. When Burke speaks of persuasion, does he limit himself to persuasion through verbal discourse? The process Ed summarizes here seems to cite discourse only as a symptom or sign of a social fact. For example: would the continuing demonstrations against police brutality of the last few months _encorage_ more police shootings, as police become more aware of the "popularity" of the act among other police? Or, for another possible example, had the crowds at executions during the French Reign of Terror been _smaller_ would that have generated less popular support for the Terror? Or what about high-school social cliques, the singling out of the "more popular" making them "more popular?"

Is rhetoric a function of language or  . . . .?

Carrol

-----Original Message-----
From: kb-bounces at kbjournal.org [mailto:kb-bounces at kbjournal.org] On Behalf Of Edward C Appel
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 4:07 PM
To: kb at kbjournal.org
Subject: [KB] Hottentots Redux

Burkophiles,

In the current edition of the Primer, I added an addendum to Chapter 1.  It’s entitled, “More on Purpose as a Negative and a Command.”  This extended note elaborates on the declarative as an implicit imperative, a theme Burke puts front and center in the opening of PLF (pp. 1-8).  There, Burke describes the hortatory dimensions of seemingly innocent and detached “statements of fact,” the arm-twisting “decree” a supposedly “objective” report functions as, the incentive not only to “see things this way,” but also to “act on this declaration as summons.”  Burke illustrates “the secret commands and exhortations in words” with a quote from Carnap, by way of Edward M. Maisel.  Statements merely asserting the superiority of the race of Hottentots “should be analytically translated as, ‘Members of the race of Hottentots!  Unite and battle to dominate the other races!’  The facts of historical assertion here,” Burke goes on,  “are but a strategy of inducement; apparently describing the SCENE for the action of a drama, they are themselves a dramatic ACT PRODDING TO ANOTHER DRAMATIC ACT” (p. 5; emphasis not added).

Interesting empirical support for Burke’s case appeared in yesterday’s New York Times (“Sunday Review,” or whatever it’s called): “When Talking about Bias Backfires,” by Adam Grant and Sheryl Sandberg.  Grant teaches at Wharton in U. Penn.  The authors cite the results of several integrated studies that show, “Hearing that discrimination is common is a license [read: incentive] to do it.”  Meaning: The “factual” statement that most people are prejudiced results in more prejudicial responses by readers of such reports.  When the stated “facts” of the matter are accompanied by admonitions not to go and do likewise, reader prejudice diminishes, judging by the reactions these experiments elicited.

The online version of this piece might have a December 6th date, instead of December 7th.
Needless to say, Burke’s name was not invoked by these researchers.


Ed      


_______________________________________________
KB mailing list
KB at kbjournal.org
http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org