[KB] Archetype and Entelechy

wessr at oregonstate.edu wessr at oregonstate.edu
Mon Jan 30 18:21:48 EST 2017

Just a note: Burke also refers to pure persuasion as an "archetype"  
(Rhetoric 273).


Quoting Stan Lindsay <slindsa at yahoo.com>:

> Ed wrote:  "One more thing on ?Archetype and Entelechy? in DD:  
> That?s a book of Burke?s not much referenced, it seems. I probably  
> wouldn?t even have a copy of it, except for the retired Clark U.  
> professor who used to post on this list. . . .  It is, I think, an  
> important and useful lecture/essay."
> (Incidentally, for those who are interested, I have an order form  
> from Clark University Press that lists the DD text as still  
> available for $7.50--reprinted in 2000.  I have attached a scanned  
> copy of this order form to this email, in case someone can afford  
> such a pricey volume!  Burke's first lecture in the book is also  
> important and very useful--Biology, Psychology, Words.  It is  
> Burke's own retrospective review of the significance of all of his  
> prior books--a tremendous introduction to Burke.)
> Ed is absolutely correct that the "Archetype and Entelechy" lecture  
> in DD is an important lecture/essay!  For me, it was, perhaps, the  
> seminal (both an archetypal and entelechial term, itself) essay in  
> my studies of Burke.  I clearly see that the Aristotelian term ARCHE  
> (from which ARCHETYPE is derived) and Aristotle's term TELOS (from  
> which ENTELECHY is derived) are two of the four CAUSES of  
> Aristotle's grammar of motion/action/kinesis--which I mentioned in  
> my previous post.  Briefly, Archetype is the focus of the  
> Anthropologist; Entelechy is the focus of Burke.  They are looking  
> at the same phenomenon from the two opposite ends of the spectrum.  
>  The anthropologist looks for the incunabula (an anthropological  
> term for arche, in the sense of beginning).  What STARTED the  
> kinesis?  Burke looks for the telos, or ending.  What is the FINAL  
> purpose of the kinesis?  Of course, whenever one looks for  
> "beginnings," one often finds oneself in Biblical eras.  The fact  
> that "first/arche/beginning" and "last/telos/ending" can be combined  
> into a single essence is not lost on the writer of the Book of  
> Revelation:  "the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the  
> beginning and the end."  (I explore that Aristotelian and Burkean  
> entelechial principle throughout my book Revelation:  The Human  
> Drama.)  As an example of archetype, Chapter 7 of my book Implicit  
> Rhetoric is entitled "Prayer as Proto-Rhetoric."  There, I argue  
> that the prayer theory of Homer, as seen in the Iliad, is the  
> incunabula (although I don't think I used that specific term, at  
> that point) of the development of Rhetorical Theory, which saw a  
> significant telos in Aristotle's Rhetoric.  Homeric prayer theory  
> was the first? to demonstrate that flattery, quid pro quo, and  
> consistency were persuasive tactics when attempting to "persuade"  
> gods (who, by their nature as gods, could not be "coerced").  Hence,  
> these three elements of prayer theory were demonstrated again in the  
> Iliad as tactics to "persuade" humans (who, although they could be  
> coerced [by warfare], were--more ethically--persuaded).
> My current project is also in the archetype mold--a book on Angels  
> and Demons as the Personification of Communication--is being shopped  
> around to university presses.  Oxford UP gave it a good look, but  
> decided that it did not quite fit their needs at present.  Harvard  
> UP has it now; we'll see what they decide.  I plan to use the  
> occasion of the next KB conference--whenever or wherever that is--to  
> hone the archetypal impact.  Something like:  "Angels and Demons as  
> Communication Personified:  The Incunabula of Logology."
> Thanks to Ed for emphasizing the importance of Archetype for Burkeans!
>  Dr. Stan A. Lindsay, Ph.D.  Teaching Professor  Professional  
> Communication  College of Applied Studies  Florida State University   
> slindsay at pc.fsu.eduhttp://www.stanlindsay.comhttp://www.lindsayDIS.COM
>       From: Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>
>  To: Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>; Leslie Bruder  
> <bruderian at gmail.com>; "wessr at oregonstate.edu" <wessr at oregonstate.edu>
> Cc: "kb at kbjournal.org" <kb at kbjournal.org>
>  Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 12:32 PM
>  Subject: Re: [KB] Editing Redux
> Burkophiles,
>           Onemore thing on ?Archetype and Entelechy? in DD:That?s a  
> book of Burke?s not much referenced, it seems. I probably  
> wouldn?teven have a copy of it, except for the retired Clark U.  
> professor who used topost on this list. He sent me a copy back in  
> the day. I thought I saw thatsecond lecture anthologized somewhere,  
> but do not recall the work. It?s not inGusfield?s collection. Has  
> anybody else seen it somewhere outside of Dramatism and Development?  
> It is, Ithink, an important and useful lecture/essay.
>           Letme conclude, or maybe not conclude, by pointing to just  
> some of the passages inearly Burke (that is, Burke?s writings before  
> he gets to the generally?un-Troubled? concerns of a  
> highly-abstracted pentad in the Grammar), that conjure the  
> ?Trouble?inherent in dramatic action as ?conflict? of one degree or  
> another in quest of?redemption? of some kind:
>           ?Recommendingby Tragedy? and ?The Peace-War Conflict? in  
> the Chapter ?The Ethical Confusion?in P&C, pp. `93-98, and Burke?s  
> ?moralsare fists? interpretation of Bentham, the chapter just  
> before. See, also, in P&C, Burke?s earlier reference tothe scapegoat  
> mechanism as faulty means selection.
>           ?PoeticCategories? and ?The Destiny of Acceptance Frames,?  
> pp. 34-105; the distinctionbetween ?universal? and ?factional?  
> tragedy in ?The General Nature of Ritual,?pp. 188-90 note, in ATH.  
> Burke couldhardly talk about, or distinguish among, genres or  
> ?Categories? of dramawithout getting into aspects of disorder  
> through disobedience, guilt,sacrifice, and redemption---?Trouble,?  
> if you will.
>           Theubiquity of terms and concepts spelling out the  
> ?Trouble? of dramatic conflictin the ?Philosophy of Literary Form,?  
> PLF,pp. 1-137 (?Aspects of the Scapegoat in Reidentification,?  
> ?purification,??redemption,? ?burden,? ?debt,? ?disease,? ?problem,?  
> ?evils,? ?indictment,??sacrifice,? etc.) And, of course, note  
> Burke?s analysis of the scapegoatmechanism in ?The Rhetoric of  
> Hitler?s ?Battle,?? pp. 191-220, a treatment oftroublous drama that  
> does actually conclude with Burke?s using the term ?trouble?  as  
> ?locus of? a drama?s inception on p. 220.
>           And,although A Rhetoric of Motivesappears after, not  
> before, the Grammar,RR still precedes Burke?s shift to?logology? and  
> its more focused concerns with the negative, the motive  
> ofperfection, the terms for order, and theological drama as  
> epistemologicalfilter or frame, as master ?terministic screen,? if  
> you will. And I?m talkinghere about Burke?s later, more systematic  
> ?logological? treatments, sinceadumbrations of such concerns appear,  
> for example, in RM in the ?Pure Persuasion? section, and Divine  
> action as ?ultimate?anecdote of action in the Grammar (p.61 ff.).  
> Hints of the logological or epistemological turn are  
> scatteredthroughout early Burke.
>           So,observe in RM the very opening ofBurke?s case for  
> ?identification? as ?substance? applied to  
> persusion/communicativegroup-cohesion-building in general: Burke  
> starts via illustration ofColeridge?s insight, ??. . . in His vast  
> family no Cain/ Injures uninjured (in her best aimed blow/  
> Victorious Murder ablind Suicide).?? That is, Burke begins with the  
> fundamental ?Trouble?inaugurating the human drama, the internal one,  
> Freud?s indictment of the Egoby the Superego, generating and  
> ?Qualifying the Suicidal Motive,? or ?Self-Immolation,?as Burke puts  
> it (pp. 5, 7). We?ve got Milton?s Samson pulling down the ceilingon  
> himself and the Philistines together, Arnold?s Empedocles jumping  
> into avolcano, Arnold?s Rustum killing his son Sohrab as proxy for  
> himself (like thefather Burke elsewhere references [RM,pp. 260-63]  
> who felt an urge to through his son down from the top of a  
> tallbuilding, as a form of self-destruction, that expresses the same  
> motive inancient cultures in the sacrifice of the first-born, male,  
> or male or female;in enlightened Biblical Israel, that first-born  
> child was ?redeemed,? boughtback from such a fate by payment of 5  
> shekels of silver; Exodus 13:1-2, 11-16;Numbers 18:15-16).
>           In RM, Burke goes on to classify the rhetoras, in a sense,  
> a ?killer? who, by way of such symbolic aggression, usuallyturned  
> outward, effects ?transformation? via a reidentification that can  
> knitspeaker and listeners together in common cause. Rhetoric, Burke  
> says, ?mustoften carry us far into the lugubrious regions of malice  
> and the lie,? thesymbolic and so often material ?Human Barnyard? (p.  
> 23). Talk about ?Trouble?!See ?Order, the Secret, and the Kill? and  
> ?Pure Persuasion? for more dramatic?Trouble? and extreme  
> self-sacrifice and/or extreme dramatic self-aggrandizement.
>           That?sall I have to say in particular about the partly  
> ?Trouble[some],? as I see it,article in the current KBJ.  
> However,Stan?s well-taken note that Burke?s ?grammar of motives? is  
> rooted in the basicgrammar of language raises for me, at least, the  
> question: Does Burke own thepentad, or only his creative use of it?
>           Again,inquiring minds want to know.
>             Ed                  
>     On Thursday, January 26, 2017 3:53 PM, Edward C Appel  
> <edwardcappel at frontier.com> wrote:
>  Les,
> In respect to your three posts in this thread:
> On the first, I would differ with your rejection of "The Iron Law of  
> History." Remember that there is "comic" drama, as well as the more  
> intensive genres. "Victimage" in comedy is most attenuated, but the  
> mere reproof or "slap on the wrist" or social distance still comes  
> under the heading of "sacrifice" of the other. 
> On the second, great job, no qualms.
> On the third, again, most illuminating and insightful on CS, but a  
> bit beside the mark maybe in your first sentence. Burke devoted a  
> whole lecture at Clark U. to the topic "Archetype and Entelechy,"  
> published in his Dramatism and Development (1972, pp. 33-55).  The  
> entelechialized "perfect form" Burke cites as example is "the  
> Freudian archetype of the 'primal crime'" (p. 42 ff.). In this  
> revised lecture, Burke analogizes archetypal, prototypical,  
> entelechial, paradigmatic, summational, culminative, idealized,  
> essentialized, rounded out, perfected, thoroughgoing, taken to the  
> end of the line, the form that would best fulfill the symbolic  
> telos, striving after complete satisfaction, at a high or highest  
> level of generalization or abstraction, pure form, condensatiion,  
> completion, mythic, absolute, a key terminologu and resultant  
> attitude that functions as a generating principle, and a compulsion  
> to conform perfectly to such a pattern
> The notion of "archetype" thus fits well with the thought of late,  
> logological, Burke.
> Ed. 
>     On Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:05 PM, Leslie Bruder  
> <bruderian at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Burke was careful to avoid the wordarchetype, though I am not sure  
> why.  WilliamRueckert in The Drama of Human Relationssays tragedy is  
> Burke?s representative ?anecdote.?  In Counter-Statementmetaphysical  
> universals become psychological universals, the divine formsbecome  
> ?conditions of appeal,? and a consequence of the naturalization of  
> theseuniversals is to convert them into the tools of the craftsman  
> or wordsmith(reversal, contrast, crescendo, repetition, balance,  
> etc.,).  Dramatismas a full-fledged theory emerges from the process  
> of refinement going on in hisearly work.  Rueckert sizes it  
> upconcisely (trues it up): every poem is simultaneously revelation,  
> ritual andrhetoric.  I imagine that as Burke thinksthrough how  
> ?universal situations give rise to recurrent emotions then to  
> fundamentalattitudes and finally typical actions? he recognized  
> [that] this ?pattern ofexperience? was thee creature he was tracking  
> down.  Precisely when this ?pattern of patterns?came to him, and  
> precisely how (in a dream?) I don?t know, but at this earlystage,  
> steeped in ?mountains of words? and mulling over  the  
> anthropologist?s ?universal pattern? hemust have felt he was getting  
> close. Standing just behind the scenes contemplating the  
> poet/metaphysicians conditionsof appeal and the nine ?potentials? of  
> the anthropologist?s universal pattern (speech,material traits like  
> tools, art, mythology, religion, social systems, property,government  
> and war) it was the process of individuation that must have  
> beenparticularly fascinating to him.  Inmaking a poem the poet  
> ritualizes his revelation (CS 168-169).  Since Burke wrote that the  
> poet communicateshis idea to others I would amend the above formula:  
> the poem is the ritualized(he also says ?stylized?) revelation of  
> the poet?s vision or epiphany. Aninteresting question at this point  
> is whether the inspiration of the poet?ssymbol is passively suffered  
> (Burke uses the example of a poet suffering from afeeling of  
> inferiority or depression).  Hedistinguishes the poet from the  
> dreamer as one who not only spontaneouslygenerates images but one in  
> whom the ?desire to communicate becomes consciousmotive, dreaming  
> passes into creating.? (Rueckert 6)  The conversion of the suffered  
> into ?equipmentfor living? moves through diagnosis toward  
> illumination which as Burke says isthe chief function of art as  
> revelation. Certainly a ritual of initiation isonly a beginning of  
> the human apprenticeship, theory leads to practice,revelation to  
> knowledge, early reproductions to master works.   Les
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:23 PM, <wessr at oregonstate.edu> wrote:
> Hi all, interesting discussion. Just want to add a comment on the pentad--
> The pentad comes from drama, of course, and drama is conflict and  
> resolution. Burke sees characters and ideas as interchangeable--that  
> is, characters in a drama can be viewed as ideas and ideas in a  
> philosophy can be viewed as characters in a drama ("Poetic Motive,"  
> p. 60). Ideas can conflict and their conflict can be resolved,  
> analogous to drama. A particularly clear example is Burke's analysis  
> of Kant in GM. Agent in Kant resolves conflict, both the particular  
> conflict that Hume uncovered and that awoke Kant with a "jolt" (GM  
> 186) and more generally the conflict between motion and action.  
> Agent is where Kant positions both empirical science (motion) and  
> moral freedom (action). Philosophy's "basic ways and aims," Burke  
> insists, "are to be viewed in terms of poetic action" (GM 190).
> Drama is also arguably the archetype of archetypes.
> Bob
> Quoting Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>:
> Jim M,
>           There?sno doubt that Burke did not invent or first  
> discover and explore the ?Trouble?or ?conflict? inherent in drama.  
> Such analysis has been around for a long, longtime, as we know.
> Phil,
>           Thanksfor those quotes from your letter from Burke back in  
> the 1970s. The more we getgeneral access to those more informal  
> statements of Burke?s, the better. Thenotion of Burke urging a  
> further ?perfecting? of his philosophy by his readersand  
> interpreters is both encouraging and characteristic of his style of  
> thoughtand composition.
>           JimK,
>           Yousay you basically agree with me. I say I basically  
> agree with you. In sayingthat I agree with the way you characterize  
> the pentad and its function is tosay, also, that I agree with the  
> authors of the ?Trouble[some]? article in the KBJ on that score.  
> They can?t find?Trouble? in the Grammar. There?s no need for  
> ?Trouble,? i.e.,the ?conflict? of full-fledged drama and all its  
> consequences, to be in the Grammar. These ?basic forms of[pentadic]  
> thought,? as Burke calls them, for ?attributing motives,? derived  
> asStan says from the grammar of language itself, can be used on what  
> Burkeindicates is a ?general,? high level of abstraction to bring to  
> the surface ina discourse the motivational strategies at work to  
> finesse listeners andreaders into concerted action. Those twists,  
> feints, and sleights of hand maynot be apparent on the surface.
>           WhatI disagree with in the KBJ article inquestion is the  
> authors? broader statement that ?Trouble? is not to be foundanywhere  
> in Burke?s corpus, that, indeed, this implicit and  
> ultimatelynecessary dramatic concept should be attributed to Jerome  
> Bruner, as Bruner hasinterpreted and employed Burke. Various terms  
> and uses of the ?Trouble[some]?guilt-sacrifice -redemption cycle are  
> scattered throughout Burke?s earlywritings, and then in more  
> detailed anatomical analysis, starting at least inBurke?s Princeton  
> conference paper (1951), published as an appendix to the 2ndedition  
> of P&C in 1954. Thechapter, ?The First Three Chapters of Genesis,?  
> in RR, we surely know, brings this trajectory to a most  
> thoroughgoingconclusion.
>           Now,in my Primer, I do two relevantthings: In the first  
> three chapters, I show, I do believe, how theguilt-redemption cycle,  
> or terms implicit in the idea of order, devolve fromthe pentad, or  
> the basic grammar of language. Drama in all its aspects isimplicit  
> in the language humans use even ?trivially,? as Burke says early in  
> RR, the book that brings this trajectoryof implications into full  
> view, ifelliptically. I entitled Chapter 1 in the Primer, ?The  
> General, Implicitly MoralPattern of Verbal Action?; Chapter 2, ?The  
> Specific, Explicitly Moral Patternof Verbal Action?; Chapter 3, ?A  
> Paradigm for Invention of Discourse andAnalysis of Texts That  
> Combines the Two Patterns.? This generic pattern thenbrcomes the  
> basis for distinguishing Burke?s notions of ?tragic? drama,  
> ?comic?drama, and ?burlesque? drama, by way of various levels of  
> dramatic intensity. Iadd my conception of ?melodrama,? about which  
> Burke does not have as much tosay.
> In my Addendum 3, Iexplain, in my humble way, how the pentad can be  
> detached from the trajectoryof implications Burke explicitly offers  
> in ?Terministic Screens? in LASA, and used as a ?Separate  
> CriticalTool.? I highlight three aspects of Burke?s creative  
> employment of thesefundamental grammatical concepts:
> First, in discurse, asin philosophies, one pentadic term, one of  
> these basic forms of thought, tendsto get emphasized. I tie this  
> tendency to Burke?s notions of ?perfection? or?entelechy.?
> Second, another pentadicterm will often be coupled with this source  
> of overarching explanation in whatBurke calls a ?ratio.?
> Third, these basicforms of thought that imply one another are, in  
> each case, not tied down to anyparticular entities or processes  
> whatsoever. Pentadic terms are eminently?flexible.? I use ?war? and  
> the ?human body? to show how they each can be anagent, act, purpose,  
> means, or scene, depending on the route of strategicambiguity a  
> rhetor chooses. Burke?s metaphor of the ?alembic? of  
> transformationvia the melting of metal serves as descriptive such  
> strategic transformation. Ireference Clark Rountree?s superb book on  
> ?Motives in Bush vs. Gore? asillustration.
> So I don?t think I?mstinting on the value and uniqueness of pentadic  
> theory and criticism. I justhave not personally used it. I excuse  
> that lacuna by reference to my admittedly?morbid? personality.  
> That?s what Burke says is the drawback in pentadic theoryand  
> criticism alone. It?s not MORBID enough. And ?morbid[ity]? is  
> ?Trouble?!
> All this raises theissue of late Burke in relation to early Burke.  
> My simple mind sees morecongruities than dislocations between Burke  
> before the 1950s, and Burke afterthe turn of the half-century.
> But time?s up fortoday. That question for later.
> Ed
>     On Monday, January 23, 2017 4:57 PM, James Klumpp  
> <jklumpp at umd.edu> wrote:
>  I am not certain that I disagree at all with Ed Appel.  But I do think
> that we err when we try to overburden the pentad by loading all Burkean
> insights on it.  Trouble is one of those.  We need to remember that the
> pentad was a vocabulary designed to work with variety of accounts. 
> "This book is concerned with the basic forms of thought which, in
> accordance with the nature of the world as all men experience it, are
> exemplified in the attributing of motives. . . We shall use five terms
> as generating principle for our investigation.  In a rounded statement
> about motives . . ."  Now when we accomplish this task of understanding
> the ways in which the symbol using animal attributes motives, provides
> symbolic accounts of situations, we have not said all that is to be
> said.  Very well. Why does the pentad need to capture all of the world's
> insight?  Let Ed say that the dramatistic process is necessary to a
> fuller statement about diachronic narrative (and to human conflict).  I
> am fine with that.  I agree.  And, drama is a natural metaphor because,
> Burke argues elsewhere, the state of Babel creates disorder and
> conflict, as Jim Moore adds.  But let us not lose sight of the necessary
> work that the pentad does so well -- illuminating the variety of motives
> that mark the Babel of human speech.  Let it do that work well and let
> other insights take that necessary work and proceed further in the human
> drama.
> In short, the addition of Trouble into the pentad does not enhance its
> ability to clarify accounts, in my judgment.  Save the insights that
> flow from Trouble and the many other terms of disorder that Ed has
> cataloged for a fuller discussion of the rich complex of terminologies
> of which the pentad is one.  Let the humble pentad do its work well.  If
> we do, I think that we will have less chance of losing the point that
> the pentad was posited for in the first place: to capture ways that
> symbolic accounts carve up the world differently.
> Jim Klumpp
> --
> -------------
> James F. Klumpp, Professor Emeritus
> Department of Communication, University of Maryland
> 409 Upper Haw Dr., Mars Hill, NC 28754
> Email: jklumpp at umd.edu
> Voice: 828.689.4456
> Website: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jk lumpp/home.htm
> ______________________________ _________________
> KB mailing list
> KB at kbjournal.org
> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/l istinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
> _______________________________________________
> KB mailing list
> KB at kbjournal.org
> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
> _______________________________________________
> KB mailing list
> KB at kbjournal.org
> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org

More information about the KB mailing list