[KB] Conversation Editing Redux

[Edward C Appel]

Burkophiles,


          Iwant to call attention to the article on the 2016 presidential campaignrhetoric of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the new edition of the KBJournal  (Vol. 13, Issue 2, Summer 2018). This studypresents, overall, in my view, a most useful and insightful integration ofBurkean pentadic theory and Toulmin’s theory of argumentation. The two authorsmake a strong case for the pentadic emphases each of the two candidates made,as: Trump’s controlling term was “agent”; Clinton’s, “agency.” Right on, in myview.


          Thespecial value of this critique, it seems to me, is the way it integratesToulmin’s concepts with those of Burke. Toulmin famously employed the notionsof “claim,” “grounds,” “warrant,” and “backing” for the warrant to show howarguments are enthemematically constructed in political and social polemic. Thewarrant and the backing for the warrant are the parts of the case being madethat are usually implicit. “A warrant thus functions,” the authors state,“based on the audiences adherence to the warrant’s backing, which is the partof the argument where we find guiding ideologies and worldviews.”  Those guiding ideologies and worldviews aredetermined by the pentadic emphasis at the heart of the “strategy” (the termfor reconnoitering the problematic “scene” Burke vouchsafes us in PLF) each rhetor exploits in his or herdiscourse.  This line of critique leadsto the authors’ conclusion:


          “Weprovide deeper scrutiny into warrants as backed by worldviews that legitimizegrounds-claim relationships. In that the warrants and backings ‘to which wecommit ourselves are implicit,’ we propose that we can analyze and evaluatethese argument components through a Burkean focus on pentadic ratios and theircorresponding ideologies (Toulmin 93).”


          Ifound in this piece most useful, also, the authors’ reference to an article byJon Brushke in Argumentation and Advocacy.In public debate, arguments are made, and function in the mind of listeners,“episodically,” Brushke says. In other words, arguments are built piecemealacross rhetorical episodes, and not necessarily in any textbook, lockstep,claim-to-grounds order of presentation.


          Makesgood sense to me.


          While,as I said, I found this probe most convincing in operation and application, Ihave a problem with the authors’ theoretical/philosophical explanation, at theoutset of the essay, of what “agent” motivation entails.


          I’lldefer that demurrer to a later time.



 
          Ed    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kbjournal.org/pipermail/kb_kbjournal.org/attachments/20180829/086be94c/attachment.htm>