[KB] general rhetorical question

[Clarke Rountree]

Dear Burkelers,

Here's a question for the quarantined and bored: I'm trying to see if
anyone has written in general about the problem of competing rhetorical
goals--times when a rhetor's seeking one goal can undermine a second goal.
Did Burke ever write about that?

I thought about the literature on rhetorical genres that look at hybrid
genres. A hybrid, by definition, seeks different rhetorical purposes. So,
for example, Cheree Carlson discussed John Quincy Adams' forensic and
deliberative goals in his Amistad address to the U.S. Supreme Court. But I
don't recall her considering how those goals might have conflicted. (The
tendency of such studies, I believe, is to say "This speech does THIS and
THAT"--an additive perspective.

One problem with this issue is that it is so ubiquitous in rhetorical
discourse that there may not be a specific essay that addresses it more
generally. For example, say Trump wants to undermine Joe Biden's
credibility, but also doesn't want to come across as a mudslinger--indeed
perhaps even wants to develop a more positive political image. (Okay, he
doesn't care about that, but suppose he did?) Easing up on the attack hurts
one goal; bearing down hurts another.

Thoughts?

Clarke

-- 
Dr. Clarke Rountree
Professor of Communication Arts
212D CTC
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Huntsville, AL  35899
256-824-6646
clarke.rountree at uah.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kbjournal.org/pipermail/kb_kbjournal.org/attachments/20200407/a6d2e841/attachment.htm>