[KB] general rhetorical question

[Wess, Robert Victor]

Clarke, take a look at GM 344-49 to see if they offer a model for what you are looking for. These pages give you a snapshot of what "The Dialectic of Constitutions" works out in detail. Bob

________________________________________
From: KB [kb-bounces at kbjournal.org] on behalf of Clarke Rountree [rountrj at uah.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2020 2:52 PM
To: kb at kbjournal.org
Subject: [KB] general rhetorical question

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<mailto:clarke.rountree at uah.edu>