I think part of the complexity in trying to formulate an interpretive response to Burke’s analogy of “molten mass” is that the analogy itself represents the point Burke is trying to make, that our way of interpreting is dependent upon our scope of interpretation, which can lead to multiplicities of responses when we consider rhetoric. Stated another way, the ambiguity of the statement itself leads one to an interpretation based one’s interpretation of the Burkean concept of rhetoric (which may be why Burke selected the analogy). Because of this, I think my response for today will merely attempt to produce one particular answer to the question – one that may be limited and should only be seen as an interpretation and one I will try to follow up on later.

For this response, I think I will try to use the analogy to analyze a single term or the development of a single term over time. One way of looking at the analogy is to view terms as being culturally influenced by current situations and to view terms as inherently carrying with them historical symbolisms representing the diverse situations they have previously occupied – similar to how Burke explains the terms he uses. Because of this, a term like freedom will not only have currently situated cultural determinations attached to it, it will also have “cultural byproducts” that influence and impact our understandings of the term. As Burke points out, “a man is not only in the situation peculiar to his ear or to his particular place in that era (even if we could agree on the traits that characterize his era). He is also in a situation extending through centuries” (84). In other words, terms are really a conglomeration of understandings that represent a variety of complex systems of interpretations. As an example, if we take the term freedom and attach it to an idealized version of democracy the term can mean “free to make our own decisions,” but the term freedom can also historically mean free from incarceration and can make democracy a symbol of something that is not a prison.

Current uses of a term then, are not only situational, but carry with them symbolic connotations of the situations they were used in previously. Because of the multitude of use, the substance of the term freedom is wrapped in ambiguities, which Burke labels “a major resource of rhetoric” (51). By deflecting some of the representations of the term freedom in favor of other connotations of the term, we can then use rhetoric to mask some of the interpretations of freedom and highlight other favorable interpretations that align themselves more closely to our cause (whatever our cause maybe and our need to use the term freedom) (17). In our example of freedom, we can selectively use the term to make a symbolic analogy that compares democracy (free from imprisonment) to other institutions that are non-democratic like a dictatorship (or existing in a prison).

To illustrate this point, I think we need to turn back to Burke’s “Molten Mass” analogy. From a contemporary standpoint, an interpretation of the term freedom is really one molten crust in a sea of other interpretive molten crusts – or pilled on-top-of other interpretive crusts -, which were formed as distinctive outcrops from the “central moltenness” of merged ideals. As each new crust of interpretation forms, it will solidify with the curst underneath it or next it, and fragments of it will enviably reseed to its source carrying with it fragments of all the other crusts it is situated on-top-of. In other words, whenever we use the term Freedom, regardless of our interpretation of the term, the term itself is permeated by all the other interpretations of the term which existed in the “central moltenness” or that reseed back to the “central molteness.” Our term freedom then, is really a historically ambiguous term determined by our circumference of interpretation and eventual reductions of the term (more on an interpretation of circumference and reductions in a follow up post). Our scope of interpretation then, or our terminology used to define a particular term, can thus hide and highlight specific interpretations of the term in question.