Metaphorical perspective
For this week’s response I think I will stick to the term metaphor and try to come to some understanding of how Burke’s use of the term impacts my interpretation of his interpretation of rhetoric. According to Burke, the “Four Master Tropes” are “metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony,” which he labels as perspective, reduction, representation, and dialectic respectively. Burke’s primary concern with the “Four Master Tropes” is “not with purely figurative usage, but with their role in the discovery and description of ‘the truth’” (503). As Burke sees it, metaphor (or perspective) can be used for “seeing something in terms of something else” (503), which in turn leads to “degrees of being in proportion to the Varity of perspective form which they can with justice be perceived” and by “deliberate coaching and criticism of the perspective process, characters can be considered tentatively, in terms of other characters, for the experimental or heuristic purpose” (504). What I think Burke might be getting at here is that by manipulation, we can create conditions within our ways of seeing things that produce levels or degrees of differentiations between specific things. For example, I could claim that I am a “human,” but I am also like many other animals because I share some of the same characteristic of animals (like the need to eat and find shelter from the elements).
I can also claim, however, that my similarities to animals are only a perspective, which will inevitably lead to a reduction or degree of differentiation because unlike “humans” animals do not communicate through standardized vocal patterns (like English, Spanish, or Portuguese) because , according to Burke, the “tropes” overlap. Once I have reduced my metaphor, I can then stretch it to mean I am better than animals because I can rationally create language, which could be considered an interpretive "truth". So by examining the overlap, we can use the term to expand our understanding and attempt to try and arrive at a new interpretive “truth.” Our interpretations of “truths,” however, are never a fixed thing and change as new interpretations develop from the collective pool and are placed on top of the various layers we have of understanding. In the case of perspective, our understanding or interpretation is based on all the other interpretations of viewing “something in terms of something else.” Then, inevitably, our interpretations return to the collect whole and our way of viewing something becomes mixed with all the other ways of viewing something, thus producing multiple ways of viewing a specific thing. So if I come to understand that animals do in fact communicate through language, I would have to reformulate my methodical reduction to discover a different distinction to claim a difference between “humans” and “animals,” thus creating multiple degrees of being in relation to other things (in this case animals).
I like your insight
...and your bravery in using yourself as the "character" to be "reduced"! But I wonder if, in addition to your discussion, we can think about metaphor in the freshman composition sense. What I'm saying is that we often use the same metaphors over and over again. In fact, we use them so often that, as Burke notes someplace in this section (can't find exactly where), they become new words for old old things. In other words, our perspectives [metaphors] become so routine and thus ingrained that we no longer are even aware of them or their terministic power. Maybe Burke would prescribe yet more metaphors for such a situation? Am I getting into the thorny ground of relativism here?
What is freshman 'composition'?
I think you are making a really good point in your comment, and I'm almost tempted to classify our entire circumference surrounding the “composition classroom” as a just such a ‘metaphor’ or ‘perspective.’ What I’m getting at here is through the process of ‘section’ and ‘reduction’ we can generalize an interpretation of the ‘composition classroom’ and build degrees of understanding focusing around the concept of teaching “writing.” But, as we progress along and continue to build our interpretations upon interpretations our perspective of a “composition classroom’ shifts to include formulations of approaches (like genre based teaching, citizenship, or argumentative). As we continue to branch out our understandings, each time selecting our point of departure from the mixture of terminologies, we begin to lose other interpretations of “composition classroom” so our initial interpretations – one might be a place where one is taught the process of composing a text – become obscured by the new interpretations and thus lose their meaning for us.
Duder, I like the way in
Duder, I like the way in which you analyse metaphor as perspective, as "seeing something in termsof something else" (GM 503). Burke mentions metonymy overlaps upon metaphor (GM 507). I am curious how your analysis would change based on this association of reduction (metonymy) and metaphor (perspective). I cannot see these tropes as separated from each other by clear boundaries.
reduction
I had actually intended to try and attach all of tropes to my earlier discussion so Metonymy or reduction would be a good place to start. As Burke explains, metonymy involves “the reduction of some higher or more complex realm of being to the term of a lower or less complex realm of being” or the idea of conveying “some incorporeal or intangible state in terms of the corporeal or tangible” (506). So, taking the example of me being a “human” I think we can try and start with the concept that what makes us “human” is that we have, in the spiritual sense, an intangible soul that differentiates us from other living object in the world. By reduction, however, I can try to explain the concept of being “human” by describing my being as a system of operations that congeal into a complete (or close to complete) organism and then further reduce the term to a tangible organ-system. The problem with the term “human,” however, is that once we try to reduce our understandings to tangible features (organ systems, nerves, one giant muscle in constant motion) we need to then turn back to metaphor to try and produce interpretations that distinguishes “human” from other beings, thus creating another system founded on degrees. So the process become reciprocal, one trope needing the other to produce a complete cluster of interpretations. Maybe, maybe not, what you think?
You are right, we need to
You are right, we need to distinguish "human" from other beings in order to produce certain images or interpretations. Do we have to reduce the discussion to "tangible features"? What do you mean by "tangible"? I do not want to be presumptuous so I will wait for your answer (if you have time to reply) before I further my thought.
True
Reducing things to a touchable or understandable concept is only a beginning here, a pause I suspect to examine the idea of scientific inquire. And, I think you are right that reduction to “tangible” does have somewhat of a limited scope in our understandings, but it is an interpretation worth exploring in order to provide a more roundabout interpretation. Once we have an interpretation from the “tangible” aspect of a thing we can then dip back into the mix and break apart the scientific and then produce another interpretation from another angle.
This discussion is really
This discussion is really interesting! It took off in a direction I was totally not anticipating in my first response. Burke would likely be pleased.
After reading El Duderino's response experienced one of those moments where I argued (self-righteously) with his idea:
"That sounds like a slippery slope...where will what's left of composition's substance go if we continue to reinterpret it so wildly?"
Then I remembered Dave's comment about the relationship between substance and reality...there is none. But where does the "reality" of composition's situation lie? If, like Vatz, we say it lies in a rhetor's construction of it, then there is no problem with flushing away notions of "substance." If, however, there is some relationship between what the substance SHOULD be and some material reality (student perceptions? market forces? other disciplines expectations?), what are the consequences for FYC?
Better vs. More
Your breakdown of Burke's tropes is helpful to me in understanding how he gets at distinctions, but your use of the word "better" between man and animals raised a question for me about Burke's goals (and this has been a question of mine throughout the semester). Specifically is Burke concerned about terms of quality, i.e. this is better than that, or is he more concerned with quantity, i.e. developing more ways of seeing and understanding language and motives? While my instinct leads me to believe his interested in both, I think he has a stronger interest in the quantity side (the "more") of the equation I proposed. I guess my interest in this question goes back to my work with FYC students as they get hung up on distinctions of what is better or worse when writing. Rather than thinking in terms of degree or quantity, the make a quick jump to the quality. Do you believe we can we use the tropes, and have our students access or understand what they try to get at?
I agree
I would agree with you. By better I was referring to the idea of having a deeper, fuller, or larger scope of understanding taking from many different angles and as many different interpretations as we can collect.