After reading the prompt question for this week, the first thing that came to my mind was the old saying: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” In “Identification and “Consubstantiality’” Burke states: “A is not identical with his colleague, B. But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B” (20). If we take this passage and attribute me to A (the person trying to water the horse) and attribute the horse to B (the animal that has decided not to drink in the presence of water) I think we can come to some understanding of the meaning behind Burke’s stress upon the terms “identification” and “consubstantiality” when considering Rhetoric. In the above example, there seems to be a sense of conflict emerging between me and my metaphorical horse, where me (the simpleton of the pair) is vainly attempting to make sure my investment lives by keeping it well nourished and the horse (the seemingly smarter one of the pair) appears to be uninterested in nourishment at this time (possibly due to the fact that it may not be thirsty or maybe my horse as developed some strange fetish and prefers to drink purified bottled water over river water). What we have is a very simple case where me and the horse are at odds and are currently lacking “consubstantiality” and the ability to identify with each other or share a common interest for the taking the trip to the river. And, currently lacking a system of identify between myself and my horse we have a situation where nothing becomes accomplished (unless you consider a wasted trip to the river an accomplishment).

Next, lets expand our inquire. As Burke points out, “we might well keep it in mind that a speaker persuades an audience by the use of stylistic identifications” thus attaching the idea of persuasion to identification and rhetoric (46). So where are we now with the example above? What we have is a situation where person A (me) “may identify himself with B (the horse) even when their interests are not joined, if he assume that they are, or is persuaded to believe so” (20). So, in order for me and my horse to have a fulfilling experience at the river, I must persuade the horse that drinking the river at this time is in both our interests through the idea of “identification” and “consubstantiality.” Thus, if I were able to correlate the horse’s (assumed) desire to maintain it’s own existence and my desire to have a healthy horse or if me and the horse can correlate the horse’s proper time to drink through “identification” we can have a successful trip to the river (or if I can somehow persuade the horse that it is really thirsty).