Of Skirmishes
In this particular section of RM, Burke is contrasting the various explorations of the parts of his motives trilogy. RM, in its exploration of rhetoric, is devoted to the study of identification, cooperation, and the use of such things in order to create the ultimate division, war (RM 22). In his list on page 23 of RM, he's building to a climax--starting with what seem to be minor skirmishes to the ultimate contest, War with a captial "W."
The irony is that in order to create the division which comes with human competition, some sort of identification and cooperation is needed. "Identification is affirmed with earnestness precisely because there is division. Identificaion is compensatory to division. If men were not apart from one another, there would be no need for the rhetorician to proclaim their unity," Burke asserts (RM 22). But it is understood be a loose unification based on an expanded circumference that blurs distinctions and makes views and purposes that are really dissimilar seem synonomous. Thus allies identify with each other--think Soviets and Americans during WWII--and are united against a common foe, which is the division that had its roots in identification.
The phrase that really caught my eye in this particular passage was "the Human Barnyard." I grew up in the country with a limited experience with barnyards in general. Animals don't tend to be a part of any peacable kingdom anymore than people are, and my first thought was of a struggle for domination. But animals don't tend to unite for a fight in the same way humans do. So my second thought was of the smell and the waste of a barnyard. Having tiptoed through such a place, I can testify that it's hard to get through it without stepping on something you'd rather not take home on your shoe. It's a filthy place, and to say it's the human barnyard that we're struggling in, is to bring up some pretty unflattering imagery.
I got to thinking that my
I got to thinking that my second thoughts on barnyard don't really hold with the theme of the skirmish. Though animals don't usually cooperate against one another, there is a drive for domination, to become the alpha, which is present in humans and does qualify as a skirmish, a struggle. Later in RM, Burke also talks about the rhetoric of courtship, which I suppose could also be a part of the barnyard scene.
LKC, I was puzzled by the
LKC,
I was puzzled by the term "Human Barnyard," which arrested my attention not only because of capitalization of the first letters but also because the term seems to symbolize the place of discourse which has replaced, in Burke's writing, the parlor as the locus of rhetorical setting. You made a good point about the smell and waste of the barnyard and I suppose that these qualifying adjectie and noun, respectively refer to motives behind the symbolic action. I thought about the events that took place in the late 1940s which could have influenced Burke while he was writing his book A Rhetoric of Motives, which was published in 1950. Could you think of any event that might have impacted Burke? Or did you have in mind any event while blogging?
Actually, the "event" that I
Actually, the "event" that I keep associating with the term "Human Barnyard" is the publication of _Animal Farm_ in 1945, which literally placed rhetoric-using beings in a barnyard. I see throughout RM, though, a thought process heavily influenced by the World Wars and the Communist movement, though, and I think that starting with those could be a good place for trying to understand where he's coming from.
The capitalization of some terms puzzles me. Not all elements in that list have a capital, though most do. Burke knew German, which capitalizes all nouns, so I don't know if he's inspired somewhat by the German or what.
LKC, I thought about Animal
LKC,
I thought about Animal Farm as well but I hesitated to mention it in my blog. Indeed, the capitalization of nouns forces us to pay attention to certain words such as: "Rhetoric," "Scramble," "Wrangle," "Market Place," "Human Barnyard," "Give and Take" (which functions as a noun), "Logomachy," "Wars of Nerves," and "War." The fact that Burke leaves uncapitalized "pressure and counterpressure" and "onus of ownership," which I considered as important as the capitalized nouns puzzled me. Also, his thought moves from "Scramble" to "War" (RM 23), and this in my view shows a progression, which he mentioned in ATH, I believe (although I may be wrong), a crescendo. It is a very well written sentence.
skirmishes
It occurred to me last night that I mean division when I say skirmishes in my original response.
scrambled eggs
As I was reading Part III of RM, I came across the word scramble, again capitalized, on page 266. It was in connection with Babel, which would imply that Scramble is more of the scrambled egg sort of scramble than the department store free-for-all I had envisioned.
But placing it in terms of Babel definitely gives us a sense of division, for the different languages created an inability to work together and supposedly dispersed the people to the farther reaches of the world. Some say that the story has roots in the need to scatter the population because they were concentrated too much in one area of the world and they needed to separate to keep from killing the population off with the diseases that result from living in too close of quarters. The story of Babel is the ultimate illustration of language division.
Also while reading last night, I came across the last paragraph of the book and thought back to last period's class, during which we came across the term "according to its kind," a very Biblical (Genesis) phrase. To close RM, Burke writes about "each kind striving towards the perfection of its kind" (333). Earlier in the book, he deals with class and classification, saying, "The 'invidious' aspects of class arise from the nature of man not as a 'class animal,' but as a 'classifying animal'" (283). He follows this up by describing a parlor game--a term which conjures up images of the Burkeian parlor--in which people begin with two made-up words and build up characteristics for them. Though made up, the groupings begin to have power. People begin to identify with them intensely. Each of these is a "kind."
In reference to groups, Burke discusses ethnic groups and what happens to those who diverge from their ethnic group or kind and notes that "[t]hose who remain unchanged feel the reenforcement that comes of being one with their kind..." (282). Those, therefore, who stick with their "kind" feel more security and are able to identify with a certain group of other individuals who are united with them because of certain characteristics they hold in common. That's what identification is about, finding those spots where there's something in common, even if the similarities are exaggerated or made up.
Barnyard
I am also a little confused by the term “Human Barnyard.” I was wondering, however, if by “barnyard” Burke was referring to a symbolic organism of production, for if a farm is to maintain production a sense of peace may be necessary (like if humans wish to propel themselves developmentally into the future they must cooperate), but if skirmishes arise within the “barnyard” then production or advancement is compromised (like if humans go to War then development of human is sidestepped by the conflict). What do you think?