Logie points out two different representations of the response to Burke's speech. Specifically, he raises the question as to what is the difference between Joe Freeman's labeling of Burke as a "traitor" or as "snob." As I read this I wondered how a pentadic analysis of the two would differ, so I'm going to try my hand at developing pentads for both scenarios.

Act - Calling Burke a "traitor"
Scene - Audience response time period at 1935 American Writers' Congress
Agent - Joe Freeman
Agency - Yelling out above the noise of the crowd
Purpose - To discredit Burke's words and undermine Burke's authority as a voice for the Communist party--To point out that he is not one of us, he doesn't share our values.

Act - Calling Burke a "snob"
Scene - Audience response time period at 1935 American Writers' Congress
Agent - Joe Freeman
Agency - Yelling out above the noise of the crowd

The Burkean take on myth is something that I had not previously considered, as I tend to think of myths as stories, and not necessarily stories that do. It should not have come as a surprise to me that Burke looks at myths not for what they say, but for what they do, and yet it did.

I found little to argue with in Burke's speech and was a bit taken aback by his contemporaries' response to it. At first I could not understand why they would argue with a strategy that seems so reasonable and rhetorically savvy. Burke seems like the only adult in the room, the only one who can admit that a revolution must be launched by a dicourse that invites rather than shuns. He sums up an argument Quintilian would be proud of:

An attempt to explain the reception of Burke's speech should consider Burke's milieu or the context in which the speech was delivered -- the pre-World War II times, when people felt that an immanent action was to occur. To this, the explanation should also reflect on Burke's idea of rhetoric: use of language in order to foster identification, to align people's interests or motives. In Burke's view, the aim of rhetoric is not to persuade. Nonetheless, this seems to be the way in which his audience perceived his speech, as an attempt to persuade. They did not see Burke's speech as an attempt to build community. The term "people" that Burke proposed instead of "workers," despite its reminiscing of "das Volk," has its roots in the Latin "populus." From Latin to Old French the word change into "peupel,"and then the word entered the English language. In Latin, the word captures the idea of community, which it preserves in English as well.

For this week’s response, I think I would like to start with a brief description of a scenario evolving a person driving to school. Let’s imagine then, that sample person A is driving down State St. and aggravatingly brings her car to a stop as she approaches an intersection. Adding to the scenario, let’s assume sample person A is late for her class and would prefer to continue rushing toward a parking spot. So why did the person interrupt her travels by stopping at the intersection? The simple answer would be that she encountered a traffic light with a red bulb illuminated. But why would a small piece of red glass (or plastic) signify a situation where the person is required to stop?

Several years ago, I jotted down this quote from _Eyeless_in_Gaza_: "There ought to be some way of dry-cleaning and disinfecting words. Love, purity, goodness, spirit--a pile of dirty linen waiting for the laundress."

Add to that list another phrase: the people.

The reaction to Burke's suggestion that they use the phrase "the people" in place of "the worker" seems rooted in fear and hysteria.

The year is 1935. World War II wouldn't have begun yet, and appeasement would have still been the order of the day. The way Burke's critics are slinging the word "Hitler" around, though, calls to mind our current perceptions of him, and I keep on wondering what the perception of him was in 1935. They are worried that "the people" is too much like Hitler's "das Volk." They are also worried about it because they have seen it used to obscure reality.