Packing Slip 
item |
Literature Review of Scholarship on Kenneth Burke’s Philosophy of Rhetoric, 1990-2007 |
contact |
Bruce Peterson (Mesa Community College) bruce.peterson@mcmail.maricopa.edu |
credits |
Lorna Peralta John Williams |
college(s) |
Mesa Community College |
discipline(s) |
Communication, Rhetoric, History, Art, Literature, Psychology, Philosophy |
summary |
Literature Review of Scholarship on Kenneth Burke’s Philosophy of Rhetoric, 1990-2007 |
details |
This lit review was conducted using the MCC library for primary acquisition. Because Burkean literature from the past eight years is so much more prolific than I had expected, I was able to obtain all I could possibly review in the time allotted to the project. I did obtain 10 articles from the ASU collection that I thought essential, but beyond that, all the books and articles I chose were available through the MCC library. Kenneth Burke died in November, 1993. During the past decade, the scholarly trends fall into three major categories. First and foremost is the traditional focus of examining Burke’s original texts in some manner or works that focus on the biographical and historical contexts of his work. The second theme arises out of using Burke’s rhetorical critique methods in applying them to an almost endless array of documents and performances, but primarily from scholars in the field of rhetoric and Communication studies. Lastly, there has begun an interdisciplinary use of Burke but this is still dominated by Communication scholars extending their understanding of Burke’s theories to other disciplines. Apparently, other disciplines lack scholars with sufficient understanding to make Burke’s theories a significant force in their disciplines. ------------------------------------------------------------ Outcomes: In a paragraph or two describe what worked well. Did you accomplish your objective(s)? Were you able to complete your summer project as written? If not, what did you modify and why? What did not go as well as expected, if anything? Were there any surprises? Note: Use the questions as guides for your outcomes. Do not include detailed list of workshops attended, speakers who presented, or a list of items you have seen, heard, or read. ------------------------------------------------------------ The biggest problem I encountered was the shear scope of Burkean literature written in the past decade. Of the over thirty books published in the past decade, at least five contained writings by Kenneth Burke himself published after his death. One would expect the traditional, biographical and historical to diminish in the next decades, but I think it will wane slowly. Even with all the analysis of Burke’s writings and comedic point-of-view, his thinking and breadth are so rich, there is still much to be mined. My particular interest for this review was to explore how, if at all, others have employed Burkean analysis in the eclectic manner in which I did in my Master’s studies at UT-Pam Am. The interdisciplinary use of Burke is still the domain of rhetoric and communication scholars. The use of Burke outside these fields is predominately in literature and art. I decided to focus my review on the use of Bukean rhetorical critique that appeared to focus on uses as similar in nature to my use as a historical methodology: anything that examined scapegoating, comic and tragic frame of reference, and pentadic analysis of narratives, both written and oral. In narrowing my scope, I feel that I must continue this review for some time to come. I was surprised by one book that stands out from the rest of the literature that delineated a portion of the methodology I developed in the early 1990’s. Kenneth Burke and the Scapegoat Process by C. Allen Carter, published in 1996, just after I turned my attention from Burkean studies to environmental history, outlined the basis of the methodology I used in Dancing in the Shadows with Coyote: The Prophetic Rhetoric of Native Dreamers. It was encouraging to see another scholar on the same track as I was back then, but disturbing to me that I had not known it had been published. It confirmed my conviction that I needed to bring myself up to date in the literature. ------------------------------------------------------------ Professional Growth: Your own professional growth is a large part of your project. Your professional growth is important to you, your students, your college, and possibly other colleagues. How did project affect you professionally? What skills did you learn? What environments were you working in and how might your summer project influence your teaching or other responsibilities? Did you gain a different perspective? Was it professionally valuable for you? ------------------------------------------------------------ This summer project reminded me that it takes continual diligence to maintain an expertise in a field as rich as Kenneth Burke’s Rhetoric. In the past decade, The Kenneth Burke Society’s publication The Kenneth Burke Journal has grown from a new publication in 2004 with few followers to a discipline in itself. I must focus more attention on mining the necessary elements of the field of Burke studies that apply to my teaching in my discipline and in my interdisciplinary research. Even though I teach a very elementary version of Burkean rhetoric in my community college communication courses, Burke’s influence and contribution to the study of human communication is only equaled by Aristotle. Burke has added a perspective beyond Aristotle that is unequaled in the field of rhetoric. I have attempted to use Burke’s theories in practical applications to interdisciplinary research. Burke’s theories provide a systematic bridge between disciplines that clearly has not been employed extensively, because his methods are not understood outside the disciplines of rhetoric and communication. If community college students can be introduced to the power of Burke’s practical analysis methods and philosophical underpinnings, those that go on to university research in different disciplines may make the connection necessary to employ his methods in their fields. I have seen that the field has grown far more extensively than I would have expected in the past decade, but it is still primarily confined to Communication. Burke’s analytical methods have moved into the art fields, but not into the social science fields where they could be a powerful tool. Personally, I intend to continue my research using Burke as the foundation of a historical methodology in the research and writing of American Indian history, but also to extend it to the field of environmental history and the communication study of the role “place” plays in the formation of human identify. I am currently writing a prospectus for a research project to analyze and write an environmental history of Lawyer Canyon with the canyon itself an actor in its own history. The goal is to write the history using Burke’s systematic rhetorical theory to analyze the historical and scientific data. I will then use those same tools to create a narrative which blends the physical science voice, the social-science, ethno-historical voice and the mythic-animistic voice into a coherent, enlightening and entertaining public history. I will have to continue the literature review began in this summer project in order to prepare for the Lawyer Canyon research project. I have gained a solid understanding of the directions Burkean scholarship has taken in the decade since I employed his methods to my Master’s theses. Ten years later, no one has taken the interdisciplinary approach to the extent I did then. A few scholars have experimented. There is little evidence of anyone, even in the field of communication, teaching Burke at the freshman and sophomore levels, other than a cursory look in the beginning research theory class COM207. I intend to expand myself into both areas. ------------------------------------------------------------ Dissemination: How will you share this information with your colleagues, department, students, or college? ------------------------------------------------------------ I used Burke’s theories in my MCLI Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Research Grant work on the Circlestone Ruin in the Superstition Mountains, which was the first such project conducted together by faculty and students at the Red Mountain campus. I will continue to use and teach his analytic methods in the undergraduate research program at our campus. I have incorporated a Burkean element into all my COM courses at MCC which enhances student understanding of the rhetoric beyond the traditional Aristotelian model. Keeping up with the literature is essential. This review sets the stage for my Lawyer Canyon Public and Environmental History project where I will apply Kenneth Burke’s Dramatistic rhetorical principles as a historical inquiry and writing methodology to an environmental public history. This manuscript will be published as a public history and I intend to write an article for the Western Historical Quarterly and the Quarterly Journal of Speech and the Kenneth Burke Journal describing and discussing the methodology and its broader applications and value to building connections between scholarship in interdisciplinary research projects. Note! As a professional courtesy to the owner of this package, if you use some aspect of this package or have some thoughts about it, please share your feedback via the comments form below. |
web links |
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/fpg/ http://www.kbjournal.org/ |
shareback |
A "Shareback" cites the places on the web that mention, reference, or use this MLX package, and "shares" that information back here (more about shareback...) Sharebacks can be generated automatically by weblog tools. |
extra |
Last modified: Sep-30-2008 Date created: Sep-30-2008 Visitor count: 1114 Dublin Core Metadata record  This package is included in the Faculty Professional Growth Summer Project Reports special collection. |
Maricopa Learning eXchange
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/mlx/slip.php?item=2260
