Dramatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players."

William Shakespeare

Dramatism, an interpretive communication studies theory, was developed by Kenneth Burke as a meta-method for analyzing human relationships. This theory compares life to a drama and provides the most direct route to human motives and human relations.[1] Dramatism answers the empirical question of how persons explain their actions.[2] In this theory, Burke discusses two important ideas – that life is drama, and the ultimate motive of rhetoric is the purging of guilt.[2] There are three key concepts associated with dramatism – identification, the dramatistic pentad, and guilt-redemption.[3]

A Metaphor of Drama[edit]

We take dramaturgy to be a metaphor, perspective, and strategy for viewing life, not as life itself.[4] But why is drama a useful metaphor of life? Three reasons can be represented here.

(1) Drama implicates unlimited range of human activities. Dramatism makes substantive contributions to understanding of human relationships. It is a method that is applicable by anyone trained in its usage.[2]

(2) Drama has recognizable genres. Burke believes that humans use language in patterned discourses, and texts move us with recurring patterns underlying those texts.[5]

(3) Drama has certain audiences, which means rhetoric plays a crucial role when humans deal with experiences. Language strategies are central to Burke's dramatistic approach.[6]

Assumptions[edit]

Because of the complexity and extension of Burke's thinking, it is difficult to label the ontology behind his theory. However, some basic assumptions can still be extracted to support the understanding of dramatism.

(1) Some of what we do is motivated by animality and some of it by symbolicity.[5] Burke's position is that both animal nature and symbols motivate us. For him, of all the symbols, language is the most important.

(2) When we use language, we are used by it as well. Burke held a concept of linguistic relativity similar to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Words set our concepts and opinions, which means people cannot see beyond what their words lead them to believe.[7] This assumption suggests that language exerts a determining influence over people.[8]

(3) We are choice makers. Agency (sociology) is another key point of dramatism. "The essence of agency is choice."[9] Social actors have the ability of acting out of choices.

Key Concepts[edit]

Identification[edit]

Identification is the basic function of sociality, using both positive and negative associations. When there is overlap between two people in terms of their substance, they have identification. [10] According to Burke it is an inevitable, thus both beneficial and detrimental characteristic of language in human relations.[11] Identification has the following features:

The chief notion of a "new rhetoric"

Examining Aristotle’s principles of rhetoric, Burke points out that the definition of the “old rhetoric” is, in essence, persuasion.[7] Correspondently, Burke proposes a new rhetoric, which discusses several issues, but mainly focuses on the notion of identification. In comparison with “old” rhetoric, which stresses on deliberate design, “new” rhetoric may include partially “unconscious” factors in its appeal.[12]

Generated when two people ‘s substances overlap

Burke asserts that all things have substance, which he defines as the general nature of something. Identification is a recognized common ground between two people’s substances, regarding physical characteristics, talents, occupation, experiences, personality, beliefs, and attitudes. The more substance two people share, the greater the identification.[3] It is used to overcome human division.[13]

Can be falsified to result in homophily

Sometimes the speaker tries to falsely identify with the audience, which results in homophily for the audience. Homophily is the perceived similarity between speaker and listener.[3] The so-called “I” is merely a unique combination of potentially conflicting corporate “we’s.” “For example the use of the people rather than the worker would more clearly tap into the lower middle-class values of the audience the movement was trying to reach.[11]

Reflects ambiguities of substance

Burke recognizes that identification rests on both unity and division, since no one's substance can completely overlap with others. Individuals are "both joined and separated".[14] Humans can unite on certain aspects of substance but at the same time remain unique, which is labeled as "ambiguities". Identification can be increased by the process of consubstantiation, which refers to bridging divisions between two people. Rhetoric is needed in this process to build unity.

Dramatistic Pentad[edit]

The Dramatistic Pentad is an instrument used as a set of relational or functional principles that could help us understand what he calls the ‘cycle cluster of terms’ people use to attribute motive.[1] This pentad is a dissolution to drama.[15] It is parallel with Aristotle’s four causes and has a similar correlation to journalists catchism: who, what, when, where, why, and how.[2] This is done through the five key elements of human drama – act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose.[3]

Dramatism Pentad
  • Act: What was done
  • Scene: Where it was done
  • Agent: Who did it
  • Agency: How the speaker did it; methods or techniques
  • Purpose: Why it happened

Any complete statement about motives will offer some kind of answers to these five questions.[15] While it is important to understand each element of the Pentad on its own, it is more important to understand how the elements work together. This is called a ratio, and there are ten possible ratios within the Pentad. Burke maintained that analyzing the ratios of a speaker’s presentation would expose the resources of ambiguity people might exploit to interpret complex problems.[1] The most common ratios used by Burke are Scene-Act and Scene-Agent. When engaged in a dramatistic study, he notes, "the basic unit of action would be defined as 'the human body in conscious or purposive motion'", which is an agent acting in a situation.[2]

  • Attitude:How to prepare for an act

In the 1969 edition of Grammar, Burke added a new element, Attitude, thereby making the pentad a hexad.[16] Attitude means "the preparation for an act, which would make it a kind of symbolic act, or incipient act." [7]

The Pentad is a simple tool for seeing and understanding the complexity of a situation. It reveals the nuances and complications of language as symbolic action, which in turn, opens up our perspective.[17]

Guilt Redemption[edit]

According to Burke, Guilt Redemption is considered the plot of all human drama, or the root of all rhetoric. In this perspective, Burke concluded that the ultimate motivation of man is to purge oneself of one's sense of guilt through public speaking. The term guilt covers tension, anxiety, shame, disgust, embarrassment, and other similar feelings. Guilt serves as a motivating factor that drives the human drama.

Burke's cycle refers to the process of feeling guilt and attempting to reduce it, which follows a predictable pattern: order(or hierarchy), the negative, victimage (scapegoat or mortification), and redemption.

Order or Hierarchy

Society is a dramatic process in which hierarchy forms structure through power relationships. The structure of social hierarchy considered in terms of the communication of superiority, inferiority and equality.[18] The hierarchy is created through language using, which enables us to create categories. We feel guilt as a result of our place in the hierarchy.[19]

The Negative

The negative comes into play when people see their place in the social order and seek to reject it. Saying no to the existing order is both a function of our language abilities and evidence of humans as choice makers.[18] Burke coined the phrase "rotten with perfection", which means that because our symbols allow us to imagine perfection, we always feel guilty about the difference between the reality and the perfection.[7]

Victimage

Victimage is the process of scapegoating. Here, the speaker blames an external source for his ills.[3] According to Burke, there are two different types of scapegoating, universal and factional. In universal scapegoating, the speaker blames everyone for the problem, so the audience associates and even feels sorry for the victim, because it includes themselves. In fractional scapegoating, the speaker blames a specific group or a specific person for their problems. This creates a division within the audience.[20] The victim, whoever it may be, is vilified, or made up to violate the ideals of social order, like normalcy or decency. As a result, by people who take action against the villains become heroized because they are confronting evil.[21]

Redemption

This is a confession of guilt by the speaker and a request for forgiveness.[3] Normally, these people are sentenced to a certain punishment so they can reflect and realize their sins. This punishment is specifically a kind of “death,” literal or figuratively.

Many speakers experience a combination of these two guilt-purging options.The ongoing cycle starts with order. The order is the status quo, where everything is right with the world. Then pollution disrupts the order. The pollution is the guilt or sin. Then casuistic stretching allows the guilt to be accepted into the world. Next, is the guilt, which is the effect of the pollution. After that, is victimage or mortification which purges the guilt. Finally comes transcendence which is new order, the now status quo.[3]

Application and Uses of Theory[edit]

Dramatism provides us a new way to understand people. It is used in a variety of fields, including communication,[22] sociology,[23] psychology,[24] political science [25] and English.[26] Dennis Brissett and Charles Edgley examine the utility of dramatism on different levels, which can be categorized as the following dimensions:[27]

The Dramaturgical Self

Dramaturgical perspective is vividly used to analyze human individuality. It views individuality as more a social rather than a psychological phenomenon. Classic research questions involve how people maximize or minimize the expressiveness, how one stage ideal self, the process of impression-management, etc. For example, Larson and Zemke described the roots of the ideation and patterning of temporal socialization which is drawn from biological rhythms, values and beliefs, work and social commitments, cultural beliefs and engagement in activity. [28]

Motivation and Drama

Motives play a crucial role in social interaction between an acting person and his or her validating audience. Within the dramaturgical frame, people are rationalizing. Scholars try to provide a way of understanding how the various identities which comprise the self are constructed. For example, Anderson and Swainson tried to find the answer of whether rape is motivated by sex or by power. [29]

Social Relationships as Drama

Dramatists also concern the ways in which people both facilitate and interfere with the ongoing behavior of others. The emphasis is on the expressive nature of the social bond. Some topics as role taking, role distance are discussed. For example, by analyzing public address, scholars examine why a speaker selects a certain strategy to identify with audience. For example, Orville.G.Brim analyzed data to interpret how group structure and role learning influence children's understanding of gender. [30]

Organizational Dramas

In addition to focusing on the negotiated nature of social organization, dramaturgy emphasizes the manner in which the social order is expressed through social interaction, how social organization is enacted, featured and dramatized. Typical research topics include corporate realm, business influence on federal policy agenda, even funerals and religious themes. For example, by examining the decision making criteria of Business Angels, Baron and Marksman identified four social skills which contribute to entrepreneurial success: social perception; persuasion and social influence; social adaptability and impression management. They employ dramatism to show how these skills are critical in raising finance. [31]

Political Dramas

It is acknowledged that the political process has become more and more a theatrical, image-mongering, dramatic spectacle worthy of a show-business metaphor on a grand scale. Scholars study how dramaturgical materials create essential images by analyzing political advertising and campaigns, stagecraft-like diplomacy, etc. For example, Philip.E.Tetlock tried to answer why presidents became more complex in their thinking after winning the campaign. He found the reason is not presidents' own cognitive adjustment, but a means of impression management. [32]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Blakesley, David. The Elements of Dramatism. New York: Longman. 2002.
  2. ^ a b c d e Overington, M. (1977). Kenneth Burke and the Method of Dramatism. Theory and Society, 4, 131-156.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Griffin, Em. (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory. (7th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  4. ^ Mangham, I. L., & Overington, M. A. (2005). Dramatism and the theatrical metaphor. Life as theater, A dramaturgical sourcebook (2nd ed.), Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 333-346.
  5. ^ a b Brummett, B. (1993). Landmark Essays on Kenneth Burke (Vol. 2). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  6. ^ Brock, B. L. (1985). Epistemology and ontology in Kenneth Burke's dramatism. Communication Quarterly, 33(2), 94-104.
  7. ^ a b c d Burke, K. (1965). Permanence and Change. 1954. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
  8. ^ Melia, T. (1989). Scientism and Dramatism: Some Quasi-Mathematical Motifs in the Work of Kenneth Burke. The Legacy of Kenneth Burke, 55-73.
  9. ^ Conrad, C., & Macom, E. A. (1995). Re‐visiting Kenneth Burke: Dramatism/logology and the problem of agency. Southern Journal of Communication, 61(1), 11-28.
  10. ^ West, T., & Turner, L. (2003). Introducing communication theory: analysis and application with powerweb.
  11. ^ a b Jordan, J. (2005). Dell Hymes, Kenneth Burke's "identification," and the Birth of sociolinguistics. Rhetoric Review. 24(30, 264-279. doi:10.1207/s15427981rr2403_2
  12. ^ Hochmuth, M. (1952). Kenneth burke and the “new rhetoric”. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 38(2), 133-144.
  13. ^ Ahmed, R. (2009). Interface of political opportunism and Islamic extremism in Bangladesh: Rhetorical identification in government response. Communication Studies. 60(1). 82-96. doi:10.1080/10510970802623633
  14. ^ Burke, K. (1950). A rhetoric of motives. New York, 43.
  15. ^ a b Crable, Bryan. (2000). Burke's Perspective on Perspectives: Grounding Dramatism in the Representative Anecdote. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86, 318-333.
  16. ^ Anderson, F. D., & Althouse, M. T. (2010). Five fingers or six? Pentad or hexad. KB Journal, 6(2).
  17. ^ Fox, Catherine.(2002). Beyond the Tyranny of the Real: Revisiting Burke's Pentad as Research Method for Professional Communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 11, 365-388.
  18. ^ a b Duncan, H. D. (1968). Communication and social order. Transaction Books.
  19. ^ West, R., & Turner, L. Introducing communication theory. 2009.
  20. ^ Moore, M. P. (2006). To Execute Capital Punishment: The Mortification and Scapegoating of Illinois Governor George Ryan. Western Journal Of Communication, 70(4), 311-330. doi:10.1080/10570310600992129
  21. ^ Blain, M. (2005). The politics of victimage:. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(1), 31-50. doi:10.1080/17405900500052168
  22. ^ Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1981). Applied communication research: A dramatistic approach. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
  23. ^ Zald, M. N. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings, 261-274.
  24. ^ Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of personality, 63(3), 397-427.
  25. ^ Borreca, A. (1993). Political dramaturgy: a dramaturg's (re) view. TDR (1988-), 37(2), 56-79.
  26. ^ Winterowd, W. R. (1983). Dramatism in themes and poems. College English, 45(6), 581-588.
  27. ^ Brissett, D., & Edgley, C. (Eds.). (2005). Life as theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook. Transaction Books.
  28. ^ Larson, E. A., & Zemke, R. (2003). Shaping the Temporal Patterns of our Lives: The Social Coordination of. Journal of Occupational Science, 10(2), 80-89.
  29. ^ Anderson, I., & Swainson, V. (2001). Perceived motivation for rape: Gender differences in beliefs about female and male rape. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(8), 107-122.
  30. ^ Brim, O. G. (1958). Family structure and sex role learning by children: A further analysis of Helen Koch's data. Sociometry, 21(1), 1-16.
  31. ^ Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs' success. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 106-116.
  32. ^ Philip E. Tetlock (1981).Pre- to Postelection Shifts in Presidential Rhetoric: Impression Management or Cognitive Adjustment? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 41(2), 207-212.

References[edit]

  • Adams, Gregory (1963). All the World's a Stage. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  • Ahmed, R. (2009). Interface of political opportunism and Islamic extremism in Bangladesh: Rhetorical identification in government response. Communication Studies. 60(1). 82-96. doi:10.1080/10510970802623633
  • Benoit, William L. (1983). Systems of Explanation: Aristotle and Burke on Cause. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 13, 41-57.
  • Blakesley, David. The Elements of Dramatism. New York: Longman. 2002
  • Brock, Bernard L.; Burke, Kenneth; Burgess, Parke G.; Simons, Herbert W. (1985). Dramatism as Ontology or Epistemology: A Symposium. Communication Quarterly, 33, 17-33.
  • Burke, Kenneth. Kenneth Burke on Shakespeare. Parlor Press, 2007.
  • Burke, Kenneth. (1978). "Questions and Answers about the Pentad." College Composition and Communication, 29(4), 330-335.
  • Crable, Bryan. (2000). Burke's Perspective on Perspectives: Grounding Dramatism in the Representative Anecdote. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86, 318-333.
  • Crable, B. (2000). Defending dramatism as ontological and literal. Communication Quarterly. 48(4), 323-342
  • Fox, Catherine.(2002). Beyond the Tyranny of the Real: Revisiting Burke's Pentad as Research Method for Professional Communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 11, 365-388.
  • Griffin, Em. (2006). A First Look at Communication Theory. (6th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  • Hamlin, William J.; Nichols, Harold J. (1973). The Interest Value of Rhetorical Strategies Derived from Kenneth Burke's Pentad. Western Speech, 37, 97-102.
  • Jordan, J. (2005). Dell Hymes, Kenneth Burke’s “identification,” and the Birt of sociolinguistics. Rhetoric Review. 24(30, 264-279. doi:10.1207/s15427981rr2403_2
  • Manning, Peter K. (1999). High Risk Narratives: Textual Adventures. Qualitative Sociology, 22, 285-299.
  • Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts.(2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  • Overington, M. (1977). Kenneth Burke and the Method of Dramatism. Theory and Society, 4, 131-156.
  • West, T., & Turner, L. (2003). Introducing communication theory: analysis and application with powerweb.