Kenneth Burke and argument? An introduction.

• Author: Parson, Donn W.
• Position: Special Issue: Dramatism and Argumentation

Kenneth Burke and argument? Surely it would be more appropriate to speak of Kenneth Burke OR argument, or at least to treat the phrase as an oxymoron. After all, Burke alludes to almost no modern writings in argumentation--although his survey of classical rhetoric might be construed as a survey of argumentation. And few, if any, argumentation and debate texts ever mention Kenneth Burke. Apparently the two traditions, Burke and argumentation, were meant to wander their separate ways in the twentieth century.

In 1991 a program was proposed for the Speech Communication Association Association convention on Burke and argument. I was asked to serve as program critic, and entitled my response, "Finding Argument under Burkean Stones." The title suggested my approach of doubting, debunking, casuistically stretching positions, and generally suggesting that if this new consubstantiality was pushed, Burke would probably sue. I think I reflected the same bifurcation that the initial essay by James Klumpp suggests: a mental separation of Burke and argument despite an interest in both. Klumpp's "Rapprochement between Dramatism and Argumentation" describes his intellectual journey and its attendant difficulties.

Perhaps Burke was right after all: the separation of these two traditions was the neat product of our "either/or" orientations and corresponding terministic screens. The idea of combining Burke and argument at least deserved some additional focus. Yet two conclusions seemed clear from the beginning: (1) Burke argues, often and interestingly; and (2) Burke offers no systematic and complete theory of argument.

That Burke argues is probably beyond dispute. Those who have responded to Burke's positions on political policy, such as Sidney Hook (Hook, Critical Responses), on behaviorism, on technology, on science, or on a variety of other positions respond to his arguments. Some find his arguments innovative, insightful and productive; others have characterized them as assertive, overgeneralized, and wrong. William Rueckert's volume, Critical Responses to Kenneth Burke, is filled with comments on Burke's arguments, although not always clothed in the language of argument. Perhaps it is difficult if not impossible to engage in criticism without entering the domain of argument. It seems clear, however, that few Burke readers would doubt that he creates arguments, and at times seems to revel in those arguments.

All Burke arguments do not seem to be either...