Rhetorical theory and principles

Rhetoric of Burke and the Sophists: Three Points of Comparison

Approaches to rhetoric, which can be broadly defined as the science -- or perhaps quasi-art -- of how ideas, words, and/or actions are communicated and/or inspired in human beings, are highly varied and can be enormously complex. The difficulty in establishing a clear, concrete definition of rhetoric that serves equally well for all of the different uses and interpretations of the word from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers to the modern day is clear evidence of the difference that exists in the way rhetorical strategies and devices are defined and described. Modern rhetorical theorists and philosophers have not simply built on the rhetorics defined by previous generations, but have often revolutionized rhetorical thinking, coming to many different conclusions stemming from what are essentially highly different perspectives and perceptions of the truth. This paper examines the writings and thoughts, so much as they are ascertainable, of one modern rhetorician in comparison with three philosophers of the ancient Greek school of Sophistry.

Specifically, the writings of Kenneth Burke will be compared with those of Gorgias, Protagoras, and Isocrates, with key differences and key similarities pointed out between Burke's view of rhetoric -- its manifestation, purpose, and overall meaning -- and those of the more ancient philosophers. Burke essentially sees language, and thus rhetoric, as the primary means by which concepts of reality are formed and actions are inspired (Burke). Describing man as "the symbol using animal," Burke contends that it is through rhetoric that one human being can change the actions and minds of others; he essentially asserts that language is action, in as real and concrete a sense as is imaginable (or perhaps more so) (Burke 6-7). There are many other complexities to Burke's theory of rhetoric, some of which are explored below in relation to other rhetoricians.

Gorgias, one of the Sophists of ancient Greece, believed that nothing really existed, or at least that if something truly existed it could not really be known or communicated by human beings. Belief and pleasure were the guiding principles of action and of rhetoric, for Gorgias, and one of his more well-known tracts he makes an argument that purports to absolve Helen for any guilt in starting the Trojan War (Bizzell & Herzberg). This emphasizes Gorgias belief that truth and reality are purely rhetorical constructs, and that persuasive speech -- which can be full of paradox and opposition -- essentially creates reality. Though Burke would definitely agree with Gorgias in the degree of opposition seen in language, as well as the ability for rhetoric to "drug" the masses into certain patterns of thought and action, he would not agree that the paradoxes and oppositions in language served to negate meaning, but rather thought that such opposition led to enhanced meaning and possibility, rather than signaling a total absence of underlying meaning altogether. In his essay "Definition of Man," one of the clauses by which Burke describes man is, "separated form his natural condition by instruments of his own making" (Burke 13). This clearly implies an underlying "supposed to be," or ultimate reality, which Gorgias denies.

Another of the Greek Sophists was Protagoras, who -- like the other Sophists generally -- asserted that true knowledge could never really be obtained. He arrived at this conclusion by a very different means than Gorgias, however, simply asserting that the first way of knowing anything, asking the gods, usually did not yield an answer; one could then appeal to science, which gave only incomplete answers and was ultimately up to the interpretation of the third and final source of knowledge, man -- who was imperfect, susceptible to error and influence. Burke might contend that rather than there being no real knowledge, there is actually an overabundance of knowledge created by the human system of language, such as through the invention of the negative, which drives ambiguity and uncertainty and creates the susceptibilities to human error and influence that Protagoras identifies as stemming from a lack of any adequate foundation in the first place.