Kenneth Burke Hunting And Heritage On Trial Summary

Question Four Response:

Kenneth Burke’s theory of dramatism considers attitude the foundation of the rhetorical act, therefore prompting individuals to consider how speech shapes and influences attitudes about situations and events. In Burke’s pentadic theory, the act itself is the central term; however, the act can be reinterpreted by featuring other terms, including the agent, agency, scene, or purpose (Tonn et al., 1993, p. 166). The very act of reinterpretation is why rhetoric, as a discipline, enables individuals to uncover and understand perspectives that may otherwise go unnoticed. Tonn et al.’s (1993) essay entitled “Hunting and heritage on trial: A dramatistic debate over tragedy, tradition, and territory” provides just one example

As Tonn et al. (1993) state, “Placing blame on the victim is a familiar defense for acts of violence against community trespassers” (p. 167). For Burke, the only way to absolve guilt and repent of sin is by seeking redemption through purification. Purification occurs in one of three ways: mortification, victimization, or transcendence. The Maine community was unwilling to view Rogerson as the perpetrator and worked to solidify his place as the victim of the crime instead of Wood. From their perspective, Wood was an outsider entering their pre-established community, and therefore, the only individual accountable for any wrongdoing was Wood herself (p. 167). In that sense, Wood was invading the tribe, and it was only natural for members of the tribe to maintain the standards and traditions held in the community as the

Though the three metaphors create a space for increased understanding, they do not adequately represent the nuances of war. Kuusisto (2002) acknowledges, in reference to heroic tales, that when the story gets scary, one can close the book (p. 57). While this can happen in the land of fantasy, it is not true in a time of war. People die, nations are torn apart, and unfortunately, there is no escape. In that manner, metaphors foster overgeneralization. While their application aids in creating a frame of reference, they are often over-broad and neglect to acknowledge critical elements of that which they represent. With the business deals metaphor, this overgeneralization neglects to consider the ethical concerns and uncertainty that exist within decision-making (Kuusisto, 2002, p. 62). Kuusisto (2002) notes Lakoff and Johnson, finding that metaphors are naturally selective and restrictive and “always hide aspects of the situation that do not fit the logic of the chosen association” (p. 53).

Additionally, though Kuusisto does a sufficient job evaluating and analyzing the use of the metaphors, she fails to acknowledge what effect, if any, they had on the audience. The lack of findings/results within the essay decreases the overall impact of the research, leaving us to question whether the use of metaphor proved effective. Regardless of the strength of Kuusisto’s criticism, without an analysis of the audience’s receptiveness, we