Wanna Arm Wrestle?

 

Rhetoric and poetics now seem like my right and my left arms.

 

I’m right handed and  my interest in artful compositions is more prominent in my work thus far—so I’d say that for me: poetics is my right hand.

 

Rhetorics, now pluralized, undergirds poesis, as Burke argues—and Jared has already observed—they are inside of one another.

 

I was struck by a few particular lines in this essay, notably: “man moves not merely for purposes of acquisition or avoidance but also through the sheer delight in being free to move, so in being the typically symbol-using animal he takes a natural delight in the exercising of his power with symbols” (295).  Our freedom of movement, aside from intentionality gives us a kind of unfettered approach to making—one that might rely on the muses, Calliope, for example.  But then, rhetoric seems, for Burke, more intentional—an exercise in power.  The distinction in intentionality is striking then.  I always try to remember that the poetic nature of any composition always falls on a spectrum of intention.  If I try to make my composition beautiful, there will always be forms which arise that lie outside of my own authorial intent.  The spectrum for creativity in the forms of a composition, which always has a rhetorical argument might look something like this:

 

<intentional poetics—unintentional poetics—intentional rhetorics—unintentional rhetorics>

 

The rhetorical forms seem to ally with something like conventionality, pragmatism, and clarity.

 

I have to be so careful in this distinction in my own search for stylized prose, because while style can have its own striking appeal—Burke argues—style alone can tend toward meaninglessness, glossolalia, or babbling.  Burke sees rhetoric developed “for purposes of cooperation and competition” (296), but that poetics “could still be concerned with symbolic action for its own sake” (296, emphasis mine).  I see this as a kind of dismissal, in some ways, of Art for Art’s Sake—which I believe seldom truly exists at all, but also a kind of rationalization for those, like Burke and myself, who have left literary studies behind for something with a bit more agency.  Still, poetics has its influence upon rhetoricians, and I’m here to make sure that those beautiful forms aren’t nudged aside by the grunting march of our “autonomized culture.”

Comments

Stephen's picture

The relationship between Poetics and Rhetoric is certainly interesting given its intersection with Burke's previous discussions of (purposeless?) Art.  He says on p 29 of  (like what you quote later on) that "As for poetics pure and simple: I would take this motivational dimension to involve the sheer exercise of 'symbolicity' (or 'symbolic action') for its own sake, purely for the love of the art," then comparing it to a fish's liking to swim, or a bird to fly.  This is not contrary to, but still different than (even if intermingled with) Rhetoric (for Burke), which is characterized by the purpose of persuasion - "the hortatory use of language" (28).

If you are seeing the two as overlapping/intermingled, what does that do for your spectrum?  Is it an either/or?  Or do Poetics and Rhetorics exist simultaneously in some situations (for Burke, as you see it)?

Jimmy's picture

I originally conceived of the two overlapping, but could only present the spectrum this way here--linearly.  I'd like to explore this spectrum of intentionality in some other medium where the two aspects would overlap as both you and Burke say.

keoni25's picture

Yeah, I agree that Burke definitely flirts with the poetics qua poetics line (as he mentions elsewhere...somewhere in the 200s).  Interestingly, 'form'-al experiments a la Derrida's Glas - definitely playing with the form but perhaps not 'poetic' in the sense of being interested purely in figural language but the material instantiation of the text - are persuasive for some who seek that sort of exposure. There is a distinction and not (as you point to) a separation between the two realms.

I wonder - how do you differentiate beauty from pragmatism?  Is it strictly 'non-action' related?

dreamfever's picture

Perhaps the most fascinating thing to me about this section is that Burke, apparently more "conservative" in his later works (according to some), doesn't attempt to fix a definition onto either Poetics or Rhetorics (though he is defining them). And perhaps, as you say, the differentiations are not even as clean as he makes it--e.g., what about pure persuasion? Rhetoric for rhetoric's sake? In other words, I think I'm agreeing with you about his dismissal to some extent. Of course, it's only a dismissal if Burke delineates that border around Poetics, and I would argue that the majority of the essay is to argue that we can't do that. The histories of the terms won't let us.