Page 76 - Cultural Studies A Practical Introduction

60 Rhetoric

material, bodily effects; in identifying with these symbols, we become
consubstantial with other people who have made the same identifi cation.
Burke proposed that “ you persuade a man only insofar as you talk his
language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identify-
4
ing your ways with his. ” Burke widens the reach of rhetoric to encompass
not only public speech but also meaningful performative acts (that is,
speech acts that make things happen in the world such as “ seal a deal ” )
which are directed toward persuasion and identification. These may include

physical gestures, clothing, the layout of museum exhibits or public memo-
rials, the interior design of workplaces or classrooms … anything that seeks
to manage the way an experience is interpreted and understood. Burke
claims, “ Wherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric. And wherever
5
there is ‘ meaning, ’ there is ‘ persuasion. ’ ” A presidential candidate ’ s deci-
sion to address her audience as “ my fellow Americans, ” the flag pin she

prominently wears on her lapel, and the patriotic music that accompanies
her walk to the podium are all instances of rhetoric, insofar as they are
intended to convince the audience that the candidate has something in
common with them, and that she is thus positioned to act in their best
interests, for these are her interests as well. Burke does not eliminate per-
suasion from his definition of rhetoric, but rather incorporates it into the

larger process by which people come to change their attitudes and actions.

For Burke, persuasion, identification, and consubstantiality are not three
distinct phenomena, but terms that imply each other: no act of persuasion
can occur unless the rhetorician can find a common substance with which

he and his interlocutors can both identify. Once this identification is estab-
lished, the rhetorician and the audience are consubstantial with each other
through their shared interests, or at least the impression of shared interests
that has been created through the rhetorician ’ s skillful deployment of
symbols.
Yet no matter how united people are in their identifications, they still

remain fundamentally distinct beings. People obviously do not literally
fuse together into one physical body, and each individual identifi es himself
with many different substances. A man may consider himself to be a proud
American, and yet still vehemently oppose the policies of the American
government. The meaning of “ American ” is unstable – to some people it
implies loyalty to a political party, to others it suggests belief in certain
values that exist independently of political parties, and to still others it
might merely be a geographical designation. As a site of confl icting inter-
pretations, it is a symbol that invites both cohesion and division. Any