Page 77 - Cultural Studies A Practical Introduction

Rhetoric 61

substance contains the potential for division; as Burke says, “ If men were
not apart from one another, there would be no need for the rhetorician to
6
proclaim their unity. ” In other words, if we were truly of one substance
– if everyone in the world absolutely agreed upon the meaning of every
symbol and the wisdom of every judgment – an ideal state of universal
harmony would exist, and articulating our shared interests would be
redundant and unnecessary. However, we know this is not the case. In

reality, identification comes with its counterpart, division. To say “ I am
this , ” usually implies, “ Because I am not that . ” People have a tendency to
draw the boundaries of a social group and promote group cohesion by
targeting and screening out those who do not “ properly ” belong to it. The
excluded “ others ” are then rhetorically framed as a threat to the social

order. Thus defined, the banished group is forced to bear the weight of
blame for problems that arise in the community, and their persecution is
made to seem justifiable. Burke points out, “ Men who can unite on nothing

7
else can unite on the basis of a foe shared by all. ” Rhetoric is capable of
fostering collective action, but this cooperative spirit often comes with a
heavy price.
For example, it is easy enough to claim that we are Americans because
we support life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that those who
do not value such qualities are un - American. Things become decidedly
more muddled when we ’ re called upon to define what exactly we mean by

life , liberty , pursuit , and happiness . To what authority can we refer to assure
other cultures that we have dominion over the “ correct ” meanings of these
terms? And furthermore, can those people who identify themselves as
Americans even agree amongst themselves as to the correct interpretations?
In trying to disentangle ourselves from such quandaries, we again fi nd
ourselves caught in a web of language from which there is no escape except
through the production of more language.
Such a state of high - stakes ambiguity is, in Burke ’ s words, an “ invitation
to rhetoric, ” as different groups scramble to devise and disseminate com-
prehensive interpretive frameworks – or “ ideologies ” – that support under-
8
standings of the world which are conducive to their particular interests.
We are implicated together by our reliance on the resources of the world,
and also separated from each other by our status as distinct physical
bodies each with its own set of needs and desires. We draw upon rhetoric
as a means of negotiating the simultaneous and contradictory con-
ditions of interdependence and alienation that are inherent to human
experience. Rhetoric intersects with power when ideologies founded on the