[KB] Question about Resistance to Burke

Edappel8@cs.com Edappel8 at cs.com
Thu Dec 6 12:31:09 EST 2007


In Response to Professor Balthrop:

       OK, maybe I exaggerated when I labeled Chesebro's and Condit's 
articles in QJS "attacks" on Burke.  Maybe those demurrers should be placed somewhere 
between "attacks" and "Extensions of the Burkean System," the title of the 
book Chesebro edited on the subject.  I think those QJS pieces were a bit more, 
though, than just "extensions."  Tompkins and Cheney seemed to think so.

       I'd welcome other viewpoints on that score.

       The focal statement in my post Professor Balthrop quotes from has to 
do with Burke's "disappearing from the scene" after his passing.  I do not 
misquote.  Such a position sounds like a summary dismissal to me.

       Quite obviously, Burke has not "disappeared from the scene," even in 
Jim's own scholarship.  A recent article of his in Communication Quarterly, 
co-authored as I recall, builds on Burke's theory of the "grotesque" as a 
rhetorical stance in ATH.  That seems to me to be a creative and original use of 
Burke.  I don't recall that Burkean genre informing any oither rhetorical study.

       Anyway, I'll try to stick with the wording in John's original query in 
the future: "resistance."  "Recalcitrance" serves nicely, too.

       And I repeat: I'm not being critical of anyone's right to a dissent or 
a change of mind or a philosophical evolution, call it what you will.  John 
asked a question, and I'm giving him an answer, as I construe the situation.  
Others may disagree with my charactarization.  I'll take this stated objection 
to heart.


       Good to hear varied voices contribute to the conversation in our 
"parlor."



       Ed   

          
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed


More information about the KB mailing list