Dramatism and Dramatism Theory

Conventional rhetorical theory tends to focus attention on how discourse influences the way people think. Formulated by Kenneth Burke, dramatism adds depth to rhetorical theory. It provides insights into how language and its connections to thought can be studied as modes of action rather than ways of conveying information. Thus, Burke devoted his massive study of language and society to the analysis of symbolic action, based on his proposition that “language is primarily a species of action, or expression of attitudes, rather than an instrument of definition” (1968, p. 447).

In his early years in the 1920s and 1930s as a literary critic, Burke began to create his theory of dramatism to assist his ability to perform insightful literary criticism. Burke began his career as a literary critic but soon expanded that interest to analyze and critique all discourse, especially that which leads to cooperation and competition in society. This evolution saw his influence grow beyond literary criticism to social criticism. He influenced the thinking of scholars in literature, rhetorical theory, sociology, history, communication, and political science, for instance. His theory of dramatism allowed him to offer some of the richest existing critiques of how the free market system can work to the advantage of some while disadvantaging others.

In this context, Burke revealed how the term progress can be the guiding light for a society. Any act can be done in the name of progress. Such commitment, he reasoned, was often at the heart of the conflict between business leaders and other groups, such as laborers and environmental activists. One group's progress might justify sacrifice on the part of another group.

This innovative contribution to literary criticism and social commentary began with a deep curiosity into the workings of the poet's, dramatist's, or novelist's mind. Burke was looking for a critical apparatus that would allow him to disclose the reason or motive behind the creation of any work of literature. He believed that it was necessary to unlock the bond between the writer and the reader, a special relationship in better literature. In better literature, readers and authors participate—act—together in the experience of literature. A work of literature does not report the feelings—hope, for instance—of the author. Rather, it evokes those feelings in the reader.

He noted early in his inquiry that a poem or other literary device is not a mere report. That is, the poet who feels joy at seeing nature—a tree, for instance—writes a poem not to report or convey knowledge about that tree, but to evoke a similar experience at enjoying the symbolic tree characterized in [Page 262]the poem. This line of thought led Burke to discount the element of communication by conveying knowledge—epistemology—as being less important than the creation of action—ontology. He argued that the reader does not interpret and respond to the poem as a report but as a symbolic experience—an act. The author, by this reasoning, wants the reader to participate in the experience rather than to receive a report of the experience.

By this logic, Burke argued that Hamlet's plight appealed, not because he reported his circumstances and feelings, but because Shakespeare was capable of having the audience share in the symbolic action of feeling betrayal and revenge. Attitude is the objective of literature, not knowledge gained by report.

...