The Dao of Rhetoric

9. The Future of the Past

CHAPTER 9 The Future of the Past Traditional Western wisdom and conventions suggest that the final chapter of a book is a place to attempt, in some way, to bring closure to a project . While that approach makes a great deal of sense, Daoism suggests that we do the opposite: avoid closure and perpetuate a flow of creativity. This chapter attempts to honor Daoist wisdom by widening the field of inquiry rather than put a bow on its boundaries. In so doing, it may prompt others to investigate the implications of Daoism in their own work. The analysis thus far has focused on developing Daoist perspectives on rhetorical theory and criticism with minimal comparison to Western rhetoric. While this approach highlights and centers Daoism, an exciting possibility for further deployment of Daoist rhetoric, and another indication of its scope and depth, lies in using it as a lens for pointing out limitations of current Western theorizing. In this chapter, Daoism is positioned as a counterpoint and complement to contemporary Western rhetoric. The analysis begins by focusing on ideas of Kenneth Burke, arguably the most central figure in contemporary Western rhetoric, and then responding to those views from a Daoist perspective. It then considers Daoist rhetoric as a potent critical perspective in the contemporary, postmodern world. Daoism, like postmodernism, rejects foundationalism and energizes social critiques of universalizing theories and metanarratives. It fosters critiques of power and hegemony and empowers marginalized discourse. Yet, it is distinct from other critical perspectives because, in true Daoist paradoxicality , it retains a basis for normativity, consensus, and unity. KENNETH BURKE Burke is one of the most important and respected thinkers of the twentieth century, acclaimed as a poet, literary critic, political theorist, and 137 philosopher. His influence is felt throughout the social sciences and humanities. Burke’s originality and scope reconfigured rhetorical studies, and his legacy continues to challenge and delight rhetorical theorists. As a compact way of analyzing Burke, I note crucial thematic underpinnings of his work: the definition of the human, action/motion distinction, and process of division/identification. Following an examination of these topics in turn, I offer responses based on my perspective on Daoist rhetoric . Ultimately, I will note variances between Burke and Daoism with the hope that the analysis will suggest opportunities to refashion Burkean concepts with Daoist insights. Burke (1966) defines the human as “the symbol-using (symbolmaking , symbol mis-using) animal inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative) separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order) and rotten with perfection” (p. 16). He distinguishes the symbolic nature of the human generally, and then elaborates on this distinction . Saying we are inventors of the negative is to claim that there are no negatives in nature. Nature simply “is.” Humans add the “is not” because they can attach values to the natural world (ought, should) and they can consider what is not present (fantasy) or reject what is (“No”). The negative is enabled by language, which separates the symbol (signifier) from the referent (signified). Instruments of our making, such as language, separate us from the natural world. Humans are also moved to organize relationships , according to Burke, and his term for this organizational framework is hierarchy. Hierarchy is engrained in language. Humans are also dissatisfied with their present condition. They have a need for perfection , although it is impossible to attain. Hence, our “perfect rottenness.” I agree with much of what Burke maintains, if the definition of the human is meant to be descriptive of the human condition, and not a pronouncement of our essential qualities. Humans do intrude on the natural state by imposing artificial distinctions, values, and hierarchies and acting upon rather than within the world. In fact, the view Burke holds of humans is similar to the state of humanity that Laozi and Zhuangzi not only witnessed but also spoke against. I have noted that Laozi and Zhuangzi believed that language is crucial in separating us from the state of nature. Humans, through language, impose values on the world and create distinctions that uphold certain values at the expense of others. If Burke is articulating his view of the essential nature of humans, suggesting that these activities are inevitable, then I disagree. Instead, I believe that the characteristics Burke outlines are the result of choices people make about how they wish to live and not inevitable or necessary qualities. In...