In his understanding of how the “terministic screen” directs attention, Burke writes, “Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function also as a deflection of reality” (45). Through this idea, one understands reality as a spectrum of symbols and through each specific screen – or terminology system –, specific symbols are seen as having different meanings and interacting in different ways to affect interpretation, or attention. In Burke’s third section, “Examples,” he cites his first chapter: “…however important to us is the tiny sliver of reality each of us has experienced firsthand, the whole overall “picture” is but a construct of our symbol systems” (48). This frightening truth, Burke claims, is “much like peering over the edge of things into an ultimate abyss” because it forces one to consider the world without a screen or an inherently intentional viewpoint. Thus, Burke writes that “though man is typically the symbol-using animal, he clings to a kind of naïve verbal realism that refuses to let him realize the full extent of the role played by symbolicity in his notions of reality,” for to profoundly consider the role of each symbol would force one to consider the alternate realities of alternate terministic screens and thus consider the destabilization of the symbol, an absence of one, true reality (48). Such an idea of truth possesses people and, so, is what makes the “selection” of reality so essential. Thus, Burke’s question: “Would not a terminology that features the unconscious repression of ideas automatically deflect our attention from symbols that are not repressed but merely remote?” (51). These “remote symbols” merely belong to another symbol system, or terministic reality, but because one’s attention is deflected from them, each screen can be considered as having intention and trapping one within that reality.
I think the idea that not all symbols are repressed, but that some are remote shows that it is not the symbol that is destabilized, but it is us, because as we move through time we realize there is far more out there than we can comprehend.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin's anecdote about duels supports this: no matter what they called carrying guns or happening to walk past an area where duels were held, when participants paced off, turned, and drew their weapons, it was still a duel. The nature of the event hadn't changed.
Reality doesn't change whether we can comprehend it or not--it's just there.
Hmm, I definitely agree that there is more "out there" than one human can comprehend; however, I don't necessarily agree with your process of understanding Burke through Benjamin. I do think a consideration of the duel can be productive here, though. Burke, I imagine, would understand the event as identifiable as a duel to the two involved, but an outsider would, perhaps, not consider the event as such - were he from another country, time period, etc. But a consideration of the duel can only go this far because it is being considered as an action. Burke seems more concerned with language, rather than action.
ReplyDeleteI think your term "nature of the event" is complicated in an interesting way, though. Events such as marriage or simply dinnertime obviously encompass very different food, dress, speech acts, colors, etc in different time periods and cultures, but the "nature of the event" - to be joined by government contract or to eat - remains the same. It's important, though, that the terminology differs within each group of people. Colors, for example, represent different ideas according to one's terministic screen. In this way, I think your simplistic idea of reality cannot persist. The reality is the color and interpretation varies; however, when we consider something as complicated as government or war, there really is no single "reality" that's "just there," until its moment in history has passed and the event can be interpreted. So, I definitely believe it's possible to be trapped within the reality of one's terministic screen.
Burke isn't saying that there isn't one true reality, but rather that there is a one true reality and that our symbols affect the way that we interpret that reality. To use your example of colors, what ever the person is looking at is in existence and it is reflecting light in a certain way and it is emitting a certain reality; however, that color can be interpreted in many different ways. The layman may just think of it as a lighter or darker shade of a primary color. A student of art, on the other hand, has been given a better selection of vocabulary to describe the art and they may begin talking about hues and tones and textures which people without that person's education would not be able to understand. A psychologist would think about the emotions that are associated with that color.
ReplyDelete