While reading through Burke’s “Terministic Screens,” it became clear to me that the presence of these screens are not only present in aspects of everyday life but in fact essential to speech communication and interpretations. As Burke mentions, “we must use terministic screens, since we can’t say anything without the use of terms; whatever terms we use, they necessarily constitute a corresponding kind of screen; and any such screen necessarily directs the attention to one field rather than another” (Burke 50). Based on this claim, it is possible to believe that when attempting to explain a thought, or portray an idea, it is completely inevitable that the speaker will present the issue based on his or her personal knowledge of terms and related experiences; therefore, when speaking, the terms used will undoubtedly direct the attention and thinking pattern of the listener and determine the following interpretation.
In order to help grasp this concept, Burke provides us with an example about photographs, he notes: “They were different photographs of the same objects” yet “they revealed notable distinctions in texture, and even in form, depending upon which color filter was used” (Burke 45). By applying this situation to the idea of terministic screens, it becomes easier to recognize how original copies of anything can be interpreted in different manners and result in an entirely different understanding. This then made me wonder about a claim made in “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reasoning,” Benjamin states that, “The presence of the original is the prerequisite of the concept of authenticity” (Benjamin 1234). So, in relation to Burke’s photograph situation as well as terministic screens, it seems that having knowledge of an original thought is required in order to discuss it; however, if one were to use terms biased to a particular culture or belief, would that person be altering the original, and consequentially hinder its authenticity?
I completely agree with your thoughts on how essential terministic screens are to language and communication in general. The world of language that human beings have created pales in comparison to the entire human experience that grows and manifests every single day on this world and all that surrounds it. That sounds very "hippy-esque" when I say it back to myself, but it seems to be true. Language, as Burke might say, acts as a filter or lens to tell and explain about an event or thing, but it can never do it fully. That is why there is disagreement partially in the world, because it is possible to interpret different phenomenon in different ways, no matter how simple or objective it may be, like Burke talks about behavior. If one looks at a peice of paper, yes it is a piece of paper, but it is countless other things as well, none of which can be completely correct, but also none of which are totally wrong. It all just depends on what kind of language filter or terministic screen you want to put on the experience.
ReplyDelete