Comparing and Contrasting the Ideas of Aristotle and Kenneth Burke on Rhetoric

Both Aristotle and Kenneth Burke are among the most influential thinkers on rhetoric and have made foundational contributions to our understanding of persuasion, communication, and human interaction. While Aristotle’s work focuses on the classical notion of rhetoric as a means of persuasion, Burke offers a modern approach that explores the symbolic nature of language and its connection to identity, society, and dramatistic analysis. This comparison will explore their views on the nature of rhetoric, persuasion, audience, and the role of language.

1. Nature of Rhetoric: Classical vs. Modern Perspectives

Aristotle: Rhetoric as a Means of Persuasion

Aristotle’s work on rhetoric, especially in his seminal text Rhetoric, establishes rhetoric as the art of persuasion. For Aristotle, rhetoric is an essential tool for persuading others and was meant to be used in the public sphere—in legal, political, and civic life. His focus was on the rhetor’s ability to craft arguments that would move an audience to accept a certain belief or take specific action.

Rhetoric as a Systematic Art: Aristotle believed that rhetoric is a systematic discipline with clear rules and strategies. He identified three main forms of persuasion:
- Ethos: Persuading through the character and credibility of the speaker.
- Pathos: Persuading by appealing to the emotions of the audience.
- Logos: Persuading through logical argumentation and reasoning.

For Aristotle, the focus of rhetoric was largely on effectiveness in persuading others and adapting messages to the audience’s emotions, reasoning, and sense of character.

Kenneth Burke: Rhetoric as a Means of Identification and Dramatism

Kenneth Burke, on the other hand, sees rhetoric not merely as a tool for persuasion but as a fundamental part of human interaction that involves symbolic action. For Burke, rhetoric is not only about convincing an audience, but also about creating a sense of identification between the speaker and the audience. In his work A Rhetoric of Motives, Burke argues that rhetoric is about creating a shared sense of common purpose and aligning the speaker’s goals with the audience’s values and beliefs.

Identification Over Persuasion: Whereas Aristotle emphasizes persuasion as the core of rhetoric, Burke focuses on identification—the process by which people come together through shared symbols, values, and experiences. Rhetoric, for Burke, is about creating common ground, not just winning an argument. This distinction shows a more psychological and social view of rhetoric, where persuasion is secondary to the idea of communion and solidarity among people.
Dramatism: Burke also introduced the concept of dramatism, where he compares human action to a play or drama. According to this perspective, all human communication can be seen as a performance where people act out their roles within a social context. Burke’s analysis of rhetoric places a heavy emphasis on the symbolic nature of language and human motives, framing communication as an ongoing social drama that reflects power, conflict, and identity.

2. Persuasion and the Audience: Analyzing Influence

Aristotle: Rhetoric as a Means of Achieving the “Good”

For Aristotle, the primary goal of rhetoric is to persuade audiences to act in a virtuous or ethical manner. He believes that rhetoric is a neutral tool that can be used for both good and bad purposes. Therefore, the responsibility lies with the speaker to use rhetoric for noble goals, like justice and truth. Aristotle’s rhetoric assumes an educated, reasoned audience that can follow logical arguments and will respond appropriately to pathos (emotional appeals) and ethos (the credibility of the speaker).

Ethos, Pathos, Logos: Aristotle’s model revolves around the audience’s reaction to the speaker’s arguments. He identifies the importance of knowing the audience’s feelings and beliefs, adjusting the speech to appeal to the emotions, and using logical evidence to sway their reasoning. Ethos plays a key role in ensuring that the speaker is credible and trustworthy to effectively persuade the audience.

Kenneth Burke: Rhetoric as Identification and Unification of the Audience

Burke takes a different approach to audience. For him, rhetoric is about aligning the speaker’s identity with the audience’s, often through symbolic actions and shared language. In his view, persuasion is secondary to the act of identification—rhetoric’s primary function is to create a sense of unity among the speaker and their audience. He argued that identification is necessary to persuade because shared values, experiences, and symbols are what ultimately allow speakers and audiences to connect.

Identification as the Key: Rather than focusing on persuading an audience with reason alone, Burke emphasizes the power of shared symbols and common experiences. For example, political speeches often succeed because they speak to the shared values and emotions of the audience. Rhetoric creates a bond or “oneness” between the speaker and the audience, which makes persuasion more effective because it aligns the goals and motives of both parties.

3. Language and Symbolism: Constructing Meaning

Aristotle: Language as a Tool for Logical Argumentation

In Aristotle’s model, language plays a pivotal role in presenting logical, well-reasoned arguments. For him, language serves as the medium for communicating logos, or rational persuasion, and should be used to present clear, coherent arguments to the audience. While he acknowledges the importance of emotions and character, his model largely prioritizes logical structure as the means of persuasion.

Clarity and Precision: Aristotle emphasizes the importance of clarity and structure in speech. He insists that rhetoric should be carefully crafted to appeal to reason and should avoid exaggeration or confusion. Language, therefore, becomes a tool for reason and rationality, helping the speaker to create an argument that the audience can follow and be persuaded by.

Kenneth Burke: Language as Symbolic Action and Social Interaction

Burke’s view of language is more complex. He sees language as symbolic action—meaning that it doesn’t merely reflect reality, but also actively shapes and constructs it. Burke’s theory of rhetoric involves language as a mechanism for creating meaning and social relationships. He emphasizes that language is always a social act that is not just about transmitting information but also about creating shared identities and group dynamics.

Language and Identity: For Burke, language constructs identity and can be used to bring about a sense of belonging. This is why rhetoric is not only about persuasion in a formal sense but about creating a sense of unity or division between groups. The symbolic use of language in rhetoric shapes how individuals and groups perceive themselves and their roles within society.

4. Moral Responsibility and Rhetorical Ethics

Aristotle: Rhetoric as a Moral Tool

For Aristotle, rhetoric is a moral tool that can either be used for virtuous purposes or misused for manipulation. He emphasizes that the speaker must consider the ethical consequences of their words and always aim to use rhetoric for good. Aristotle believes that the moral integrity of the speaker is critical to the success of their rhetoric, and their character (ethos) should reflect the truth and justice of their message.

Kenneth Burke: Rhetoric as a Means of Social Action

Burke’s approach to rhetorical ethics is more focused on responsibility to the community rather than individual morality. He argued that rhetoric shapes social action and the power dynamics between groups. Rhetoric can be used for good or ill, depending on whether it creates solidarity or perpetuates division. Burke’s ethical concerns revolve around the social impact of rhetoric—whether it promotes unity, understanding, and cooperation or reinforces conflict and separation.

Conclusion: Different Views on Rhetoric and Persuasion

While both Aristotle and Kenneth Burke engage deeply with the nature of rhetoric, their approaches differ significantly in scope and focus. Aristotle’s rhetoric is primarily a logical tool for persuading an audience based on reason, emotion, and character. He sees rhetoric as a moral tool for achieving virtuous ends, with an emphasis on democratic discourse and ethical persuasion. In contrast, Burke’s rhetoric is socially embedded, emphasizing identification, symbolic action, and the role of language in constructing meaning. For Burke, rhetoric is more about creating unity and shaping social identities than it is about formal logical argumentation. His view is more fluid and relational, seeing rhetoric as a powerful tool for social interaction and influence.

Thus, while Aristotle’s work provides a foundation for understanding the strategic use of rhetoric, Burke’s theories add depth to how rhetoric shapes social relationships and identity. Both perspectives remain foundational in the study of communication, persuasion, and power dynamic