Monday, September 26, 2011
Kenneth Burke- From a "Grammar of Motives"
For the most part, I found this reading to be rather straight forward. One question that arose during my reading was "what are the limits of agency?" The reading defines agency as the means or instruments used to assist the agent in his/her action (p. 1298). The examples of agency provided were mostly physical objects, such as on the bottom of page 1301 where a "file" is used to assist the agent escape. Burke further elaborates on agency in the bottom of the second column on page 1301 in claiming that the hand itself, which holds the file, is an agent as well. Going back to my original question: what are the limits of agency? From the writing, it appears that agency is limited to physical objects; however, I believe that agency can extend to sensations or other non-tangible assistants. For example, instead of the hero in the reading using a file or his own hand to assist him, he could have used strength or knowledge to help him escape.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This was a good question for class discussion. Thanks for bringing it up. I honestly had a hard time like very one else in reading Kenneth Burke, so I bypassed him altogether in writing my blog for this week and instead hit up on Bell Hooks, which was a much more interesting read. I did read Burkes, it just must have been too late at night to comprehend anything in his writing. Definently a piece that needs a second read-through.
ReplyDeletehi lacy,
ReplyDeleteyour query is valid because i also thought of using his argument against the stability of an 'agency'. his focus on describing reality that is intentional in the first place provides a loophole in any absolute description of the 5 terms -- if reality and language is intentional/motivated, and if we apply these to the classification of the pentad terms, wouldn't agency then be a fluid terminology that can accommodate non-physical objects?
very good critical thinking skills, lacy, and keep it up!
Dr. B