Burke and Left Brain/Right Brain

In the chapter, “Terministic Screens,” Kenneth Burke categorizes two approaches to viewing language: a “scientistic” approach and a “dramatistic” approach. He defines the two accordingly: “...the scientistic approach culminates in the kinds of speculation we associate with symbolic logic, while the dramatistic culminates in the kinds of speculation that find their handiest material in stories, plays, poems, the rhetoric of oratory and advertising, mythologies, theologies, and philosophies after the classical model” (45). The former deals with logic, the cut-and-dry types of things that can be proven and disproven through careful research, experiment and study. The latter works with language that involves creativity and passion.

In basic rhetorical terms, it sounds like logos fits well within the scientistic approach, whereas pathos falls into the dramatistic approach. Logos appeals to reason and logical conclusion; pathos appeals to the audience’s emotions and subjectivity. In my opinion, ethos pertains to both approaches. The speaker’s character, if well-rounded and an advantage for the speaker, must gain ground on the logical side of things so that an audience can naturally trust the person, and it must appeal to people’s emotions so that they instinctively want to be guided by such a person. Therefore, a rhetor must have knowledge of the two approaches and master language in that way in order to successfully persuade audiences.

In dialectic, the speaker also must understand and utilize both approaches. The philosopher’s mission is to find truth, so it is easy to understand why the philosopher must know the scientistic approach. However, at first glance, it seems odd that people like Socrates and Plato, who did not appreciate the importance of poetry (in fact, Plato hated it), should know the dramatistic approach to language. Burke claims, “True, poets feud with philosophers, and many modern philosophers except the rare ones like Santayana feud with poets. But we are here concerned with a distinction that puts poetry quite close to philosophy...” (57). In the quote mentioned in the first paragraph above, Burke has combined philosophy with rhetoric and poetry, which were not exactly two of Plato’s favorite things. However, this categorization does make sense because these entities require creativity and minds that can grasp intangible concepts. They all use the beauty of language to get their points across to listeners, operating at a higher level than the physical. They work to reveal what is behind all these terministic screens Burke identifies for us, peeling away the layers of thought and sensation until we get closer to naked truths. In order to perform such a daunting task, one must use creativity; one must understand the dramatistic approach.

While reading about the scientistic and dramatistic, I was reminded of an image of the human brain that explains the left and right sides. The left brain is similar to the scientistic approach because it deals with science, math, strategy, categories, accuracy and order. The right brain pertains to the dramatistic approach because it concerns itself with creativity, energy, art, color and imagination. While many people are considered to be “left-brained” or “right-brained,” it is impossible to function in society without a combination of both sides. Similarly, a valid argument cannot just use either the scientistic or dramatistic approach; in order to persuade an audience, one must take aspects of both and combine them into a mastery of language.

"Mercedes Left Brain Right Brain." Infographic Police. 22 Feb. 2011. 22 Oct. 2012. Web.