In the chapter from A Rhetoric of Motives, author Kenneth Burke establishes that rhetoric serves a “realistic function” (Burke 43). He argues that rhetoric serves a purpose in our language–it has a job. Then, as a recurring theme in our readings, we hear an argument where a rhetorician defends his craft against the idea of rhetoric as “magic” (Burke 44). He tells the reader that rhetoric is not “true and false” or black and white in the same way that scientific research is (Burke 44). In its function are two essential elements: persuasion and identification (Burke 46). Burke writes that it is through meaningful identification that we are able to persuade audiences.

In this chapter Burke also addresses the terms and the language that we use to discuss rhetoric. He makes a valid point that we need to have an agreed upon language that we can use when defining rhetoric. Burke thinks that what is considered rhetoric is too narrowly defined and that rhetoric can be applied in a far broader sense. We have had this issue come up in our class. Some people struggled when trying to define their paper proposal because they were confused about what is or isn’t an appropriate rhetoric topic. Having had classes in rhetoric before, I had a slightly better grasp and was able to explain that many topics can be made into a rhetoric topic if we talk about language and the way it is used in that instance. If I am correct, then a better question would be what isn’t a topic of rhetoric if almost everything we do is done to try persuading people to our point of view? Very few acts of communication can not be looked at as examples of rhetoric. This too came up in class because we mentioned that in Western thought we are not concerned about balance like the Chinese rhetoric we read about, but rather we are about persuading and “winning” the argument. In our society, we are more concerned with making the sale, being popular, and persuading people to our way of thinking. I have friends who see someone who has different beliefs or opinions from their own as a challenge that they feel obligated to take-up. If they would read some Chinese rhetoric, they would, hopefully see that there is balance and beauty in the difference.