In his essay, Kenneth Burke delves into the idea of "terministic Screens" and how they function in discourse. He focuses on how the use of different screens can affect how we, as humans, not only view the piece of discourse, but the world. Burke also brings forward how terministic screens specifically direct attention either away from interpretations or towards them. For example the language used in a speech can either enhance or diminish an audience member's experience by triggering different correlations in their mind. Burke supports this by stating, "not only does the nature of our terms affect the nature of our observations, in a sense that the terms direct the attention to one field rather than another"(Burke 46).
Another aspect of Burke's essay that ties in with our class discussions is his relation to symbols and associations. He presents the idea that readers/listeners create their own interpretation of a piece of discourse due to the language used in it. He sees word choice as a "terministic screen" that as a whole can affect how an individual will accept the message. This is so similar to the way we view symbols, due to our past experiences and preconceived notions, symbols may have different meanings to different individuals. For example if a text was written in Old English (using different terms and slang) than a person who knows what Old English is would perceive the text differently than someone who may not know, and would see the text as a slightly off or weird version of English language. These aspects of terminology in discourse shape how a message is delivered and perceived and ultimately play a large role in society as a whole.
Burke, Kenneth. “Terministic Screens.” In Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966. 44-57.
Aha! Your first paragraph intrigues me, Nicole Chmura (mostly because you highlighted a very important passage from Kenneth Burke's "Terministic Screens":
ReplyDelete"[N]ot only does the nature of our terms affect the nature of our observations, in a sense that the terms direct the attention to one field rather than another." (Burke 46)
What I gathered from reading this passage again was not a sense of "relativistic interpretation," but a process by which language, specifically word choices, point a reader in a direction to interpret a text ("'terministic screens' direct the attention" (Burke 45)). The same concept can be seen in his example of photographs of the same objects using different color filters (Burke 45). Changing the colors highlights different aspects of a photograph. For instance, a full colored picture of different fruits allows the eye to jump to different fruits in the frame, but a black-and-white picture of the same fruits brings the focus to the picture as a whole—without zeroing in on any particular type of fruit. A similar affect occurs if only one color of fruit is illuminated and the others remain in grayscale. The filters merely shift the focus of the audience, swaying their interpretation in a particular direction.
I can see where Nicole is going with her second paragraph, and I would like to interpret Burke's essay further by placing my own thoughts that arise after reading said second paragraph (not necessarily just repeating Nicole's words or ideas, but bringing forth a result of reading them). I can see Burke's ideas working with relativism in a way—not necessarily against it. He mentions that people have their own interpretations of texts, but he speaks out against "mere relativism" (Burke 52-57). I think relativism works with terministic screens. The screens are not what brings about different interpretations; we as audience members do.
Burke's terministic screens are a focusing tools, which keep us grounded with our interpretations. So, our experiences dictate our interpretations, but terministic screens point those interpretations in a particular direction. The words used by an author guide our perceptions in an attempt to have us identify with what the author is saying. But we might not all identify with the author in the same way. For instance, I might not identify with an Arab man because he is Arab, but I will identify with him because he is a man. I would also identify with him if he likes to listen to Rage Against the Machine.
Work Cited
Burke, Kenneth. “Terministic Screens.” In Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966. 44-57.