METODOLOGÍA PARA UN DESARROLLO EFECTIVO DE LAS E ACTIVIDADES

Dramatism also effects how the data might be analyzed. One example how dramatism

frames the interpretation of results is with discourse analysis. Overington argues that a “pursuit

of dialectical substance” is the fundamental operation in Burke’s pentadic framework (106).

Although absent a replicable method, this fundamental operation is perhaps best understood

through the clustering of words around the “master” pentadic term that emerges through an

analysis of the pentadic ratios evident in the rhetorical act or artifact. In addition, the

connotational logic of the cluster means that pulling on any one term within the cluster will

mobilize the entirety of the cluster toward an explanation (Ibid): a critical move to recognize as

between the audience’s cultural expectations and the discursive moves that take place. Arriving

at the “master” pentadic term then enables the emergence of the “god term” representing “the unitary substance in which all human diversity of motives” are grounded (Burke, AGrammar of

Motives 111). Therefore, choice of terms can reveal motives—what Andrew King calls, “a stra-

tegic symbolic summing up of an action” (167)—which shape how an advisor to a U.S. Secretary

of State might consider a complex problem.

As a tool to interpret results from primary and secondary source research, Burke’s

dramatistic method invites questions about how a rhetorical act or artifact leads to identifica-

tion—as opposed to mere persuasion—and points to the power inherent in defining or redefin-

ing a particular event. The distinction between identification and persuasion turns on the role

of the audience and the goals of the rhetor. In his overview of pentadic criticism, King argues

that while persuasion includes appeals to emotions and deeply held values, Burkean identifica-

tion is characterized by an increase in mutually beneficial interaction and shared common feel-

ings amongst an audience (165). But as they inform the ends of a rhetorician’s charge, both

terms chart a movement to act using different ways and means. For example, if the rhetor’s ob-

jective is to move an audience to action, then persuasion offers a plethora of tools. On the oth-

er hand, if the rhetor’s task is to shape an environment which then enables an audience to pur-

sue its own tendencies, then Burke’s critical method (identification) is the better choice. Ways

and means may differ, but action is still the ultimate objective of both approaches. As a guide

for interpreting results, dramatism-as-guide serves to unmask intentions and reveal logics that

Using pentadic ratios to analyze data and interpret results is a technical process provid-

ing necessary shape to a “dramatistic” framework for unpacking intractable conflict.

Dramatism-as-guide, however, involves the creation of a “perspective of perspectives” of which

pentadic analysis is but a part of. As detailed earlier, my methodology also treats other

Burkean concepts generally nested under the Dramatism moniker: god terms, comic and tragic

frames of acceptance, and the scapegoat. Furthermore, to address the implications of prescrip-

tive paradigms on problem formulation, I align my approach with Burke’s mythic, constitutive,

and narrative projects—perhaps the most understudied in regards to problem formulation:

2 A ROLE FOR MYTH IN “PERFECTING” THE PROBLEM

Mythology for Burke is at once historical and universal, temporal and transcend- ent . . . he reads myth not only as a means of affecting social cohesion but also as a bridging device to relate humanity to the earth and the wider universe—in short, the cosmos. (Coupe 4)

The MEPP brings with it a vocabulary, an agenda, and a set of codes and myths which

generations of Palestinians and Israelis (as well as an ever-growing body of international par-

ties) have internalized. For example, the term concession means more than its lexical definition.

To a Palestinian, it may mean give up land. To an Israeli, it may mean give up security. To both it

means sacrificing a bit of their identity (Ross, The Missing Peace 15-29). What is at risk when

concession emerges as a rhetorical commonplace which can threaten the identities of both dis-

tinct communities?

Following Lucaites and Condit, this chapter appreciates how narrative connects charac-

terizations to form a “network of a community’s public vocabulary” and then addresses how characterizations of agents, acts, and scenes are shaped by a community’s myths. In this way, I

argue for what provides the foundation for Lucaites and Condit’s characterization-narrative-

ideograph model: myth. For Burke, myth “sums up all the principles felt to have been guiding the socio-political order . . . the ‘perfecting myth’ becomes like the originator of the order it

perfects” (The Rhetoric of Religion 240-241, emphasis original). It follows then that one might

begin with myth in order to understand how terms like concession might be recognized as a

rhetorical commonplace and understand the potential of narrative. As a way to interrogate the

tension (and potential) inherent amongst competing narratives, one might consider the intrac-

both the prescriptive and normative attributes of narrative: Robert Rowland and Burke’s mod-

els for rhetorical myth.

As noted in the Review of Literature, the central tenet of Rowland’s model for rhetorical

myth is that myths change as they are rectified with changing historical and rhetorical contexts.

Decades-old myth systems made obstinate by wars, unstable peace, and pervasive animosity

will eventually be pulled into alignment with and by physical reality. Rowland’s framework for a

peace process begins with the Palestinians and Israelis revising their “mythic symbol systems”

that left as is will continue to thwart even the latest attempt at the MEPP facilitated by Secre-

tary Kerry (Rowland, “Mythic Rhetoric and Rectification in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” 44).

While Rowland accounts for the Israeli “revisionist” myth in accordance with prevailing scholar-

ship on the issue, his treatment of the Palestinian myth is overly reductive because he elevates

the myth of Hamas (a Palestinian political and military body the U.S. classifies as a terrorist or-

ganization) as the representative myth of all Palestinians. While many consider rockets from

Gaza, launched or passively supported by Hamas, as the preeminent problem that needs to be

solved, others would argue Hamas is simply a symptom of a greater problem. When foreign

leaders consult with Hamas instead of the Palestinian Authority regarding Palestinian security

and economics, it is understandable why observers like Rowland would hope to make solving

the Hamas “problem” synonymous with solving the much broader Palestinian crisis. According-

ly, many might agree with Rowland when he states that “the mythic foundations of Hamas, as

expressed in its charter, explain its commitment to maximalist territorial claims and willingness

to use violence” (43). But what if focusing on Hamas only distracts from addressing the condi-

In this chapter, I argue that Rowland’s application of his own criteria for myth can pro-

vide a useful model for understanding intractable conflict by laying bear its underlying myths to a critical eye. However, in his attempt to reveal the underlying myth of the Palestinian people,

Rowland constitutes a Palestinian myth through the lens of his own mythic criteria and inad-

vertently subordinates the arguably broader problem, lack of Palestinian unity, to the symptom,

Hamas. Therefore, Rowland’s programmatic decision reveals the vulnerabilities in his narrow

definition of myth that was interrogated thoroughly in a 1990 volume of Communication Stud-

ies. This chapter addresses these fundamental vulnerabilities first, then draws correlations and

distinctions between Rowland and Burke concerning myth, and concludes with thoughts as to

how an “end” of the rhetorical myth underlying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be used to

emphasize what Burke considers humanity’s “pursuit of perfection.” Ultimately, by creating fis-

sures in Rowland’s mythic criteria and his posture on entelechy, I incorporate elements of

Burke’s foundational work on myth and reinvigorate the generating principle behind paradigms

and the myths in which paradigms are manifested.