Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Consubstantiality
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== In rhetoric == In [[rhetoric]], "consubstantiality", as defined by [[Kenneth Burke]], is "a practice-related concept based on stylistic identifications and symbolic structures, which persuade and produce acceptance: an acting-together within, and defined by, a common context".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Dousset|first=Laurent|title=Structure and substance: combining 'classic' and 'modern' kinship studies in the Australian Western Desert|journal=The Australian Journal of Anthropology|date=April 2005|volume=16|page=18|doi=10.1111/j.1835-9310.2005.tb00107.x}}</ref> To be consubstantial with something is to be identified with it, to be associated with it; yet at the same time, to be different from what it is identified with.<ref name= Craig>{{cite book|author=Robert T. Craig|title=Theorizing Communication: Readings Across Traditions|year=2007|publisher=Sage Publications|location=Los Angeles}}</ref> It can be seen as an extension or in relation to the subject.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}} Burke explains this concept with two entities, A and B. He goes on to explain that "A is not identical with his colleague, B. But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B. Or he may identify himself with B even when their interests are not joined, if he assumes they are, or is persuaded to believe so...In being identified with B, A is 'substantially one' with a person other than himself. Yet at the same time, he remains unique, an individual locus of motives. Thus he is both joined and separate, at once a distinct substance and consubstantial with another."<ref name=Craig /> "Consubstantiality may be necessary for any way of life, Burke says. And thus rhetoric, as he sees it, potentially builds community. It can tear it down as well. In the end, rhetoric relies on an unconscious desire for acting-together, for taking a 'sub-stance' together".<ref>David Blakesley. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=gasNAAAACAAJ The Elements of Dramatism]''. Longman; 2002. {{ISBN|978-0-205-33425-4}}. p. 15β16.</ref><ref>[http://www.unm.edu/~sromano/english540/Blakesley%20Elements%20all.pdf Same in pdf form]</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)