Thursday, April 9, 2015

Race and Terministic Screens


Kenneth Burke clearly defines the distinction between a dramatistic and a scientific approach of looking at language. While a scientific approach looks at the naming or definition of the word, a dramatistic approach views it as symbolic action (language as an aspect of “action”) (Burke 44).  He compares terministic screens to an example of viewing a picture with different color filters.  He makes the observation that there was a notable distinction in form and texture depending on the color filter that was applied. The pictures were taken of the same objects but for the simple fact that they had different color filters they were viewed differently. This is what terministic screens is all about. Dreams, images, ideas, objects are subject to filters which will often bring about differences and distinction depending on the nature of their perception and interpretation.

In his article, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. writes about “race” and the difference it makes. He quotes Bakhtin’s statement that language becomes “one’s own”, once the speaker “adapts it to his own semantic and expressive intentions” (Gates 1).  The differences found in the term “race” arise from differences in language, ones belief system as well as natural attributes such as fidelity and athletic ability. Race has become a trope of differences between cultures, linguistic groups which often include economic interests of opposing scales but that’s besides the main point I am trying to make here.  We use language as a way to bring about “natural differences” into our everyday existence and race is a perfect example of this.

Hippolyte-Adolphe Taine said race was “the first and richest source of these master faculties from which historical events take their rise” (Gates 3). He focused his ideas on the role of race through the scientific approach in history of literature. Meaning that he took the pure meaning of the word “race” and put that into his own interpretation of what race meant and what it represented at the time.In Abraham Lincoln’s address in the White House in the year 1862 about the natural differences in race and how slaves differed from “us” and should return back to Africa, demonstrate the use of terministic screens in action.


If you take the term “race” and define it in scientific terms it is almost purely biological. It is something that genetically distinguishes us from one group in terms of race. When people think of the term “race” in a “scientific” approach they often likely to categorize themselves into the following categories: Asian, African American, American Indian, Pacific Islander or White.  But when thinking of race with the dramatistic approach one may associate the term “race” based on socio-economic class, education and even education. It all depends on the filter that we use to interpret the definition of race. In essence race truly only has one meaning and is intended for human classification. But taking into consideration Burke’s concept of terministic screens, there will always be various ways to view race and understand the dramatistic and scientific concept behind it.

1 comment:

  1. Karla,

    You mention that we use language as a way to bring about “natural differences” in our everyday existence, and that race is a prime example of this. What I find most interesting about gate's argument is his point that race is NOT natural at all. The was that it has been understood and applied would no doubt lead us to understand the concept this way. But, truly, it is a man made term to describe the differences that we interpret as being representative of a certain group of people. In this way, our application of race is entirely arbitrary. The individual creates the terms for which it is applied.

    It is easy to see how this can quickly become dangerous. Race is a very reductionistic and restrictive trope, rather than a biological term. The fact that we are attributing "fidelity" or "athletic ability" to entire group of people solely according to their perceived race is clearly inaccurate. We are making generalizations. We understand people based on how we perceive them to be different than we are, when it is entirely possible that no such differences exist! Because race has become such a persistent terministic screen, however, transcending these differences and understanding people and simply people, is near impossible.

    Think back to the “Palestinian Pleasures” NYTimes photo-journal that we looked at in class. While we can identify with the Palestinian women, we can plainly see how we are different as well. In order to be transcendent, we must be blind do our differences and blind to the preexisting understanding of race that we bring to the image. I would like to believe that, as humans, we can do this, but I am uncertain.

    -Morgan

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.