Vary The Agent, Vary The Image; Direct The Attention.

When Phillis Wheatley published her poem, it was "outlandish" (or socially taboo) to comprehend how a black woman could accomplish such a feat.

Star Trek and its *failed* (?) attempts at trascedence

One of the most engaging television shows and movie franchise in the science fiction universe includes the Star Trek (I apologize in advance to anyone whoever has to read this, for you will have to suffer through some severe nerdiness.)  I'm currently making my way through the hit 1990's The Next Generation:

Sex/Racism

Sexism and racism have been around for centuries before and unfortunately, will continue to be around for centuries to come. I feel as if all it takes for any sort of discrimination to stop is to stop referring to others as others. Meaning we all need to be viewed as equals, but that wont happen if people are still classifying others based on their race or gender. There will always be someone better off and someone worse off, but what's interesting is that whether you're a minority in terms of race or in terms of gender, the struggles are somewhat similar. As Gates claims, "current language use signifies the difference between cultures and their possession of power, spelling out the distance between subordinate and superordinate, between bondsman and lord in terms of their "race"" (Gates, 6).

Hello, White-Male-Dominance!

Henry Louis Gates explores race’s position throughout literary history. While reading Gates’ “Editor’s Introduction: Writing “Race” and the Difference It Makes,” parallels between feminism are brought to readers’ attention. Male dominance and white privilege hinder both people of color and females in English studies. As Gate mentions, “The growth of canonical national literatures was coterminous with the shared assumption among intellectuals that race was a “thing,” an ineffaceable quantity, which irresistibly determined the shape and contour of thought and feeling as surely as it did the shape and contour of human anatomy” (3).  Both race and feminism are made implicit throughout literature’s discourse.

How to Construct A Stereotype

The common phrasing is that race is a social construct. By labeling it as such, it means that society's continuation of racial stereotypes is what ultimately contributes to their existence, rather than the members of the race themselves. Through the perspective of the terministic screen, Burke would say that the main contributor of this constructed classification system lies within the construction of the "lens" of our own terministic screens through which we all view our world from, not within the person upon which these racial labels are placed. Knowing this, it's no wonder that Gates, on page  five, states that race is "a dangerous trope". When the power to classify lies within the classifier, not within the subject of their classifications, an arbitrarily slippery slope can be created and a line of fairness can be crossed and assumptions can overpower rational thought, all due to a socially constructed classification.

Race seems like it's deeply ingrained in our culture, as there are undoubtedly physical differences between races and from those differences sparked conflict, warfare, violence, and prejudice. Yet, as Gates quotes Bakhtin on page one, "one makes language their own [when using it]", performing an action by speaking that does not directly physically affect or change the described person or thing, therefore, the danger and application of this trope is arbitrarily decided by anyone with vocal cords that spreads around these unfair ideas and assumptions.

This classification conundrum continues not only in the realm of race, but it has uses to classify and split up humanity more and more with ideas like gender. Really, gender is a lot like race in that there are objective physical differences but those differences are seen through everyone's terministic screens, magnified through society's lens by repetition enough to become the artificial, constructed consensus among those spreading rhetoric about the "other", whether it be race, gender, nationality, hair color, or otherwise.

Seeing these tropes develop in what can be described as the "pontificating third", one really gets a look at the objective side of what can be impassioned and determined defense of racist beliefs that someone has as a part of their terministic screen.

Burke and Gates

Henry Gates Jr. writes about how Race has become a common trope of "difference" between cultures, religions, linguistic groups, etc because of how arbitrary it is in its application (Gates, 5). He goes on to distinguish that the criteria used to define difference between the sexes is non applicable to race, saying that difference in race is dictated mostly through metaphor. These issues of racial difference are seen often in our art, culture and rhetoric. Gates writes that he has edited his "critical Inquiry" to explore these racial issues and how the intersect with our use of formal language.

Transcendence?

Terministic screens is often defined as selection, deflection, and reflection. The idea of selecting while at the same time deflecting other aspects to reflect one's own view of reality makes for an individualized relationship to the world.

Race Opinion

Johnson says: "Individual personality is one of the most charming things to be met with, either in the flesh and blood existence, or upon the pages of fiction, and it matters little to what race an author's heroine belongs, if he makes her character distinct, unique and natural"(Johnson, 385). I like the way she begins her discussion on race because it also poses the idea of femininity in fiction, both of which are complicated and so commonly misrepresented. I also find it interesting that she poses the author as a masculine "he". I think the key term Johnson uses here is "individual personality" that often times authors, especially male authors, forget when crafting a character that is outside of their own norms. Johnson's inclusion of this argument at the beginning of her essay signified to me that this is her own view, and what she wishes authors would strive for in their own work.

Beloved & Writing Race

   In Henry Gates JR's essay Writing Race, he asks the question, "what importance does 'race' have as a meaningful category in the study of literature and the shaping of critical theory?" (2). During the time this was written however, he states that the answer to this question would probably be "nothing" or "nothing explicitly" (2). After reading the rest of his essay I kept going back to a novel that I recently read in my Studies in the Novel class. The novel Beloved by Toni Morrison is entirely about what life was like during and after the Civil War.
   A summary of the novel is it essentially inspired by the story of an African American slave woman named Sethe who escapes slavery in Kentucky to Ohio which was a free state at the time. The story follows as she attempts to save her children as she runs away and in the end, ends up having to kill her newborn, named Beloved, so that the slave owners do not do it first. The story is told by Sethe recalling her memories as well as the memories of an old acquaintance. Although this novel is in some ways very dark, it has a happy ending to it.
   Back to Gates' essay; he discusses how writing has become a tool and essentially it is important to "analyze the ways in which writing relates to race" (15). I feel this book is the epitome of that statement as well. The way in which Toni Morrison constructs this novel in a way to let the reader decide whether or not what Sethe did to her child was something that we should disagree or agree with. It's left up to interpretation, and I believe that is the whole point that Gates is attempting to come across in this essay.

Linguistic Power Plays and Bad Writing

Some of the specific parts of the history of the African American struggle distinguish it from the histories of other oppressed groups; although, the basis for the oppression for many groups seems similar. The following quote is demonstrative of this interchangeability “Race[/gender] has become a trope of ultimate, irreducible difference between cultures, linguistic groups, or adherents of specific belief systems which-more often than not- also have fundamentally opposed economic interests… Yet we carelessly use language in such a way to will this sense of natural difference into our formulations,” (Gates 5). Opposed economic interests does seem to get at the heart of the struggle, but money is only one manifestation of power. “Current language use signifies the difference between cultures and their possession of power,” (Gates 6). Could instances of discrimination (linguistic and otherwise) be manifestations of megalomania?  Neophobia would not be an exception: discrimination on this basis would be an attempt to gain power over the neophobic person’s fear of the “other.” Gates has stated that “to explicate discourse itself [is] in order to reveal the hidden relations of power and knowledge inherent in popular and academic usages of ‘race.’" I digress, this analysis is psychological, and outside my academic specialization.

Race and Gender through the lens of Gates

Race and gender cannot always be equated and there are some circumstances in which racial issues and gendered issues are vastly different. That being said, the issues faced by racial minorities are a lot of the very same issues faced by gender minorities. In "Writing Race and the Difference it Makes," Henry Louis Gates, Jr. makes the argument that, "scores of people are killed every day in the name of differences ascribed only to race," and that "the biological criteria used to determine 'difference' in sex simply do not hold when applied to "race," (Gates, 5-6). In some respects, this is true. After all, there are issues of race that cannot be properly applied to gender and vice versa. But the differences people are being killed for every day are not strictly racially based. Women are murdered on the streets for not responding to cat calls. Men have been known to go on violent rampages just as a result of women refusing to respond to their advances. Women face a lot of the same issues of difference that Gates mentions racial minorities face. We also have to keep in mind women of color, who face sexism and racism combined on a daily basis. While Gates arguments about the rhetorically- based discrimination people of color face are accurate, the majority of them can also be applied to women when looked at through a feminist lens rather than a racial lens.

Can we step away from Race?

Race is a term that has become socially charged in our world. It was completely created and is still completely driven by society's need to classify and label others. While it may seem that classification is this word's only purpose, it has transformed itself into a deeper more effective meaning in the world of literature. The fact that the word is so easily used as a way to label others is part of the reason why Gates refers to race as a "dangerous trope." (5)

It is society's casual use of the word "race" and the ideas and actions that it stands for that tie Gates ideas to Burkes. Burke talks about how language can have a scientific definition but it can also have a dramatic action and there are many different actions tied to the word "race" such as racism, racial equality, racial bias or racial profiling. People take action over the subject of race, using the meaning of the word to justify the actions they are taking. 

But what makes race a terministic screen? I believe this is because race was a word developed by people due to their want or perhaps even their need to classify others who were different simply by the color of their skin. Race is so general that we automatically view others of a different race through the terministic screen that is there race. This leads to assumptions based off of sterotypes that are completely off-base. Burke explains that these screens "can position differences of degree and those based on differences of kind," so we use the terministic screen of race to point out others differences (50). 

By combining the ideas of both Gates and Burke I think it shows that the ideas based around race in today's world are completely off track, and while it may be beneficial to redefine the word and the actions that are tied to it, I believe that this idea of race is tied far too deep into society and culture to ignore it. 

The Effect of the Terministic Screen: Burke, Johnson, and Their Roles in Children's Literature

Children's literature is one of the most pervasive and effective creators of a child's terministic screen. The right book can shape a child's world view any which way, and affect them for years to come. Burke had recognized this in his essay "Terministic Screens" and had argued that the world was shaped by experiences. E. Pauline Johnson had argued in her essay "A Strong Race Opinion: On The Indian Girl in Modern Fiction" that having only one type of ethnic minority character would negatively affect minority readers.

"Race" Runs the World

Where did this need for separation and conflict begin? Race has always been around, yes; it is visibly obvious that humans vary in skin color. But where did the specificity of values, determination of worthiness, even formed stereotypes even come from? It seems that the human soul seems to crave some sick need for separation and therefore the easiest thing to attack is a permanent, lifelong difference that we share with someone of the same race.

Gates' Argument and Inserting 'Gender' or 'Feminism'

In his essay “Writing Race” Henry Gates, Jr. gives a comprehensive analysis of how implicit ideologies of race are embedded in our literature and discourse. In his essay Gates says that in Western discourse human knowledge has become systemized (8), constituting the way people have valued humanity. Writing becomes a tool for systematization because it is a visible sign of reason. And because of this, Gates says he believes it is important that we “analyze the ways in which writing relates to race, how attitudes towards racial differences generate and structure literary texts by us and about us” (15). But, can we also apply this to feminism and differences in sex? There are some parts of Gates argument that seem to suggest we can. Yet Gates constantly reiterates throughout his essay that race is the most polarizing marker of difference and that his argument doesn’t apply to sex.

“Race is the ultimate trope of difference because it is so very arbitrary in its application,” (Gates 5) says Gates. Gates believes that race is the symbol most often referred to in divisions of society. He says that certain characteristics have been embedded in “tropes of race”, which therefore dominate our language and literature. But, it seems we could say the same thing about sex. Not only is Western discourse derived from a primarily white set of people, but mostly white men also created it. Characteristics associated with the trope of sex have also been embedded in our language and discourse. Though wars may not have been started because of divisions of sex, that doesn’t mean it hasn’t entered our language as a divisive symbol. Gates says that the ability to write, to create physical documentation of reason, was a marker of one’s humanity and ability to reason in the 18^th century. Western discourse was not only made of divisions of race, but also gender.

But, maybe what Gates is saying is that the degree to which “race” has become a marker of difference is above any other marker of difference. He says, “the biological criteria used to determine ‘difference’ in sex simply do not hold when applied to ‘race’” (5). Gates doesn’t seem to be arguing that sex in literature isn’t a trope of literature, but rather it doesn’t hold the same divisive magnitude as the trope of “race” does. Gates says, “literacy…is the emblem that links racial alienation with economic alienation” (6). Literacy in the same manner can act as a link between gender and economic alienation, but Gates might argue that the alienation is greater for race.

So, in his essay Gates has shown us how race became a trope of difference through in modern language. That same criteria can also hold for tropes of sex. But a key part of Gates’ argument is that race is the greatest trope of difference.

Terministic Screens, Genre, and Rear Window

I first read Kenneth Burke’s Terministic Screens for a film class (Hollywood Cinema with Dr. Christina Parker, I highly recommend it!) as part of our discussion of Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window. We discussed how each ‘window’ that the main character, L.B. Jeffries, looked into represented a cinematic terministic screen. The dancer represented a musical, the couple who lowered their dog from their balcony via basket a comedy, the newlywed neighbors represented a romance, and so on. Each 'window' held elements specific to genre conventions at the time, functioning as individual parts of a greater whole. Although each of these representations were film genres, there were specific differences in how each was viewed and presented. Even now, a few semesters later, I find it difficult to separate terministic screens from genre.

“Black Art”: Rejecting Enlightenment Hierarchies

“Poems are bullshit unless they are

teeth or trees or lemons piled

on a step."

Applying Terministic Screens in our Episteme

In class on Tuesday we discussed the possibility the terministic screens do more than alter and reflect our perceptions (Burke 45). Although they carry associations that help us identify, they also act as a strategy when put into action (Burke 53-54). To explore (and better understand) the depth of terministic screens I looking at their strategical application within our episteme. 

Drama vs science

Dramatistic - symbolic
Scientistic - definition

When Burke talks about these two terms, they are usually meant for rhetoric in general. But can we use this in terms of Race? Yes. When it comes to race, we can see both of these approaches work.

For dramatistic approach, it deals with the symbolism behind the idea or action. Race can be symbolic of ones heritage. Knowing someone's race can tell you when their relatives came to the U.S. or what "their people" are responsible for. It also comes with the stereotypes. The most symbolic thing from someone's race is what they are being known for in a negative sense. "Oh you're German? You Nazi?" "Oh, you're Irish? How often are you drunk?" "Oh you're Asian? I am not driving by you!" These stereotypes are important because our race has become a signifier for these negative ideas.

Scientistic approach is what is more acceptable in society today. Since scientistic is more geared towards the definition of the term. When we look at the term Race, it is defined as a group of persons related by common descent orheredity. That is simple. People's race should not be this big deal. 

I want the race debate to go away, because when it comes down to it. It really doesn't matter where somes from, it's can you form a relationship through other interests.

Arbitrary Nomenclature & Invented Disparity

             In his "Writing 'Race' and the Difference it Makes," Henry Gates claims that race must be in constant discourse with current events if it is to have any explanatory power. This racialized gaze seems to reflect a popular worldview apparent in my generation. Gates says that, "It was Hippolyte-Adolphe Taine who made the implicit explicit by postulating 'race, moment, and milieu' as positivistic criteria through which any work could be read and which, by definition, any work reflected" (3). Questioning whether or not art, rhetoric, or any other popular statements are patently offensive to a particular group seems to be a distinct worldview popular amongst my generation as well as the generation in their later 20's and even 30's.

Burke and Gates,Jr. Terministic Screen and Race

Once I read Gate's Writing "Race" And The Difference It Makes and Burke's Terministic Screens both theorists intersects race, identification, language, and it became very interesting to see how they each play a different role with terministic screens and how they function. Burke states how terministic screens are, "what we see is dependent on the filter, but terministic screens are not only filters; they become frames that mediate our immediate experiences within a collective consciousness," (45). This helps me have a better understanding to what Burke was trying to explain about how terminstic screens are connected to man or in this case race, "can position differences of degree and those based on differences of kind," (50), so screens can distinguish the way species differ from each other.

Language and Race: Entities of Action

Most individuals, apart from the special scholars of a highly educated discourse, can be accused of taking the term ‘race’ in its most literal sense. This very truth is exactly what hinders a population from progressing towards a more racial equality in society, particularly in the arena of literature. Though a broad and generic statement, what Gates argues for is new approach to racial theory in efforts to combat this ignorance. In a perfect coincidence, I have just completed another reading from Gates called “Talking Black” in my Critical Issues in Literary Studies course where we have been unpacking ethnicity and race theory. I have come to find that this essay provides a fresh perspective on race as an action, just as Burke combines language with action.

We're Breaking Free

Terministic screens are to be understood and why they are so important as it relates to everyday life. What we all see in everyday life is only one view that is guided by many implications based on past experiences and others' experiences as well. How does one break free from this and what does that mean?

Language That Perpetuates and the Different Feminisms

While the substitutions of “feminism” for “race,” “women” for “blacks,” “feminist” for “racial,” and “sex/gender” for “color” do not fit seamlessly into Henry Louis Gates, Jr.’s essay, they do certainly fit well enough to raise some new questions and bring about some new points. (Note: I also replaced “racism” with “sexism.) Many aspects of Gates Jr.’s essay about race are indeed the same aspects that would be part of an essay about feminism through its discussions of the implications of the different types of race/feminism and the way that the language we use can perpetuate racist and sexist ideas.

Race and Language

After reading the claims made by Burke in, “Terministic Screens,” about how language and word choice directly shapes our understanding, I can see how some of these principles can be directly attributed to the claims made by Hum in, “Racialized Gaze as Design,” in regards to racial attribution. I would like to take the time to take some of the practical’s that Hum is arguing she has seen happen in race portrayal and relate them to Burke’s idea of terministic screens. While reflecting on some of the ways that these texts relate, I found myself wondering a larger question. Can the idea of terministic screens relate to images? What are we saying about a situation by what we either choose to highlight or even leave out of our image?

Does "Race" Allow for Transcendence?

What makes the presence and discussion of race in literature and in society so problematic is its arbitrary nature. According to Gates, this is what makes race the “ultimate trope of difference” (6). While we, as a people, may have initially introduced the term as a means of identifying individuals based on their origin or their biological make-up (which I’m not entirely sure is even true), the concepts implementation has reached far beyond. Race is a man made term used to categorize people as the user sees fit. There are no guidelines or determinate characteristics for assigning someone a race. We just do it. We make assumptions and we place people according to how we see them fit within our pre-existing schemas.

Breaking Screens by Making Voices

Kenneth Burke describes what he calls “terministic screens” as being the filters through which humans perceive and know the world. These term/inistic screens are constructed and maintained, as its title suggests, through terms, language, logos. While this may seem straightforward, it’s crucial to understand in order to begin a dismantling of the terministic screen, for if words are the tools that humans use to construct reality, they are the tools needed to deconstruct it.

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.

Burke's Screens and Gate's Defenition of Race

    After reading Henry Gates essay, “Writing “Race” and the Difference It Makes”, the key factors or theory that Gates discusses, I feel, have a strong connection or correlation with Burkes terministic screens. We a individuals of society, have our perception and symbolic action in the world, determined by the language we surround ourselves in. While both essays stress many different things about how language works and is developed, I think that the strongest connection between the two is that language, is developed by where you are and who you are. In this blog I will discuss the key points that I feel best represent each theory, and the connection between them. 

Termanistic - Burke

"Termanistic Screens" are a big part of our world as we know it. This is determining and acknowledging a persons perspective in the world. This is a fancier way for Burke to describe verbal perspectives. I feel like this theory happens to me on a regular basis. The best way to describe it would be looking at something and seeing it as it is one minute, and then looking back at it and seeing it a different way, the next minute. I think it is how all people see things differently. I also think this theory can be applied to all aspects of life. Everyone sees something in their own way and own light. Burke hit this theory right on the head. Everyone questions things as they come across them and everyone wonders why things are the way they are. This theory is hard to explain in depth without sounding repetitive but I will do my best.

Burke mentions that we use the power of language to describe things and I think this is very obvious. I think things are blatantly missed to the human eye and I believe that is why we regularly see things one way and quickly see them differently the next time. This reminds me of a movie. I have watched the movie inception countless amounts of times and every time I realize I have missed something or some detail the previous times I have watched it. This term has me interested and I plan on finding out a lot more about it. I think Burke makes good points and I believe that other theorists may have also touched on this. I think that this theory can also apply to itself. It reminds me of hyperlinking as well. One person may write about something in particular, and another may write something similar but add a hyperlink to add what someone may have missed. I think this term can go a lot deeper than anyone may think.

Terministic Screens + Race

A “terministic screen” from what can be gleaned from Kenneth Burke’s work Terministic Screens could be considered as a lens in which one views the world. It is their filter of perception that guides them in creating or interpreting meaning. Terministic screens can inhibit and/or expand one’s world view, I contest that achieving transcendence is capable through the acknowledgement of the ways in which ones terministic screen can be limiting or expanding. This can be evidenced in action through the Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s introduction to Writing “Race” and the Difference It Makes. 

Laverne Cox takes on Terministic Screens

Burke begins “Terministic Screens,” by distinguishing the differences between two major approaches of terministic screens: “scientific” and “dramatistic” screens. He defends the idea that terministic screens allow us to form our own perception of the reality given the how we interact and create meaning form language. He differentiates scientific from dramatistic by stating, “scientific builds the edifice of language” and dramatistic, “puts primary stress on horatory expressions” (44). I plan on exploring on how the issue of transgender, given the media attention placed on Laverne Cox, can be viewed using these terministic screens.

Screening

Burke's idea on terministic screens is an ideal that is practiced in our everyday interactions. We unconsciously place ourselves and others into specific categories that essentially determine how open we will be with them. In the case of Burke, this means that we assign people terms, and based on those terms, appoint specific stereotypes based on what we have heard, seen, or encountered with the group, which ultimately determine if we identify with them or not.

Rhizomic screens?

Burke’s Terministic Screens opens a chasm of exploration in terms of perception and observation. Screens must necessarily presuppose that there is matter to be grappled with, and that these screens direct and affect the end result, according to the preexisting realities or circumstances. Terministic screens direct the attention, based on nomenclature, directing down one channel as opposed to other possibilities seeming form the requisite. (Terministic Screens, 45) Among these, Burke distinguishes from the scientific, as well as dramatistic. The scientific is distinct in that it has a more technical nature by naming and defining what is and is not (Burke, 44).

The opposing idea here is the dramatistic approach, in which there is the vital question of what should and should not be. Already one can identify that there is an objective approach when reflecting on the dramatistic approach. The former technique is empirically-based, simply informing constructions as they are, while the latter dialogues and constructs around some theoretical pillar, whether obscure or visible, thus is logic-based. Beyond this, there is a plurality, in that Burke would implicitly admit the acceptability of multiple conclusions that can be drawn, or more than one logical answer to a linear progression or singular problem. The screen’s primary function is that of direction, which might be equated to media portrayal of events circumstances, and therefore the truth itself.  In law, a witness is prompted to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. In advertising, in order to harness the most power over the consumer, one it’s imperative to tell “The truth, and nothing but the truth” while crucially leaving the whole truth out. The critical mass of human perception lies not simply in observing information, but to gather all the pertinent information to make decisions. A voter may vote for a politician based on a single issue they agree with, yet the politician may not be able to have any affect in regards to that issue if they have poor foreign policy planners or economic advisors.

Superficially, in a contrasting way, the rhizome works as an un-attributable matter (Deleuze & Guattari, 5), which is defined in its multiplicity of origin or even lack thereof. “any point of a rhizome can be connected to anything other, and must be.” This is very different from the tree or root, which plot s appoint, fixes an order. (Deleuze & Guattari, 7) To think of it analogously, where Burke’s terministic screen is predicated upon a trunk of prerequisite from which the branches grow, the rhizome, well, it’s been named after its analogy; it’s like a rhizome. To go along with this, it’s important to note what Deleuze & Guattari offer as sort of a condition on the rhizome: “The point is that a rhizome or multiplicity never allows itself to be overcoded, never has available a supplementary dimension over and above its number of lines, that is, over and above the multiplicity of numbers attached to those lines. All multiplicities are flat, in the sense that they fill or occupy all of their dimensions: we will therefore speak of a plane of consistency of multiplicities, even though the dimensions of this plane increase with the number of connections that are made on it.” Therefore, despite this seemingly open principle of multiplicity, there is still an analogous branch, in order for some kind of sense to be made from it.

While the rhizome seemed to be superficially contrasted, upon deeper inspection, it seems that at the most base levels of the rhizome and terministic screens, there is the agreed upon prerequisite that is a scope for understanding. In terministic screens, the nature of terms inherently affects the nature of observation (Burke, 46) while the nature of the connection and relation of one thing to another is what affects the nature of observation. In this way, a rhizome might even be thought of as a terministic screen with its distinguishing feature that the observation is defined by multiplicity.