Rhetoric and systems theory

Exploring the impact of rhetoric by connecting systems theory and Burkes rhetorical and social theories

University of Wisconsin Stout

W. David Phillips 4,289 words

Author Notes: W. David Phillips, Scottsboro, AL

Rhetoric and systems theory Abstract Systems theory helps the world understand the interactive relationships that exist in many domains of life and events that occur throughout the universe. Kenneth Burkes theories on ideology explore how, through rhetoric, people develop interactive relationships that create a common framework through which life is interpreted. It is only logical to explore how systems theory can reveal the implications of rhetoric in an interconnected world. This paper attempts to do just that.

Rhetoric and systems theory Exploring the impact of rhetoric by connecting systems theory and Burkes rhetorical and social theories

Systems Theory arose out of the efforts of researchers who were searching for similarities between work in the biological, physical, and social sciences. This systems approach arose in contrast to the Newtonian method of separating an object into its component parts and trying to understand the behavior of the object by understanding the properties of the individual parts while ignoring their interactions. As the theory developed, different definitions of it evolved, depending upon the background and focus of the researcher. According to Klir (1972), "General Systems Theory in the broadest sense refers to a collection of general concepts, principles, tools, problems, methods, and techniques associated with systems" (p. 342). In this case, a system is "an arrangement of certain components so interrelated as to form a whole" (p. 342). Other definitions have developed expressing various facets of the concept. A related definition is given by Miller (1978), "General systems theory is a set of related definitions, assumptions, and propositions which deal with reality as an integrated hierarchy of organizations of matter and energy" (p. 9). Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a pioneer in moving general systems theory into the scientific arena, noted in his book Robots, Men and Minds: General systems theory (in the narrow sense of the term) is a discipline concerned with the general properties and laws of systems. A system is defined as a complex of components in interaction, or by some similar proposition. Systems theory tries to develop those principles that apply to systems in general, irrespective of the nature of the system, of their components, and of the relations or forces between them. The system components need not even be material, as, for example, in the system analysis of a

Rhetoric and systems theory

commercial enterprise where components such as buildings, machines, personnel, money and good will of customers enter (p. 69). In its simplest form, a system is a set of interrelated components working together towards some kind of process (Pidwirny). For example, by this definition, a baseball team is a system. There are interrelated components (players) working together towards some kind of process (winning the most games). Any organization can be defined a system, including families and fast food establishments. A system interacts with its environment through inputs and outputs. Going back to the baseball team analogy, a baseball team interacts with its environment in multiple ways. The team can receive inputs via signing a free agent player not part of any team. It may generate output to its environment by cutting a player, which then may be picked up by another team. When the team receives input by signing a player, the system changes because the relationships within the system change. This is why, with the addition of just one player or a small number of players, a team can go from worst to first. The team may describe this transformation in terms of chemistry, meaning the relationships within the team are better and enhance one another. As a result, one person can build the chemistry of a team or one person can ruin the chemistry of a team. Even though he may be a fabulous player, the relationship that player has with other players on the team or with management can cause the team to not function effectively. There are many moments when a team with more talent was beaten by a team with lesser talent but had great chemistry. The dynamic of relationships can make a team soar or fall and those relationships are important to systems thinking. A system can be viewed as either linear or non-linear. Until the rise of quantum physics, Newtonian physics was the dominant influence and it viewed systems as linear. As Einstein and

Rhetoric and systems theory others discovered quantum physics, the understanding of systems was modified to include nonlinear systems. For the purposes of this paper, Burkes social and rhetorical theories will be connected to non-linear systems, also known as chaotic systems.

The best way to understand the differences in the two types of systems is to explore their differences, of which there are. First, in linear systems, change is gradual and incremental, whereas in a non-linear system, change can be precipitous (steep) and revolutionary. Consider the impact on a persons bank account when the financial institution uses compound interest (non-linear) vs. simple interest (linear). If someone deposit $1,000 in a savings plan with 10 percent simple interest, for example, at the end of the year, that person will have an additional $100 because 10 percent of $1,000 is $100. This $100 is then taken out of the bank, leaving only the original $1,000. Again, at the end of the second year the person will have another $100, which again is withdrawn from the account. If this is done every year for 10 years, that person will have made an extra $1,000 at the end of the ten years, which added to the original amount of $1,000 will have doubled the original investment. Now consider how this works using compound interest. Again, assume the account starts with a $1,000 investment and the interest rate is 10 percent. Instead of withdrawing the money made through interest at the end of each year, the person adds that amount to the original investment. In the second year, the 10 percent interest will accumulate on $1,100, which is the original amount plus the interest from the first year. Every year, then, interest will accrue on a greater amount. At the end of ten years, the money in the account will have grown approximately 2.6 times the original amount instead of just doubling. Thus, using compound interest, the person will have approximately $2,600 instead of the $2,000 they would have accumulated from simple interest (Goldstein, 1994, p. 19-21).

Rhetoric and systems theory Second, in linear systems the effect is proportionate to the cause, whereas in nonlinear

systems the effect is disproportionate to the cause. Proportionality in a linear system implies that a small change in one element in a system has a correspondingly small effect on another element of the system, or that a large change in one element has a correspondingly large effect on another element. By contrast, in a nonlinear system, the relationship between the elements of the system is disproportionate. Changes in one part or element of the system do not lead to a proportionate change in other parts of the system. A small change may have a large effect, and a large change may have a small effect (Goldstein, p. 22-23) Third, in linear systems, the whole is merely the sum of the parts, whereas in non-linear systems, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This distinction goes right to the heart of what a system is all about. A system is not merely a conglomeration of parts like a pile of stones on a beach. The word system implies that its parts are interrelated and interactive, perhaps even in such a way that the system contains potential not found in the parts alone (Goldstein 23). Fourth, in linear systems, interaction is only one-way, whereas in non-linear systems interaction is multidirectional. In the example of simple interest, interest accumulates as the result of a simple mathematical operation. At the end of the year, the interest is taken out of the bank and the original amount of the principal remains. This means the process of accumulating interest is only one-way. The interest is directed to the principal every year, but the principal is never directed back onto the interest. In a linear system, then, the elements are seen to have only a one-way influence. Although one element may influence another element, this second element does not simultaneously influence the first element back again. No mutually reinforcing effect takes place (Goldstein, p. 24-26).

Rhetoric and systems theory In the case of compound interest, however, the interest is continually added to the original amount so that interest accrues on the original investment plus the extra amount. This makes the direction of causality mutual between the interest and the new principal amount. Mutual causality is a feedback process that continually pushes the effect of an operation back into the operation. The next occurrence of the operation occurs under conditions that are different from the previous one. An example of feedback is the irritating screech that sometimes bursts out of public address system speakers during a concert or speech. The screech occurs

when a microphone that is placed too close to a speaker picks up any sound that comes out of the speaker, then sends the sound back to the speaker. The speaker amplifies this sound, which the microphone then picks up again and sends to the speaker in amplified form. Around and around the sound goes, each time being amplified until it creates a blood-curdling shriek. If the process was simply linear and didn't involve amplification, then the sound would just get gradually louder (Goldstein, p. 26-27). Fifth, linear systems have predictable outcomes, whereas non-linear systems often have unpredictable outcomes. Predicting how much money a person would have accumulated a century from now would be easy to do using simple interest. Because of proportionality, and the whole being perceived as merely the sum of the parts, the eventual outcome of linear systems is very predictable. The weather, however, is a non-linear system is not very predictable. This is why the weatherman can rarely forecast what exactly will happen, even though everyone knows it will likely be cold in Wisconsin in February (Goldstein, p. 27). Linear systems at equilibrium conditions remain the same, whereas non-linear systems at far-from-equilibrium conditions can undergo transformation. A far-from-equilibrium condition is one where there is the continual exchange of matter, energy and information into and out of the

Rhetoric and systems theory system. When a system is under equilibrium conditions, nothing much is taking place. In fact, everything is essentially at rest. Non-linear systems are not static, however. They change and

evolve when the appropriate far-from-equilibrium conditions are met (Goldstein, p. 29-30). This far-from-equilibrium quality is a necessary precondition for the system to be self-organizing, an effect that cannot take place in a linear system (Goldstein, p. 31). Under the right set of circumstances and under the right environment, non-linear or chaotic systems can exhibit that self-organization. This is a spontaneous and radical change in the structure and organization of a system (Goldstein, p. 1). Self-organization is a process of transformation whereby the inner potentials for change that are locked up in the organization are unleashed and actualized by the right kind of challenge (Goldstein, p. 3). It does not rely on an internal hierarchy or on outside forces for transformation. The resources it draws on are its own. This does not mean that leadership does not exist or is unnecessary, just that the source and resources for the change come from within the system itself, not a mammoth bureaucracy or hierarchy. It is a bottom-up organization, not a top-down diffusion. Ultimately, Self-organization happens when a work group or an organization is facing a challenge and is allowed to respond to that challenge in a spontaneous, unshackled manner. The issue, then, is not how to pressure a system to change, but how to unleash the systems self- organizing potential to meet a challenge...What is radically new about the selforganizing perspective is that a work group or organization as a natural system will spontaneously know how to reorganize in the face of a challenge, if the obstacles hindering its capacity to self-organize are removed (Goldstein, p. 9). Through self-organization, new structures, procedures, hierarchies, and/or understanding emerge, giving a new form to the system. Again, all this happens internally and spontaneously.

Rhetoric and systems theory Also, systems exist in either a state of high or low information. Systems at rest are

deemed to be low information systems. These are systems that block information. Information is not simply data or facts. Information refers to the knowledge that is available to a system of its own functioning, of the arrangement of its parts, where each element is and what it is doing. Whereas data is a set of facts, information in a social system goes beyond facts about the system to the relationship between the facts, or among the people in the system who know the facts (Goldstein 94). Heres a very simple example. Suppose a person said, Im tired. Thats data. The one sharing that statement would be describing facts (data) but not information. Someone sharing information would say Im tired because I stayed up until 1 a.m. trying to finish a book I was reading. Thats information. Information provides what is necessary to make a change, whereas data simply provides a statement of fact. This is incredibly important, because without information, the system cannot make the necessary changes to adapt and change. Data creates stagnation; information creates liberation and adaptability. The last notable aspect of a system is called the strange attractor. Strange attractors bring order and pattern within a chaotic system. It is an organizing principle, an inherent shape or state of affairs to which a system will always return. Strange attractors may be found in general and fundamental social assumptions or values that a social system naturally and continually returns (Sellnow, Seeger, & Ulmer, 2002, p. 276). Strange attractors help keep a system together. They become the sun in a solar system, that gravitational attraction that creates order. Burkes ideology as a system While there do not appear to be any direct connections between Burke and the aforementioned von Bertalanffy, or systems in general, it appears they were influenced by many of the same people. One connection in particular could be through the biologist J. Henry

Rhetoric and systems theory Woodger, who was von Bertalanffy's translator. In Permanence and Change, Burke cites Woodger's Biological Principles, which incorporated many of von Bertalanffy's ideas. In addition, many general systems theory ideas are expressed in Permanence and Change

10

(McKercher, p. 115). And while von Bertalanffy may have no awareness of Burkes ideas, later systems theorists concerned with language were aware of Burke. James McFarland notes the similarity of Burke's Dramatistic model to systems theory stating: Burke feels that the social or interpersonal dramas do not occur in a vacuum, [consequently] they must be studied in the context of their social setting as an organic event rather than as a static event. The concern is not with observing any two segments, such as the relationship between act and scene, but the function of the act itself. Burke centers his attention on the interrelationships of the communication rather than on any one aspect such as speaker, message or receiver. All this is in the spirit of systems analysis (p. 179-80). Systems concepts, therefore, are not foreign in Burkes writing to those who have studied systems theory. Burke sees ideology in terms of identity, environment, core, and reality. An ideology is a culture, a set of values, or a linguistic system or a set of social standards. It is not just that, however. It is also a way of living because it is the foundation of how humanity interprets reality and also how humanity organizes socially (Beach, 15). As language and consensus of thought develops, a social identity is dynamically formed through the use of rhetoric and a community is created. Often, ideologies form as a response to changes occurring within the environment. Because of this, ideologies need to be able to continually adapt (Beach, p. 17).

Rhetoric and systems theory In every emerging ideology, a governing ideological "center" is found. The center is formed through a process of prioritizing the various sub-ideologies, which often means privileging some and marginalizing others. The ideological center is the core beliefs within a

11

culture, and would be formed out of some type of rhetoric. While not everyone would agree with each other on every small item, there are ways to have a dynamically formed ideological core. One is to come together on common ground. The Constitution of the United States, for instance, was dynamically formed through rhetoric as the original States sought common ground. A second way to have a ideological core develop is to rally against a common enemy. During World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States both pursued a defeat of Germany under Adolf Hitler. Despite being distinct countries with two distinct ideological systems, the two countries were able to come together for a singular purpose. There are several elements within this part of Burkes ideological theory where parallels to chaotic systems theory can be made. An ideology is a system. It is self-organized, particularly through rhetoric, with an ideological core. This core would be what systems theory would call the strange attractor. The system functions around that attractor the ideology around its core and it is through that system that reality is defined, just as ideology frames reality for those within it. Finally, a healthy system never operates in exactly the same way over a period of time. The system will change and adapt based on the environments external to it and also the impact that adaptation has on the elements internally. A healthy ideology does the same. How an ideology fully develops, however, cannot be predicted. It may begin trending in one direction then change drastically based upon a sub-ideology that is elevated above all others or the environmental changes encountered as it develops. Elections are an example of that lack of predictability, where the revelation of something scandalous (external environmental factors

Rhetoric and systems theory changing) can create a much different outcome. As an example, in 1988, Gary Hart was considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States

12

until news organizations revealed he was having an affair. When that happened, he dropped out of race completely. Sports offer that same kind of drastic transition as well. One softly hit baseball with two outs in the 9th inning of a baseball can evade every defensive player and ruin a perfect game. The pitchers performance becomes known for what it almost was instead of a perfect game. Implications for rhetoric Having an overview of a system, and noting how Burkes ideology theory resembles a system, the application of systems theory to rhetoric can be made. First, rhetoric is inherently relational. A system is an interrelated collection of several things, be it ideas, principles, people, or planets. Those elements are connected through a set of relationships that allow the individual pieces to operate as a whole. Rhetoric forms an ideology most effectively the same way a system is formed: from the bottom or through self-organization. That happens best as persuasion works its way through the social networks of individuals. Small groups of people are dynamically formed through rhetoric. As connections between various small groups are found or made, a large group consisting of multiple, interrelated small groups form. The network gets larger, creating more possible connections between groups. If this happens, dramatic shifts in thinking or a dramatic change in action can occur. The rhetoric occurring every day in a community can function like gas-soaked wood waiting for the spark that will create a blazing fire.

Rhetoric and systems theory This is what happened in 1989 in Romania. Poverty and debt created deplorable conditions for the people of Romania under their communist government. Then one event sparked a revolution that saw the fall of that government.

13

Laszlo Tokes was a pastor in the Romanian Reformed Church. He had become a thorn in the government's side with his sermons complaining about the treatment of Romania's Hungarians as well as the bulldozing of villages to create collective farms. On December 15, 1989, he was to be evicted from his church and sent to a remote village because he had given an interview denouncing the actions of the government to a foreign television crew smuggled into the country. As authorities came to take him away, hundreds of loyal parishioners encircled his church. Soon ethnic Romanians joined them. Others eventually joined them and they broadened their picketing to focus primarily on the countrys leadership. As news spread through social networks, the people felt a sense of empowerment that eventually led to the overthrow of the government only a few days later (Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, n.d.). The way this event happened, and how a dynamically organized ideology is formed, is also a characteristic of non-linear, chaotic systems. The event, the removal of a pastor from his church, is an example of how the effect is disproportional to the cause. A small incident sparked a revolutionary change in Romania. What this shows is that rhetoric has a incredible power to motivate people to action in just a short period of time. The action can be swift and transformative. As stated earlier, adaptation in a system happens when there is a state of high information. Because healthy ideologies are those that adapt and change based on the environment in which it exists, access to and the understanding of information is necessary to maintain that healthy condition. Because rhetoric is the primary tool by which a social system

Rhetoric and systems theory adapts, the ability to transmit information is required so that an ideology can be healthy. An

14

unhealthy ideology, then, attempts to limit the transmission of information, or placing the system in a state of low information. When this happens, information functions not as rhetoric but as propaganda, and ideology becomes staid and calcified. Rhetorical expression is suppressed, not pursued. Therefore, like a system needs a state of high information to adapt, an ideology needs rhetorical freedom to adapt and maintain its health. Finally, just as interaction is multidirectional in a chaotic, non-linear system, rhetoric functions to create a multidirectional interaction within the ideology. When this happens, ideology is empowered to constantly adapt. Rhetoric operates within an ideology just like compound interest works in a bank account. Rhetoric helps the ideology adapt which exerts the potential to change upon those living within that framework. Rhetoric helps change how symbols are used and in doing so, help reframe the interpretive lens through which reality exists. Burke even defines humanity in terms of symbol. In Language as Symbolic Action, he states that [m]an is the symbol-making animal, inventor of the negative, separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, moved by the sense of order, and rotten with perfection (Burke, 1966, p. 3). If rhetoric is how humanity use symbols, and by definition humans make symbols, then humanity itself is an expression of rhetoric. The essence of rhetoric is found in everything a person does, including his unconscious actions or thoughts. For Burke, symbolic action is the evaluation and interpretation of a situation. Accepting and adopting the evaluation and interpretation of another means that one person has been persuaded by what another person does and says. In saying this, and particularly by adding that unconscious aspect, Burke asserts that all human behavior is strategic action that works to define

Rhetoric and systems theory

15

and influence situations and attitudes for those in ones social network, which would also include that very same person. The multidirectional impact of rhetoric then becomes profound. A person persuaded through rhetoric actually becomes a different, living rhetorical text, potentially bringing a new set of symbols into an ideology. This new set of symbols could eventually bring change to that ideology. As a result, a changed ideology will create new experiences and new symbols that will once again lead to change in an individual or group of individuals. Therefore, each one affects the other. Exploring the connection between rhetoric and systems through the lens of Kenneth Burkes theories provides a clearer look at the impact of rhetoric. It has the ability create great change in a short period of time. It impacts both the ideology and the individual. Rhetoric is also inherently relational and self-organizing.

Rhetoric and systems theory References

16

Beach, J. M. (2012). Kenneth Burke: A sociology of knowledge : dramatism, ideology, and rhetoric. Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. (1968). Robots, Men, and Minds: Psychology in the Modern World. New York: Brazillier.. Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley: University of California Press. Goldstein, J. (1994). The unshackled organization: Facing the challenge of unpredictability through spontaneous reorganization. Portland, Or: Productivity Press. Klir, George (Ed.), (1972). Trends in General Systems Theory. New York: Wiley. McKercher, Patrick M. (1993). Toward A Systemic Theory of Symbolic Action. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. McFarland, James C. (1974). "A Systems Approach to Human Communication." In Donald E. Washburn and Dennis R. Smith (eds.), Coping with Increasing Complexity: Implications of General Semantics and General Systems Theory (p. 158-187). New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. Miller, J.G. 1978. Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Murphy, P. (1996). Chaos theory as a model for managing issues and crises. Public Relations Review, 22 (2), 95-113. Pidwirny, Michael J. Introduction to Systems Theory. Retrieved August 12, 2003, from http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/4b.html

Rhetoric and systems theory

17

Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media (n.d.). The Unique Experience of Romania | Making the History of 1989. Retrieved May 10, 2013, from http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/exhibits/unique-experience-of-romania/introduction Sellnow, T. L., Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. R. (2002). Chaos theory, informational needs, and natural disasters. The Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 269-292