Moving Past Identification

           Identification is crucial to how we spread our ideas. It is the meeting point between individuals. A common ground. As humans, we have developed our linguistic skills enough to further any idea through the use similar properties between unique people. Movements can spread like wildfire.

            This is not to say that identification is a perfect process, or even one regularly beneficial to society. Forming political ideologies from the commonalties you share with others can at its worst function as passive manipulation. As I read more and more about this concept I am inclined to believe it is not the final step in the evolution of rhetorical theory.

            In Burke’s Identification essay, he explains that: “A is not identical with his colleague, B. But insofar as their interests are joined, A is identified with B” (Burke, 180). I am reminded immediately of the Christmas dinner stories told by a close friend of mine when we returned from break.  His family, staunch supporters of the Trump administration, had spent a majority of the meal expressing their disapproval of notable members of the opposition. My friend described the environment as a sort of “echo chamber”, where all the members of the household brought every piece of evidence to support Trump to the dinner table nightly. He was the “family politician”.  Away at college, this friend of mine had fallen behind on the family’s politics and had adopted a more neutral or even slightly disapproving attitude towards the current president. This did not sit well with the family. Article after article was read at the dinner table, with the fear that a member of the family had not joined the movement functioning as their motivation.

            Clearly this is not the exact situation that Burke’s thoughts on identification were meant to apply to, however I see it as a good depiction of the problem adopters of this theory face. It seems to me that this way of spreading ideas cannot be ethically sustainable. Consider the list of the risks of the rhetorical approach in Lyon and Olson’s article:

“The risks and limits of a rhetorical approach to human rights fall into three broad categories: (1) a limited perspective on language and symbolism rather than their entwined relationship to material and historical conditions that clearly extend beyond such representations; (2) a concealment of relationships of power, privilege, and resourcefulness within considerations of idealism; and (3) a delusion of ethical work in simply pursuing certain academic interests and labor” (Lyon and Olson, 206).

            This section is intended to highlight the easy traps to fall into when applying rhetorical theory to something as fundamental and essential as human rights. It seems that this idea of rhetorical theory, much like Burke, puts massive weight into the idea of identification. Identification in this instance can cloud the judgement of supporters or draw them to a cause for the wrong reasons. This is further evidenced when they go on to say: “focusing on legislation, judicial codes and legal decisions, as well as bodily performances and symbolic artifacts, rhetoric may fail to acknowledge the corporeal body and the rights to material conditions for human survival” (Lyon and Olson, 206). These focuses that Lyon and Olson are particularly concerned with are all common umbrellas of identification under which groups will often become “substantially one” (as Burke puts it) with one another.

            It is this clear risk that comes with the persuasion of identification that suggests to me that the concept is not at all sustainable. It may seem like a natural way of thinking that is impossible to leave behind for human beings, and I believe that to a certain extent it is, but the already emerging idea that ethical appeals are unethical tools of speaking may be the groundwork for which change will be built upon. Things like sensationalist publications and manipulative advertising have their critics, and hopefully this can be the spark that takes away the power of this dangerous phenomenon.

            And yet, I cannot truly claim that the solution is to completely demonize intentional identification as a tool of persuasion. Many landmark speeches and movements relied on the common properties used to bring people together. Speeches and movements that suggest to me that identification can and will not be something we leave behind, but hopefully something we can simply reform.