![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
Kenneth Burke's employment with the Bureau of Social Hygiene informed his rhetorical theory in the 1930s. Between 1926 and 1930, Burke researched criminology and drug addiction and ghostwrote a book for Colonel Arthur Woods, Dangerous Drugs. An investigation of archives indicates that this research left its mark on Burke's Permanence and Change (1935): in particular, Burke's concept of piety can be understood better in relation to the Bureau of Social Hygiene. An account of Burke's criminological research shows that piety, as a rhetorical concept, involves both embodied and discursive acts. Because it involves mental and affective factors, piety forms the basis for metabiology.
Notes
Jordynn Jack is a doctoral candidate at the Pennsylvania State University. She thanks Jack Selzer, Cheryl Glenn, Kit Hume, the editor, and the anonymous reviewers of this article for their helpful suggestions on a previous version of this essay. Correspondence to Jordynn Jack, 112 Burrowes Building, University Park, PA 16802. Email: [email protected].
Woods to Andrews, 10 December 1926, Bureau of Social Hygiene Project and Research Files.
Jack Selzer, Kenneth Burke in Greenwich Village: Conversing with the Moderns, 1915–1931 (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996), 59, 134.
Kenneth Burke, The Philosophy of Literary Form, 3rd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), xi. In the foreword, Burke states that while developing a course on Coleridge for the University of Chicago in 1938, he “couldn't help being struck by the close correlation between the imagery in his [Coleridge's] best poems and the symptoms of opium addiction.”
Paul Jay notes that Burke drew upon his knowledge of drug addiction in Language as Symbolic Action (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966) in The Selected Correspondence of Kenneth Burke and Malcolm Cowley, 1915–1981 (New York: Viking, 1988), n182; William H. Rueckert suggests that drug addiction informs Burke's analysis of Coleridge in The Philosophy of Literary Form in Kenneth Burke and the Drama of Human Relations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 122.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 3rd ed. (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1954), 69.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 74.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 14.
Thomas Rosteck and Michael Leff, “Piety, Propriety, and Perspective: An Interpretation and Application of Key Terms in Kenneth Burke's Permanence and Change,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 53 (1989): 332.
Many years after his work at the Bureau of Social Hygiene, Burke lamented (with regard to the research he had done on drug addiction) that, “Ironically enough, all my notes on that stuff have disappeared. All that work I'd done just vanished. The stuff I used in The Philosophy of Literary Form was part of it. I wouldn't have any of it but for the parts included there” (“Counter Gridlock: An Interview with Kenneth Burke,” All Area 2 (1983): 9.) Nonetheless, recently uncovered material among the Kenneth Burke Papers, Pennsylvania State University, includes some notes on researchers quoted in Dangerous Drugs, as well as typescripts from the first three chapters of the book. From this point forward, I refer to these materials as “Notes on DD.” These notes are in Box. P.12f, among uncatalogued material.
Burke to Jean Toomer, 16 November 1928, Jean Toomer Papers, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.
“Miss Davis Resigns Social Hygiene Post,” New York Times, 3 January 1928, 3.
William J. Hess, “Introduction,” Guide to the Scholarly Resources: Microfilm Edition of the Bureau of Social Hygiene Project and Research Files (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1980), v. The Bureau received most of its funding from the Spelman Foundation, and the two organizations maintained close ties. Because of this funding structure, it is sometimes difficult to determine where the Bureau of Social Hygiene ended and other agencies began. The Committee on Drug Addiction, for instance, was funded by the Bureau of Social Hygiene and included many members who served on both agencies. Because the Bureau of Social Hygiene was funded through other Rockefeller endowments, it overlaps the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation. Some Bureau members, like Lawrence B. Dunham, Woods, and Burke, worked for both organizations. The Bureau maintained close ties with the National Research Council Committee on Drug Addiction (which took over the work of the Bureau's own Committee on Drug Addiction in 1928). The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation and the Bureau of Social Hygiene seemed to have a shared physical location for part of their histories. In 1926, when Burke first began working for Woods, at least some of the Bureau's members (Dr. Charles E. Terry and Katherine B. Davis) were located at 370 Seventh Avenue, whereas Woods's office was at 61 Broadway. By 1930, however, letters directed to the Bureau of Social Hygiene (under Lawrence Dunham) were addressed to 61 Broadway. Dunham's office was #3012, Woods's was #3004, and Burke's was #3006. For the purposes of this essay, I use term “Bureau of Social Hygiene” quite broadly to refer to this group of agencies and institutions.
“Woods Gets,” New York Times, 16 March 1926, 2.
Selzer, 197; Dunham to Batterham, 10 August 1926, Bureau of Social Hygiene Project and Research Files. The Foreign Policy Association was funded in part by the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation and the Bureau of Social Hygiene, and Moorhead often corresponded with Bureau member Lawrence B. Dunham. Dunham, in turn, researched international drug traffic with Colonel Woods, who hired Burke to do research for him at the Bureau of Social Hygiene.
Burke actually worked for Colonel Woods at the Bureau of Social Hygiene during two separate periods between 1926 and 1930. In 1926 and 1927, Burke conducted research on drug addiction at the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation, ending on August 15, 1927 amid a shuffling of projects and people associated with Rockefeller's many philanthropic organizations. In 1928, Lawrence B. Dunham, who had served as Deputy Commissioner of the NYPD under Colonel Woods, and had been in charge of crime for the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation, became chairman of the Bureau of Social Hygiene. As a result, the emphasis of the Bureau shifted to “criminology, delinquency, penology, and police and criminal justice administration,” (Hess, vi) and Woods moved from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation to the Bureau of Social Hygiene. Woods again hired Burke to finish writing Dangerous Drugs, this time at the Bureau of Social Hygiene. Burke wrote to Malcolm Cowley on 15 October 1928: “I did not hear definitely until today that the job is to come through with Colonel Woods,” Burke to Josephson, 28 July 1927, Matthew Josephson Papers, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.
Burke to Tate, 19 December 1929, Allen Tate Papers, Princeton University Library.
Selzer, 198.
Woods to Andrews, 10 December 1926, Bureau of Social Hygiene Project and Research Files.
Andrews to Woods, 13 December 1926, Bureau of Social Hygiene Project and Research Files. General Lincoln C. Andrews was assistant secretary at the Treasury Department in Washington, D.C. Colonel L.G. Nutt was Deputy Commissioner in charge of narcotic enforcement for the United States “Confer On Bracing Dry Enforcement,” New York Times, 12 July 1927, 2.
Paul Wilner, “Burke, Literary Critic, is Feisty at 79,” New York Times, 26 September 1976, NJ12.
Burke to Dunham, 4 June 1930, Bureau of Social Hygiene Project and Research Files.
Here Burke refers to the Advisory Committee of the League of Nations on Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs. Many of the citations in this article come from unpublished notes and typescripts uncovered in uncatalogued material among the Kenneth Burke Papers at Pennsylvania State University. From this point forward, I cite these sources generally as “Kenneth Burke Papers.” Unless otherwise noted, I maintain the original punctuation and emphasis.
Burke to Tate, 15 March 1929, Allen Tate Papers, Princeton University Library. Decker was apparently a sculptor (“Show of Contemporary American Sculpture and Water‐Colors Opens at Whitney Museum,” New York Times, 5 December 1933, 1); she also corresponded with Lewis and Sophia Mumford (Correspondence of Lewis Mumford, Restricted Files, Container 91, Annenberg Rare Book and Manuscript Library, University of Pennsylvania).
Burke to Woods, undated, Notes on DD, Kenneth Burke Papers.
Burke to Woods, undated, Notes on DD, Kenneth Burke Papers. Apparently, Burke had some trouble focusing on the research and writing of Dangerous Drugs; he was more interested in advising Woods on his rhetorical strategies for Committee meetings: “I have become a brand new kind of opium addict—one who can imagine nothing more entrancing than to miss his daily dose—and who, when the dope is in him, manifests that very restlessness and lack of concentration which are usually associated with withdrawal” (Burke to Woods, undated typescript of letter, Notes on DD). In preparation for one of Woods's meetings with the League of Nations Advisory Committee on Opium, Burke wrote Woods a long letter of recommendations on how best to frame his proposal for a system of rations to control the distribution of opium (Burke to Woods, undated typescript of letter, Notes on DD). One of Burke's suggestions involved an elaborate system of rations for legal drug sales based on government‐issued wrappers. Burke also offered suggestions to Woods to frame a proposal for an international committee on drug trafficking. In order to ensure partiality, but also to please the drug companies, Burke suggested two separate committees, one made up of neutral parties and another made up of drug company officials, who would be called “experts” but who would actually be bound by the recommendations of the neutral committee.
Further, one of the book's editors at Yale University Press, Maliolu W. Davis, noted in a letter to Lawrence Dunham, Chair of the Committee on Drug Addiction: “The corrections were very slight—mainly due to the fact that it is our practice and preference to avoid the use of ‘we’ in reference to the writer of a book, and to use it only when it refers more generally to the writer and readers together.” Davis apparently disliked the tendency of the author (Burke) to use “we”—a habit Burke displays throughout his own work. Davis to Dunham, 13 December 1930, Bureau of Social Hygiene Project and Research Files.
Colonel Arthur Woods, Dangerous Drugs (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931), 18.
Woods, 50. Burke had written a partial translation of Spengler's Decline of the West for The Dial.
Burke is referring here to “Auscultation, Creation, and Revision,” a lengthy essay that he wrote between 1930 and 1934 but did not publish. This quotation comes from several pages of typed notes found in the Kenneth Burke Papers at Pennsylvania State University, Box P9.b, P9.c, and P9.i. These seem to be notes Burke wrote as he was planning Permanence and Change. From now on, I will refer to these documents as “Notes on PC.”
Burke to Cowley, 3 May 1950, Jay, 291.
As Burke notes later, the original title was changed because the “publisher thought it sounded like a report on telephone and telegraph” (Burke to Cowley, May 3, 1950, Jay 291).
This quotation comes from page 3 of a typescript entitled “Foreword” uncovered in the Kenneth Burke Papers at Pattee Library, Pennsylvania State University, Box P.9b. The folder includes two documents with this title: one (which I will call “Foreword A”) is nine pages long; the other (which I will call “Foreword B”) is two pages long and is missing the first page. These documents seem to be unused introductions to Permanence and Change, written around 1934. “Foreword B” is dated November, 1934; “Foreword A” is undated. This material does not appear in either the 1935 edition or the 1954 edition of Permanence and Change; both typescripts refer specifically to the original title—A Treatise on Communication. In “Foreword A” Burke states: “The present ‘Treatise on Communication’ starts from my concern with such issues, distinctly the issues of a transitional period” (6). In “Foreword B” Burke writes: “The present ‘Treatise on Communication’ deals with the many ramifications of this notion…” (2). Both “Foreword A” and “Foreword B” include an outline of the contents of Permanence and Change, which follow the contents of the published version.
Burke, “Foreword A,” 3.
Burke, “Foreword A,” 3.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 254.
Burke, “Foreword A,” 9.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 45.
Burke, “Foreword A,” 4.
Burke, “Foreword A,” 4–5.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 74.
Burke, “Foreward B,” 2.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 25.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 25.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 69, “Foreword A,” 7.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 76.
Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), 39.
Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives, 26; emphasis in original.
Burke, A Rhetoric of Motives, xiv.
Michel de Certeau, “Walking in the City,” in The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 91–110.
Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990), 53, 56.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 69.
Burke, “Notes on PC.”
Burke, “Foreword A,” 5.
Burke, “Foreword A,” 5.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 75.
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage Books, 1977), 138.
Foucault, 151–3.
de Certeau, 58.
Woods, 37.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 77.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 77; emphasis in original.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 76.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 77.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 23.
Woods, 35.
Woods, 35.
Woods, 38–9.
Lawrence Kolb, “Pleasure and Deterioration from Narcotic Addiction,” Mental Hygiene 9 (1925): 717.
Woods, 37–8.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 77–78.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 10.
Lawrence Kolb, “Types and Characteristics of Drug Addicts,” Mental Hygiene 9 (1925): 312.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 22.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 21.
By “ethicizing the means of support” Burke means the process by which a means to procure a good effect becomes “an absolute good‐in‐itself” (Permanence and Change, 205). Other examples include the infant who tends to ethicize his bottle or the businessman who ethicizes his work as an end‐in‐itself. “Ethicizing the means of support” is unavoidable, but it can become a form of the piety of degradation. In the ethicizing process, one “may so alter his ways of living in its [the means or end‐in‐itself] behalf that he actually ruins his health, making many of life's firmest gratifications permanently impossible—and so he dies a victim of his long devotion” (205). Burke has in mind here principally the tendency to ethicize “machinery as an absolute good” (207), but drug addiction would be another good example of this dynamic.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 21.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 205.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 150n.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 150n.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 151n.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 150.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 150.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 75.
Kolb, “Pleasure and Deterioration,” 700.
Kolb, “Pleasure and Deterioration,” 700–1.
Woods, 30.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 154.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 153–4.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 150.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 10.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 119.
Burke, “Foreword B,” 7.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 65.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 268.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 66.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 66.
Burke, “Notes on DD.”
Bryan Crable, “Ideology as ‘Metabiology’: Rereading Burke's Permanence and Change,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 84 (1998): 303–319. Burke's concept of piety and the mind‐body relationship is in contrast to other schools of thought on the nature of motivation and perception. Unlike Marxist philosophies, metabiology begins with biological, rather than material factors; Burke calls this “dialectical biologism” (Permanence and Change, 229). Unlike utilitarian philosophies, Burke takes into account the realms of non‐symbolic motion and symbolic action; as he notes: “I try to show that the purely utilitarian philosophies of action ignore the ways in which the pious function works. (Burke, “Foreword A,” 17). In contrast to psychoanalytic views, Burke uses the concept of piety to argue that perspective by incongruity is not enough if it simply requires that one adopt a new, but equally insufficient, interpretive framework: “Frequently the passive, individualistic nature of psychological therapy did not take sufficiently into account the ailing nature of the entire interpretive framework which the patient was being helped to accept. When a society was upside down, the psychoanalyst tried to put a man on his feet by teaching him how to be upside down like his fellows” (“Foreword A,” 18). Psychoanalysis serves a purpose for Burke, however, because “the psychoanalysts did bring to the fore certain basic facts about human psychology which cannot safely be ignored. Most important of all, I think, is the process variously called transference, identification, condensation, or polarization—the process whereby a given present situation derives hidden meanings by analogy with past events which we have forgotten, but which color our responses nonetheless” (“Foreword A,” 18). Burke's concept of piety takes into account this process of transference, but in its insistence on a dialectical relationship between affect (body) and meaning (mind), it offers the basis for a new and improved interpretive framework in metabiology.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 226.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 309.
Like Rockefeller, Colonel Woods belonged to the U.S. upper class. His wife was Helen Morgan Hamilton, granddaughter of J. P. Morgan; Woods was a member of the Tuxedo Club (along with Cornelius Vanderbilt, Vincent Astor, and many others) and served on the Board of Directors for the Banker's Trust Company. He was vice president of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, and a trustee and director of the International Education Board.
Burke, Permanence and Change, 173.
Burke to Tate, 12 December 1929. Allen Tate Papers.
Burke to Josephson, 14 June 1930; Burke to Josephson, 18 September 1930; Matthew Josephson Papers.
Burke, “Counter Gridlock,” 9.
Burke, Attitudes Toward History, 3d ed (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 170.