Defending Dramatism as ontological and literal

Abstract

For twenty years, scholars have contested Burke's argument—originally offered at an Eastern Communication Association convention — that dramatism is ontological and literal. These Burkean scholars have instead emphasized dramatism as epistemological and metaphorical. In this essay, I reread this dispute in support of Burke's position. I conclude that this debate contains two separate claims by Burke: (1) dramatism is ontological, and not epistemological, because it begins with language as action, not representation; and (2) this starting‐point can claim a privileged (literal) status because it offers the most complete approach to its topic. Through this interpretation of the debate, I make a case for a rehabilitated (and ontologically‐grounded) notion of literality—and sketch its implications for contemporary rhetorical theory.

Key concepts:

• K. Burke
• dramatism
• ontology
• epistemology
• metaphor
• literality