Clarifying Ambiguity and the Undecidable: A Comparison of Burkean and Derridean Thought

Abstract

This essay expands upon recent scholarship that compares poststructuralist European thinkers with Kenneth Burke by comparing Derrida concept of undecidability with Burke notion of ambiguity. The article begins with an examination of the Derridean notion of undecidability followed by a review of Burke's treatment of the concept of ambiguity. The article concludes with a brief comparative discussion of undecidability and ambiguity that clarifies the differences and similarities, and suggests implications for critical analysis.

Keywords:

• Deconstruction
• Dialectic
• Jacques Derrida
• Kenneth Burke
• Pentad
• Poststructuralism

Notes

See Biesecker (1997), Brock (1999, 2005), Chesebro (2005), Covino (1995), Crusius (1999), Desilet (2002), Henderson (1999), Henderson and Williams (2001), Wess (1996), and Williams (1989).

Chesebro (2005) compared Burke's perspective by incongruity and debunking with Derrida's différence and deconstruction, Desilet (2002) explored the differences between a Derridean postmodern metaphysics and a Burkean pre-modern metaphysics, Covino (1995) considered the implications of Burke and Derrida on the theory and practice of criticism, and Williams (1989) explored the overlap between Burke's and Derrida's concerns with dialectical oppositions and the over-deterministic tendencies of language that threaten nuclear war.

See Derrida (1976, 1981, 1982, and 1988), Norris's (1982) Deconstruction is typical (see especially, p. 66).

In Margins of Philosophy (Derrida, 1982, pp. 207–271).

See Gasché (1987) and Nealon (1993, pp. 33–36).

For more on the concept of indeterminacy, see de Man (1982).

See Chesebro (2005, pp. 181–184) for an excellent discussion on différence.

The claim that Derridean deconstruction fails to engage matters of ethical and political significance is best represented by Fraser (1984). As Gaon (1999) noted, much of this criticism fails to account for Derrida's later writings (e.g., see Derrida, 1994, 2008).

See Brock (1985), Crable (2000), and Wess (2001).

For Burke's (1964) complete discussion on the paradox of substance and the antinomies of definition, see A Grammar of Motives (pp. 21–58).

For more on identification as a remedy to division, see Burke (1969). See Wess (1996, pp. 186–216) and Crusius (1999, pp. 34–64) for two representative discussions on the theoretical and philosophical range and implications of Burkean identification. Clark (2004) provided an excellent discussion of the full range of the concept of identification in his analysis of the rhetoric of American landscapes.

Although there is insufficient space herein to explicate the pentad in depth, there are numerous critical and theoretical studies that are exemplary. Among these are F. Anderson and Prelli (2001); Birdsell (1987); Blankenship, Fine, and Davis (1983); Blankenship, Murphy, and Rossenwasser (1974); Brummett (1979); Conrad (1984); Fergusson (1966); Fisher (1974); Hamlin and Nichols (1973); King (1985); Ling (1970); Overington (1977); Signorile (1989); Tonn, Endress, and Diamond (1993); and Wess (2001).

Desilet (2002) favored deconstruction, whereas Henderson and Williams (2001) favored dramatism. Chesebro (2005) was more balanced, suggesting that the choice between the approaches depends on the critic's purpose or ideology.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kevin R. McClure

Kevin R. McClure (PhD, The Pennsylvania State University, 1992) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies, University of Rhode Island, 105B Davis Hall, Kinston, RI 02881.

Kristine M. Cabral

Kristine M. Cabral (MA, The University of Rhode Island, 2002) is a lecturer in the Department of Communication Studies, University of Rhode Island, Kinston, RI 02881.