Consider the primary, most basic goal you have when first introduced to a new classmate. First, you ask their name. Then, what year they will graduate. Maybe now what city they are from. The questions may stop there or continue to more subjective ones, like what music they like. This standard introductory survey is purposed to find out where you stand in relation to the new individual. According to Kenneth Burke this search is “to confront the implications of division,” or identification (1326). Burke’s take on identification is logical and applicable in many rhetorical situations; rhetoric divides individuals while also uniting them.
While attempting to pick apart Burke’s argument, I found myself genuinely confused, then pleasantly surprised. Understanding of identification comes in Burke’s definition of rhetoric, where he says that rhetoric considers the ways some people are against each other or how these differences cause others to identify with each other (1326). It makes sense; we see it all the time. When a speaker is attempting to move her audience, let’s say it’s a group of mothers, she references her children. This identifies her with other moms, they share the maternal bond. However, it also divides her from the group of women without children. Now she has joined herself to one group through their division from the other. Burke calls this division the “ironic counterpart” of identification (1327). In actuality, this theory is applicable even in your introduction to a new student. You want to find the common ground you share, or the lack of it, so you can properly position yourself with them. We practice this theory all the time. It just takes a good pair of analytical glasses, and maybe some help from Kenneth Burke, to see it.
