Reflective Blog 2

In rhetoric, identification is described as any wide variety of means by which a writer or speaker may establish a shared sense of values, attitudes, and interests with an audience. Identification is the umbrella term as it includes other terms such as consubstantiality, which is defined as one staying original, while also being accepted in a group. This is important as it helps people connect with each other while also staying true to themselves. In this blog post, I will explain how Burke and Ratcliffe defined identification, which will show how the term was built on and different to both theorists.

The main purpose of identification, to Burke, was persuasion. This is showed in Burkes Definition of a Man pdf as Kenneth Burke discusses that when someone attempts to persuade, identification occurs. This all falls back to the idea of relating with the other party to get them to agree with your idea. In other words, Burke believed in “… (smoothing over differences), to agreement (only affirming one's own view of reality)” (Ratcliffe’s Rhetorical Listening, 12).               

Ratcliffe believed in the rhetorical listening that was much different. He thought that identification was seen by being open to others in a sense of relation to text, or culture. Basically, we shouldn’t just settle differences to keep our own point of view, but we should have an open mind to other opinions as they can ultimately help us see the big picture. Ratcliffe promoted the “… performance that occurs when listeners invoke both their capacity and their willingness to promote an understanding of self…” (Ratcliffe’s Rhetorical Listening, 11).

 In conclusion, the article talks about how the problem with traditional theories of identification are left outside the circle of consubstantiality, where the problem with postmodern identification is that commonalities are seen as impossible and there’s this take of negativity that associated with it. Ratcliffe then builds on the idea of agreement in persuasion by taking the view of being open to new things and allowing the mind to not just come to an “agreement”, but to actually listen to what the other individual has to say and what he brings to the table.