Capstone project
My capstone project, completed December 10th, 2012, relied heavily on the theory of Kenneth Burke in order to analyze the rhetoric used by lobbyist groups in favor of and opposed to hydraulic fracking, a process for removing oil and gas from deep in the ground. At the bottom of the page you will find links to my project proposal and progress report.
UNEARTHING THE FRACKING RHETORIC
Introduction
Rhetoric can reveal much more than the words which are used—it can allow for a deeper look to reveal what is believed by a particular speaker and reveal their motivations are. This paper looks at the rhetoric used in the debate surrounding the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing—a process for removing oil and natural gas from deep within the ground. In order to study the rhetoric surrounding hydraulic fracturing, the websites of three lobbyist groups from both sides of the debate, six in total, were selected and analyzed using Kenneth Burke’s cluster analysis method. This method consists of discovering “what goes with what” or looking at both the frequency and intensity of, as well as the relationships between, the words used by a speaker in order to better understand their views. Following Carol Berthold who argues cluster analysis can be used upon multiple subjects in order to compare them and that cluster analysis can be used in order to better understand the rhetoric behind a social movement (309), I combine the rhetoric of three lobbying groups in favor of hydraulic fracturing into one group, as well as three lobbying groups in opposition to hydraulic fracturing into another group, each of them being representative of the arguments and rhetoric from their side of the debate. This allows for further speculation concerning what these groups actually believe and what their motivations are.
Method
This project was researched and completed over the course of two months, from October 8th to December 8th 2012. The first half of the research consisted of researching theories, primarily the works of Kenneth Burke and Richard Weaver on cluster analysis. The second half of the research consisted of determining which set of texts to analyze and then the actual work of analyzing them using the framework of cluster analysis. Many different texts were considered, including blogs, news and magazine articles, published research papers, public relations statements, and the documents of lobbyist groups. In the end, I decided to focus on the works of lobbyist groups under the assumption that since their arguments are the ones that legislators will be exposed to the most, their arguments are going to make up the rhetoric that most impacts public policy surrounding hydraulic fracturing.
Deciding to focus on the works of lobbyist groups still leaves the question of which lobbyist groups should be included. With the time constraints of this project, the number needed to remain relatively low compared to the number of actors that lobby the government on either side of the debate. Since the research of lobbyist groups was limited to the Internet, the ones selected were determined by my searches of the Internet, including which lobbyist groups were commonly referenced by blogs and news articles or video clips, assuming that being the most commonly referenced meant that these particular groups were the most prominent. From this research, I chose three lobbyist groups in favor of hydraulic fracturing and three lobbyist groups opposed to hydraulic fracturing in order to give a broad enough set of arguments to encapsulate the field of rhetoric on both sides of the debate without including too much source text to make the project unmanageable. The selected groups in favor of hydraulic fracturing include American Petroleum Institute, America’s Natural Gas Alliance, and the Independent Petroleum Association of America. The opposition includes Frack Action, Shaleshock, and Earthworks. All six of these lobbying groups have websites readily available, and each website has a webpage which served as an introduction or overview of their arguments on hydraulic fracturing; these six “introductory” webpages served as the source texts for this project.
After reading through the six pages in order to develop an understanding of their arguments, the selection of important terms used in the rhetoric was necessary for the cluster analysis. Burke suggests that researchers select these important terms “almost without thinking,” (Bryson 288). From these important words, Rueckert suggests the key terms should be ascertained by selecting the terms that are of “high intensity or high frequency,” (Burke and the Drama of Human Relations, 84). Clustering these key terms, or charting the relationships of the key terms amongst themselves and other terms in the rhetoric, provides us an objective view of the rhetoric’s meaning. Furthermore, from comparing these clusters, the “god term” can be deduced; Weaver defines the god term as “expression about which all other expressions are ranked as subordinate and serving dominations and powers,” (Ethics of Rhetoric, 212). Burke similarly describes “God terms” as designating the “ultimate motivation” of their rhetorical frames (Grammar of Motives, 355). That is to say, in discovering the God term of a text, one also discovers the ultimate motivation of the author of that text.
To begin the process of selecting key terms, I first used the free online tool “Most Useful Words.” This tool gives a list of the words used on the webpages and lists them in descending order according to their frequencies. While many of the frequencies were already obvious after a cursory reading of the texts, the lists helped to shed light on the frequencies of some less expected terms as well as to compare and contrast the frequencies of words within and between the two different sides of the debate. As suggested by Burke, I then removed words from this list in order to be left with the important terms, the terms that I deemed appropriately relevant to the rhetoric. At this point, relying only on the frequency lists, I began to make initial inferences about the two different sets of rhetoric. Next, the key terms were selected by considering both the frequency and intensity of the remaining words. For the purposes of this paper I used Rueckert’s suggested definition for terms with intensity: “terms which are naturally charged, such as love, sex, society, or are particularly significant in a given author,” (BDHR, 84). The next step in the research consisted of looking at these key terms in their various contexts throughout their corresponding three webpages in order to discover their clusters, that is, the terms closely associated with them. Using the intensity and frequency of the terms, as well as the frequency with which they are linked to other key terms established the hierarchies of the key terms. From these hierarchies, the two God terms from either side of the debate were determined.
Results
The following are the lists of important terms investigated, listed by descending frequency, though not all of them turned out to be key terms.
Rhetoric can reveal much more than the words which are used—it can allow for a deeper look to reveal what is believed by a particular speaker and reveal their motivations are. This paper looks at the rhetoric used in the debate surrounding the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing—a process for removing oil and natural gas from deep within the ground. In order to study the rhetoric surrounding hydraulic fracturing, the websites of three lobbyist groups from both sides of the debate, six in total, were selected and analyzed using Kenneth Burke’s cluster analysis method. This method consists of discovering “what goes with what” or looking at both the frequency and intensity of, as well as the relationships between, the words used by a speaker in order to better understand their views. Following Carol Berthold who argues cluster analysis can be used upon multiple subjects in order to compare them and that cluster analysis can be used in order to better understand the rhetoric behind a social movement (309), I combine the rhetoric of three lobbying groups in favor of hydraulic fracturing into one group, as well as three lobbying groups in opposition to hydraulic fracturing into another group, each of them being representative of the arguments and rhetoric from their side of the debate. This allows for further speculation concerning what these groups actually believe and what their motivations are.
Method
This project was researched and completed over the course of two months, from October 8th to December 8th 2012. The first half of the research consisted of researching theories, primarily the works of Kenneth Burke and Richard Weaver on cluster analysis. The second half of the research consisted of determining which set of texts to analyze and then the actual work of analyzing them using the framework of cluster analysis. Many different texts were considered, including blogs, news and magazine articles, published research papers, public relations statements, and the documents of lobbyist groups. In the end, I decided to focus on the works of lobbyist groups under the assumption that since their arguments are the ones that legislators will be exposed to the most, their arguments are going to make up the rhetoric that most impacts public policy surrounding hydraulic fracturing.
Deciding to focus on the works of lobbyist groups still leaves the question of which lobbyist groups should be included. With the time constraints of this project, the number needed to remain relatively low compared to the number of actors that lobby the government on either side of the debate. Since the research of lobbyist groups was limited to the Internet, the ones selected were determined by my searches of the Internet, including which lobbyist groups were commonly referenced by blogs and news articles or video clips, assuming that being the most commonly referenced meant that these particular groups were the most prominent. From this research, I chose three lobbyist groups in favor of hydraulic fracturing and three lobbyist groups opposed to hydraulic fracturing in order to give a broad enough set of arguments to encapsulate the field of rhetoric on both sides of the debate without including too much source text to make the project unmanageable. The selected groups in favor of hydraulic fracturing include American Petroleum Institute, America’s Natural Gas Alliance, and the Independent Petroleum Association of America. The opposition includes Frack Action, Shaleshock, and Earthworks. All six of these lobbying groups have websites readily available, and each website has a webpage which served as an introduction or overview of their arguments on hydraulic fracturing; these six “introductory” webpages served as the source texts for this project.
After reading through the six pages in order to develop an understanding of their arguments, the selection of important terms used in the rhetoric was necessary for the cluster analysis. Burke suggests that researchers select these important terms “almost without thinking,” (Bryson 288). From these important words, Rueckert suggests the key terms should be ascertained by selecting the terms that are of “high intensity or high frequency,” (Burke and the Drama of Human Relations, 84). Clustering these key terms, or charting the relationships of the key terms amongst themselves and other terms in the rhetoric, provides us an objective view of the rhetoric’s meaning. Furthermore, from comparing these clusters, the “god term” can be deduced; Weaver defines the god term as “expression about which all other expressions are ranked as subordinate and serving dominations and powers,” (Ethics of Rhetoric, 212). Burke similarly describes “God terms” as designating the “ultimate motivation” of their rhetorical frames (Grammar of Motives, 355). That is to say, in discovering the God term of a text, one also discovers the ultimate motivation of the author of that text.
To begin the process of selecting key terms, I first used the free online tool “Most Useful Words.” This tool gives a list of the words used on the webpages and lists them in descending order according to their frequencies. While many of the frequencies were already obvious after a cursory reading of the texts, the lists helped to shed light on the frequencies of some less expected terms as well as to compare and contrast the frequencies of words within and between the two different sides of the debate. As suggested by Burke, I then removed words from this list in order to be left with the important terms, the terms that I deemed appropriately relevant to the rhetoric. At this point, relying only on the frequency lists, I began to make initial inferences about the two different sets of rhetoric. Next, the key terms were selected by considering both the frequency and intensity of the remaining words. For the purposes of this paper I used Rueckert’s suggested definition for terms with intensity: “terms which are naturally charged, such as love, sex, society, or are particularly significant in a given author,” (BDHR, 84). The next step in the research consisted of looking at these key terms in their various contexts throughout their corresponding three webpages in order to discover their clusters, that is, the terms closely associated with them. Using the intensity and frequency of the terms, as well as the frequency with which they are linked to other key terms established the hierarchies of the key terms. From these hierarchies, the two God terms from either side of the debate were determined.
Results
The following are the lists of important terms investigated, listed by descending frequency, though not all of them turned out to be key terms.
As mentioned earlier, some of these did not turn out to be key terms; this is either because they lacked frequency or intensity, or they didn’t form clusters with other words. The lists do, however, provide a good idea of the range of terms present in the source texts. Due to the restrictions of space, I will limit the listed clustering results to the God terms and their closest key terms.
The God term for the lobbyist groups in favor of hydraulic fracturing is the economy (Figure 1). One of the most important associations of economy is with another key term, the environment. This association is not done directly, but by implying they are not mutually exclusive or opponents, for example: “Natural gas continues to be produced in harmony with the local environment. Communities should not have to choose between advancing their economic interests and safeguarding their natural resources,” (ANGA). Here, the environment is construed as natural resources that apparently do not include natural gas or oil. The most common association with natural gas being clean, and similarly the most common associations of hydraulic fracturing being regulations and safe, further asserts this lack of opposition between the economy and the environment.
|
Although economy often appears with its synonym, jobs, further emphasizing the importance of economy, the term jobs also serves to connect energy (a synonym for oil and gas) with economy (Figure 2). This can be observed in the statement “Natural gas is a clean…energy source that supports more than 2.8 million jobs across our country. It is a true game-changer that we can put to use now for our nation’s economy, environment and energy security,” (ANGA). Although a quick read might suggest that jobs are connected to the economy through their commonly associated term, natural gas, a close read shows that jobs is used to bridge natural gas and the economy.
|
The God term for the lobbyist groups opposed to hydraulic fracturing is health (Figure 3). Like economy, health is also related to the environment. However, instead of attempting to demonstrate that the environment and health aren’t opponents, the two terms are connected to show that health is actually dependent on the environment, more specifically through the key terms air and water. Air is connected to health through the key term pollutant in the statement “Air pollutants include volatile organic compounds…these provide a risk of cancer…and a host of other health issues,” (Frack Action). Likewise, the term water is connected to health through the key term chemicals, which is also closely associated with carcinogens in statements such as: “Water Contamination: The 500+ chemicals used in the fracking process are highly dangerous. They include known carcinogens like benzene and toluene,” (Frack Action). In both instances, with air and water, the negative connection to health is claimed to result in some way from hydraulic fracturing.
|
Discussion
While much of the results listed above may seem like they could be easily observed with out too much analysis, or going through the trouble of methodically charting out the clusters of the key terms, doing so ensures an objective set of results for further analysis to be based upon. As one might have suspected without even bothering to become cursorily informed on the debate, the main disagreement between the two sides of the debate is with regards to the environment. However, the disagreement doesn’t seem to stem from whether or not the environment should be valued. Rather, it is apparent that both sides believe, or at the least argue, that the environment should be valued; the pro-fracking side espousing the importance of safety, regulations and cleanliness and the anti-fracking side seemingly espousing the importance of the same things, except with the notion that minimum standards of safety, regulation and cleanliness are either not being met or are incompatible with fracking. One possible explanation for the disagreement then is a dispute over the facts surrounding these three key terms, rather than the value of the environment. Another possibility is that either one or both sides are not being straightforward about what they think is important in an effort to sway the support of more people to their side of the debate. While both of these may indeed be true to some degree for either or both sides of the debate, cluster analysis can be used to provide an interesting explanation.
With Weaver’s definition of god terms being the “expression[s] about which all other expressions are ranked as subordinate and serving dominations and powers” (Ethics of Rhetoric, 212), and Burke describing them as designating the “ultimate motivation” of their rhetorical frames (Grammar of Motives, 355), it is then apparent that on both sides of the fracking debate the key term environment is subordinate to the God term, be it economy or health. For Weaver, these god terms have a central role as “tyrannizing images” for the groups they are used within. That is, they serve as the “ideals of their own excellence,” emitting “magnetic lines of force,” (Visions of Order, 11) drawing everything towards itself for those who are part of the culture group—that is, in our case, those who identify as being in favor or in opposition to hydraulic fracturing. It is interesting to note that both of our God terms can be predicated on the notion of health: the health of the economy, or the health of human beings. Furthermore, economy can, from its common definition of the wealth and resources of a particular group, be considered to be a measurement of the ability of a particular group to attain health. Therefore, we can think of both economy and health as representations of Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia, the state or process of human flourishing—well-being—as defined by Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Under such a conception, that both economy and health are to serve as representations of human flourishing or well-being, it is easy to see how economy and health can exert a “magnetic pull” (Visions of Order, 11) on people.
That being said, economy and health are definitely not the same, even if they are both related to eudaimonia, and they definitely do not imply the same worldview when representing the “ultimate motivation” their rhetorical frames. Using the clusters of these God terms, it is apparent that those in favor of hydraulic fracturing, while appealing to the tangible concept of jobs, they are focusing on the more abstract, though not less real, concept of well-being within a particular economic system in which jobs and money are equated with the method of survival; on the other hand, those opposed to hydraulic fracturing are taking a more physical view of well-being when they correlate health with avoidance of carcinogens, radioactivity, and toxic chemicals. Of course, neither side denies the importance of the other’s God term; rather, they assert that the other side’s claims regarding the facts are not based in reality: “One of the biggest myths out there is that natural gas is a clean, transition fuel,” (Frack Action) versus “Modern technology is now unlocking vast supplies of clean natural gas-right here in America-that can power our nation for generations to come,” (ANGA). This type of explicit disagreement is not a rare example, but rampant throughout the rhetoric of both sides. While this could be chalked up to disagreement about the definitions of terms, Burke describes a concept of “terministic screens,” or how language “direct[s] the attention,” (Language as Symbolic Action, 45) which is useful in explaining why there is a disagreement about the definitions of terms between the two sides of the debate. Because of the importance of the God terms in shaping the “terministic screens,” it is these God terms, economy and health, that “direct the attention” of their groups in how they think about and define other words, and thus describe the world.
Perhaps just as interesting as the impact economy and health have on the rhetoric of the two sides, is what explicitly isn’t being said in the debate. As alluded earlier, an important aspect of the cluster of economy is the term money. However, except the rare mention of profits from tax or royalties, the lobbyist groups in favor of hydraulic fracturing do not mention money. Rather, money is imbedded in the notion of jobs in that hydraulic fracturing provides jobs that provide money. Economy is then equated with money in the sense that success in terms of economy also means making money. While Burke suggests that money is a “god-term” that can serve as “the unitary ground of all action,” (A Grammar of Motives, 110-12) I believe it is in this case also serving to form what Weaver calls an enthymeme or “syllogism with one of [its]…propositions missing,” (Ethics of Rhetoric, 173). That is, money is left out of the rhetorical syllogism because the audience will supply it if they also value it, but if the audience doesn’t value the missing proposition, it may be impossible to convince them of the syllogism anyway. Although money is indeed important for the concept of economy, money is also subject to some criticism, in that it is associated with greed and other societal problems. Perhaps this association with greed is the reason money is largely absent from the rhetoric of the lobbyist groups in favor of hydraulic fracturing. Similarly, while I initially expected to come across some appeals to the inherent value of nature, or implications of its sublime status, these were entirely absent from the rhetoric of those opposed to hydraulic fracturing. In fact, even the words “environment” or “nature” weren’t really used, except for their stand-ins air and water, and then only to note their impacts on human health. Perhaps, the lobbyist groups in opposition to hydraulic fracturing simply do not want to be taken as weak-minded or overly fond of nature, for fear this would dissuade others from joining their side. Or perhaps they sincerely do not assign nature inherent value; either way, those who already do assign nature such inherent value would not need the argument to be posed—again, forming an enthymeme. Both groups appear to be relying on enthymemes in order to not dissuade others from their side; instead of including words which some people might reject, they allow their audience to supply the concept on their own if they actually value it.
In this paper I have relied heavily on the works of Kenneth Burke and Richard Weaver in order to apply a cluster analysis to the topic of hydraulic fracturing. What appeared to be a straightforward disagreement about whether or not we should allow hydraulic fracturing, turned out with the closer inspection of cluster analysis to reveal a great deal about the world views of the two sides of the debate, and how those differing world views are the cause of the disagreement. Although such analysis may not apply to the speakers if the speakers are being dishonest in their claims, the analysis may still apply to those who nonetheless subscribe to either side of the debate based on the rhetoric analyzed. Possible future research on the topic includes expanding this project, beyond the six webpages, and further yet to include more lobbyist groups. Also, looking at the rhetoric of the government, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, on the topic of hydraulic fracturing could reveal if they effectively serve as a third actor in the debate or align with one of the sides discussed herein. Other possible actors to be investigated include blogs, news agencies, and academic journals.
Works Cited
"Aristotle's Ethics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2012.
Berthold, Carol A. “Kenneth Burke’s Cluster-Agon Method: Its Development and an Application.” The Central States Speech Journal 27.4 (1976): 302-309. Print.
Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1945. Print.
Burke, Kenneth. “Fact, Inference, and Proof in the Analysis of Literary Symbolism.” Symbols and Values: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium of the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, Columbia University, 2-5 September 1952. Ed. Lyman Bryson et al. New York: Harper & Brothers. 283-306. Print.
Burke, Kenneth. Language As Symbolic Language: Essays on Life, Literature and Method. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1966. Print.
"Drilling 101." Shaleshock.org. Shaleshock, n.d. Web. 5 November 2012.
"Hydraulic Fracturing 101." America's Natural Gas Alliance. ANGA, n.d. Web. 12 November 2012.
"Hydraulic Fracturing 101." Earthworks. Earthworks, n.d. Web. 8 November 2012.
"Hydraulic Fracturing: Energy Supply, the Economy, and the Environment." Energy in Depth. The Independent Petroleum Association of America, April 2008. Web. 29 October 2012. <http://www.energyindepth.org/PDF/Hydraulic-Fracturing-3-E's.pdf>.
"Most Useful Words" Computer software. Most Useful Words: Frequency Calculator. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 November 2012.
Rueckert, William H. Kenneth Burke and the Drama of Human Relations. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1963. Print.
"Shale Energy: 10 Points Everyone Should Know." Hydraulic Fracturing 10 Points. American Petroleum Institute, n.d. Web. 5 November 2012.
Weaver, Richard. The Ethics of Rhetoric. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1952. Print.
Weaver, Richard. Visions of Order. Wilmington: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995. Print
"What Is Fracking?" Frack Action. Frack Action, n.d. Web. 28 October 2012.
While much of the results listed above may seem like they could be easily observed with out too much analysis, or going through the trouble of methodically charting out the clusters of the key terms, doing so ensures an objective set of results for further analysis to be based upon. As one might have suspected without even bothering to become cursorily informed on the debate, the main disagreement between the two sides of the debate is with regards to the environment. However, the disagreement doesn’t seem to stem from whether or not the environment should be valued. Rather, it is apparent that both sides believe, or at the least argue, that the environment should be valued; the pro-fracking side espousing the importance of safety, regulations and cleanliness and the anti-fracking side seemingly espousing the importance of the same things, except with the notion that minimum standards of safety, regulation and cleanliness are either not being met or are incompatible with fracking. One possible explanation for the disagreement then is a dispute over the facts surrounding these three key terms, rather than the value of the environment. Another possibility is that either one or both sides are not being straightforward about what they think is important in an effort to sway the support of more people to their side of the debate. While both of these may indeed be true to some degree for either or both sides of the debate, cluster analysis can be used to provide an interesting explanation.
With Weaver’s definition of god terms being the “expression[s] about which all other expressions are ranked as subordinate and serving dominations and powers” (Ethics of Rhetoric, 212), and Burke describing them as designating the “ultimate motivation” of their rhetorical frames (Grammar of Motives, 355), it is then apparent that on both sides of the fracking debate the key term environment is subordinate to the God term, be it economy or health. For Weaver, these god terms have a central role as “tyrannizing images” for the groups they are used within. That is, they serve as the “ideals of their own excellence,” emitting “magnetic lines of force,” (Visions of Order, 11) drawing everything towards itself for those who are part of the culture group—that is, in our case, those who identify as being in favor or in opposition to hydraulic fracturing. It is interesting to note that both of our God terms can be predicated on the notion of health: the health of the economy, or the health of human beings. Furthermore, economy can, from its common definition of the wealth and resources of a particular group, be considered to be a measurement of the ability of a particular group to attain health. Therefore, we can think of both economy and health as representations of Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia, the state or process of human flourishing—well-being—as defined by Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Under such a conception, that both economy and health are to serve as representations of human flourishing or well-being, it is easy to see how economy and health can exert a “magnetic pull” (Visions of Order, 11) on people.
That being said, economy and health are definitely not the same, even if they are both related to eudaimonia, and they definitely do not imply the same worldview when representing the “ultimate motivation” their rhetorical frames. Using the clusters of these God terms, it is apparent that those in favor of hydraulic fracturing, while appealing to the tangible concept of jobs, they are focusing on the more abstract, though not less real, concept of well-being within a particular economic system in which jobs and money are equated with the method of survival; on the other hand, those opposed to hydraulic fracturing are taking a more physical view of well-being when they correlate health with avoidance of carcinogens, radioactivity, and toxic chemicals. Of course, neither side denies the importance of the other’s God term; rather, they assert that the other side’s claims regarding the facts are not based in reality: “One of the biggest myths out there is that natural gas is a clean, transition fuel,” (Frack Action) versus “Modern technology is now unlocking vast supplies of clean natural gas-right here in America-that can power our nation for generations to come,” (ANGA). This type of explicit disagreement is not a rare example, but rampant throughout the rhetoric of both sides. While this could be chalked up to disagreement about the definitions of terms, Burke describes a concept of “terministic screens,” or how language “direct[s] the attention,” (Language as Symbolic Action, 45) which is useful in explaining why there is a disagreement about the definitions of terms between the two sides of the debate. Because of the importance of the God terms in shaping the “terministic screens,” it is these God terms, economy and health, that “direct the attention” of their groups in how they think about and define other words, and thus describe the world.
Perhaps just as interesting as the impact economy and health have on the rhetoric of the two sides, is what explicitly isn’t being said in the debate. As alluded earlier, an important aspect of the cluster of economy is the term money. However, except the rare mention of profits from tax or royalties, the lobbyist groups in favor of hydraulic fracturing do not mention money. Rather, money is imbedded in the notion of jobs in that hydraulic fracturing provides jobs that provide money. Economy is then equated with money in the sense that success in terms of economy also means making money. While Burke suggests that money is a “god-term” that can serve as “the unitary ground of all action,” (A Grammar of Motives, 110-12) I believe it is in this case also serving to form what Weaver calls an enthymeme or “syllogism with one of [its]…propositions missing,” (Ethics of Rhetoric, 173). That is, money is left out of the rhetorical syllogism because the audience will supply it if they also value it, but if the audience doesn’t value the missing proposition, it may be impossible to convince them of the syllogism anyway. Although money is indeed important for the concept of economy, money is also subject to some criticism, in that it is associated with greed and other societal problems. Perhaps this association with greed is the reason money is largely absent from the rhetoric of the lobbyist groups in favor of hydraulic fracturing. Similarly, while I initially expected to come across some appeals to the inherent value of nature, or implications of its sublime status, these were entirely absent from the rhetoric of those opposed to hydraulic fracturing. In fact, even the words “environment” or “nature” weren’t really used, except for their stand-ins air and water, and then only to note their impacts on human health. Perhaps, the lobbyist groups in opposition to hydraulic fracturing simply do not want to be taken as weak-minded or overly fond of nature, for fear this would dissuade others from joining their side. Or perhaps they sincerely do not assign nature inherent value; either way, those who already do assign nature such inherent value would not need the argument to be posed—again, forming an enthymeme. Both groups appear to be relying on enthymemes in order to not dissuade others from their side; instead of including words which some people might reject, they allow their audience to supply the concept on their own if they actually value it.
In this paper I have relied heavily on the works of Kenneth Burke and Richard Weaver in order to apply a cluster analysis to the topic of hydraulic fracturing. What appeared to be a straightforward disagreement about whether or not we should allow hydraulic fracturing, turned out with the closer inspection of cluster analysis to reveal a great deal about the world views of the two sides of the debate, and how those differing world views are the cause of the disagreement. Although such analysis may not apply to the speakers if the speakers are being dishonest in their claims, the analysis may still apply to those who nonetheless subscribe to either side of the debate based on the rhetoric analyzed. Possible future research on the topic includes expanding this project, beyond the six webpages, and further yet to include more lobbyist groups. Also, looking at the rhetoric of the government, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, on the topic of hydraulic fracturing could reveal if they effectively serve as a third actor in the debate or align with one of the sides discussed herein. Other possible actors to be investigated include blogs, news agencies, and academic journals.
Works Cited
"Aristotle's Ethics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2012.
Berthold, Carol A. “Kenneth Burke’s Cluster-Agon Method: Its Development and an Application.” The Central States Speech Journal 27.4 (1976): 302-309. Print.
Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1945. Print.
Burke, Kenneth. “Fact, Inference, and Proof in the Analysis of Literary Symbolism.” Symbols and Values: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium of the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, Columbia University, 2-5 September 1952. Ed. Lyman Bryson et al. New York: Harper & Brothers. 283-306. Print.
Burke, Kenneth. Language As Symbolic Language: Essays on Life, Literature and Method. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1966. Print.
"Drilling 101." Shaleshock.org. Shaleshock, n.d. Web. 5 November 2012.
"Hydraulic Fracturing 101." America's Natural Gas Alliance. ANGA, n.d. Web. 12 November 2012.
"Hydraulic Fracturing 101." Earthworks. Earthworks, n.d. Web. 8 November 2012.
"Hydraulic Fracturing: Energy Supply, the Economy, and the Environment." Energy in Depth. The Independent Petroleum Association of America, April 2008. Web. 29 October 2012. <http://www.energyindepth.org/PDF/Hydraulic-Fracturing-3-E's.pdf>.
"Most Useful Words" Computer software. Most Useful Words: Frequency Calculator. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 November 2012.
Rueckert, William H. Kenneth Burke and the Drama of Human Relations. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1963. Print.
"Shale Energy: 10 Points Everyone Should Know." Hydraulic Fracturing 10 Points. American Petroleum Institute, n.d. Web. 5 November 2012.
Weaver, Richard. The Ethics of Rhetoric. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1952. Print.
Weaver, Richard. Visions of Order. Wilmington: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995. Print
"What Is Fracking?" Frack Action. Frack Action, n.d. Web. 28 October 2012.
|
|