Abstract
. . . it is the pause at the window, before descending into the street. (Burke, 1950: 294)
As readers of Organization, we are likely far from active war zones, from hearing the commands that drive violence or the rhetoric empowering those who give and follow orders. Instead, we’re immersed in carefully curated news narratives that turn us into passive onlookers. Through screens, we watch wars portrayed as either unavoidable or overly complex, filling us with frustration yet keeping us detached. Some may join anti-war campaigns, and others lose sleep over disturbing images, but each morning we return to our routines with little impact on those suffering. Imagine if we could truly resist, reimagine, and reshape our world by choosing the right words.
Decades before digital media would amplify them, Kenneth Burke contemplated many of these concerns. His extensive work influenced fields ranging from literature and sociology to media and organizational studies, and his foundational works—A Grammar of Motives (Burke, 1945), A Rhetoric of Motives (Burke, 1950), and Essays Toward a Symbolic of Motives (Burke, 2006)—remain crucial for scholars exploring the symbolic and communicative aspects of organizations. A Rhetoric of Motives, especially, remains one of New Rhetoric’s key texts, with its core concept, identification, widely embraced in organizational scholarship.
Published posthumously, The War of Words (Burke et al., 2018), evolved from a section of A Rhetoric of Motives into an unfinished standalone work before Burke’s death in 1993. Its core thesis is that all kinds of wars first break out on a linguistic front before turning into extra-verbal, physical tensions. Burke provides an account of enduring rhetorical “devices” prevalent in all aspects of our mediated individual and organizational lives. In so doing, he enables the reader to decode how these devices subversively shape public attitudes toward war often under the guise of peace.
Its enduring relevance emerges from the historical context of that original work: in the mid-1900s, America faced multiple intersecting challenges. Politically, the nation navigated cold and hot wars, with warfare anxiety dominating the public mood. Economically, Great Depression aftershocks lingered despite post-war growth, while technological advancement brought both opportunity and pressure. Socially, emerging activism prefigured future civil rights and feminist movements. This anxious backdrop inspired Burke to expand his analysis of war rhetoric into a separate volume.
The book consists of four chapters: two completed by Burke and two compiled by editors using his notes. The first and most detailed chapter, “The Devices,” examines rhetorical patterns in journalism, such as the Bland Strategy, Shrewd Simplicity, Undo by Overdoing, and others. Through many examples from everyday life to historical and literary accounts, Burke elaborates on how these devices subtly influence readers to adopt warlike attitudes, even under the guise of peace. The chapter’s second part presents a theory of these devices, linking their usage to motives and personalities of those using them.
Despite its title, Chapter 2—“Scientific Rhetoric”—is less about science and more about the “the typical rhetorical resources available to journalism and other mediums that deal in the distributing of information” (p. 43). These media are of paramount importance because most of the facts that we believe in and live by are not learned through direct experience, but through various forms of intermediaries. Specifically in the political sphere of life and with respect to matters such as war and peace, Burke insists that “reality is little more than the news” (p. 173). Burke’s fundamental insight here—that facts are most often mediated and interpretive, framed according to specific standards of judgment—is effectively that which would later be elaborated by Berger and Luckmann (1966) in The Social Construction of Reality. Burke, however, does not conflate facts with reports of those facts. For him, the mediated reports of facts that we receive are inescapably colored by media even at the level of the adopted terminology. But this does not imply that all reports are on an equal footing; some can be more biased and some less: Since the report must be given through the medium of terms, it automatically fixes the terms by which the reported event is to be defined. And by repeatedly featuring stories in terms having a common bias, the “scientific” organ (that is, the medium for purveying information) is indirectly contributing to the enforcement of the particular terminology which perpetuates this bias. (p. 171)
Burke does not discuss ways of reducing biases in interpretive mediation. Yet the problematique that he articulates is a core concern of much later work on practices of reflexivity, such as openly acknowledging and critically examining the presupposed standards of judgment in any type of reporting/representation (Cunliffe, 2003; Shadnam, 2023). Returning to Burke’s work would offer new insights for this literature as those reflexive practices can be viewed as rhetorical attempts in and of themselves.
Of particular relevance for organization scholars is the third chapter, “[Notes toward] The Rhetoric of Bureaucracy,” which addresses the pervasive influence of bureaucratic structures on human behavior. Burke introduces various rhetorical devices used within bureaucracies, such as “corporate boasting,” “face-saving,” and “scapegoating,” which are often employed to maintain order and protect individual interests within the system. A key concept in this chapter is that bureaucratic rhetoric turns the means of achieving a purpose into an end in themselves, often obscuring or even opposing the original intent (p. 237). This kind of thinking highlights the tension between individual motives and organizational goals, suggesting that bureaucracies can create a different order of motives that goes beyond mere utilitarian concerns.
Despite his critical view of bureaucracy, Burke also acknowledges its positive aspects, suggesting that the human interactions and conflicts within these systems can serve as a counterbalance to the dehumanizing effects of technology and rigid organizational structures. He concludes by proposing that a more reflective approach to bureaucracy could lead to a “milder traffic” than what is permitted by the current obsession with “technological power for its own sake” (p. 241). This perspective encourages readers to consider both the challenges and potential benefits of bureaucratic systems in shaping human motivation and social organization.
Chapter 4, “[Notes toward] The Rhetorical Situation,” expands from verbal to extraverbal elements. Burke likens the “essential rhetorical situation” to Hobbes’ war of all against all (p. 242). He examines how identity emerges from universal and distinct traits, critiquing American self-aggrandizement that equated Native American exploitation with “progress” (p. 254). This rhetoric, he argues, creates a materialistic culture.
The War of Words presents a deceptively simple insight: While wars may appear as the ultimate in consequentiality, intensity, and even materiality, they fundamentally stem from individuals being rhetorically guided toward specific mindsets and behaviors. Though many now recognize media’s biases, few can effectively identify and resist them. Burke’s unique contribution lies in his detailed taxonomy of rhetorical devices, enriched with examples that enable readers to detect these patterns. His framework remains critically relevant today, as social media amplifies our exposure to persuasive content. Through practical tools and careful analysis, Burke equips readers to decode their mediated reality in an increasingly complex age of disinformation.
Drawing on Burke’s analysis can meaningfully contribute to recent conversations in organizational scholarship that take the role of media and mediated reality seriously. For example, Beverungen et al. (2019) edited a special issue of Organization revolving around the question: “How can we begin to understand and explore this fundamental mediatedness of organization and its consequences?” (p. 622). However, one cannot find more than one passing reference to rhetoric in that entire special issue. Burke’s taxonomy of rhetorical devices provides researchers with a fruitful toolbox to draw out the patterns of symbolism in use in various cases of organizing. More importantly, Burke’s work can also contribute to our understanding and response capacity regarding the most pressing challenges of our time because war, genocide, climate change, inequality, and the like are all organizational phenomena underpinned by rhetoric.
Ultimately, The War of Words represents the pause at the window—a moment of reflection before engaging with the tumultuous world of politically driven social talk. It is the space where Burke invites us to consider the rhetorical “devices” in action before we descend into the “street” of talk and action.
