The
literary critic, Paul Hernardi, believes Burke has the answer to one of the
great questions of our time: how to deconstruct without at the same time
self-destructing? Hernardi's answer: Burke's humbly ironic comic frame.
Hernardi
links Burke's comic frame to his method of dialectics. Begin, says Burke, with a
perspective, a way of seeing, and take it to the end of the line. Then,
recognizing its limitations, juxtapose it against opposing perspectives--other
"partial truths," as he calls them. Then see if you can find a
perspective on perspectives -- a meta-perspective -- that honors the
"sub-certainties" of each, perhaps reconciling them in such a way that
what once seemed "apart from" now seems "a part of."
Operating dialectically in this way should help advance consideration of the
question. But keep in mind that the new, ironic perspective is itself but one
way of seeing, itself limited for that reason, itself in need of a comic
corrective. The method of dialectic is thus never-ending, and, indeed, Burke's
own theories have the quality of taking you near to the top of a mountain, only
to have you and him come tumbling down. Nothing is stable in Burke, nothing
foundational. Indeed, as I shall argue next, there is a problem with the comedic
frame, as Burke himself acknowledged.