In emulation of Burke's method of dialectic, this paper has offered a Burkian dialectic of its own. The opposed perspectives in this dialectic--its "partial truths"--were Burke's humbly ironic comic frames counterposed against the need to stand up against perceived injustice. Its reconciliative dialectical move was the recognition that outrage needn't be a primitive emotion, a knee-jerk response consistent with an oversimplistic, melodramatic view of the world. It could be a consequence of careful inquiry and mature judgment, and it could be expressed in ways serviceable to self and society. Murray Ringold's impassioned debunking of Nixon's funeral was one embodiment of that. Burke's "economic psychoanalysts," including Burke himself, provide other exemplars.
I
expect that the major objections to this paper's argument will come from two
opposed directions. Camp One will insist that the causes of "true"
justice require melodrama; it is the poetics of the masses; that which mobilizes
and energizes when action is needed and time is short. Oppose melodrama and you
might as well oppose the daily doses of melodrama that got us into World War II
and kept us in the battle during periods of great sacrifice. Oppose melodrama
and you might as well have opposed the civil rights movement, for it too enacted
on a daily basis a simplistic drama of good versus evil.
Camp Two might well maintain that my case for action in
the name of warrantable outrage, as opposed to primitive rage, remains
hopelessly vague about what a comically corrected outrage entails and thus
provides rhetorical rationale for just about any action by any group that can
claim to have first engaged in "self-examination." No doubt those who
staged or subsequently supported the Stalin-engineered show trials could claim
retrospectively to have conscientiously applied Burke's comic correctives but
were caught up by the hysteria of the times.
Neither
of these objections, however, undo the problems of melodrama or, by contrast,
the problems of inaction born of the assumption that moral outrage of every kind
is primal, primitive, and therefore in need of conversion into humble irony.
Those of us on the left who value Burke's comedic approach still need to be
asking: "After Humble Irony, Then What?"