Up the Yangtze and Burke

Up the Yangtze was fascinating to me for a variety of reasons, however, I think one of the most prominent of these was the simple fact that modern rural China is simply not depicted. It was interesting to see the rhetoric of the people as well. The main family depicted in the film really were fairly normal (at least by Western standards. As Gates mentioned in “Writing ‘Race’ and the Difference it Makes,” Western understandings of human “truths” may not be entirely accurate (Gates, ) I would propose that these are not entirely wrong either, but it should be noted regardless). The rhetoric used by the family about their situation is fascinating. I would propose that a lot of what they are saying falls under an imposed terministic screen. I’m not sure that this is really much different from terministic screen as it exists anyway, but I think it is more obvious how the screen is functioning and from where the screen is operating.

Burke’s conception of a terministic screen involves framing (“directs the attention in keeping with its nature” (Burke, 49)) both language and observation. Because language is one of the primary mediums for out understanding of reality (“our ‘Reality’ could not exist for us, were it not for our profound and inveterate involvement in symbol systems” (Burke, 48)), it has profound impacts on one’s ability to conceive of that reality. China, as a “socialist” country (the argument could also be made for communism, but this is not really not relevant), and more importantly an authoritative government, relies heavily upon the formation of reality, and thus upon the formation and control of terministic screens. You could see this in the movie when the poor people would speak in terms of the larger nation as if they did not really matter themselves. There was a kind of selflessness almost entirely nonexistent in American rhetoric. I guess I should note that to an extent this was fairly normal. The people were trying to make sense of a situation they could do nothing about. However, the very pathways for them to do this were nationally organized and far-removed. They said things like “I suppose it is good for the nation” but a Western individual might ask something like “this is good for the nation, but is it fair?”

I do not know enough about Chinese linguistic history to make any solid claim, but I would bet that the nationalistic lines in Chinese rhetoric would not have existed a hundred years ago. Thus, the rhetoric used by the modern Chinese must have been shaped and formed over time, supporting Burke’s claim that language is action. I think I should clarify and say also that language is action both in its development and in its ability to shape reality. It is not just the language of the family that is shaped by larger national government actions and culture, but also the way they decide to deal with their function. Thus, not only a linguistic screen, but the path to a loose worldview.