A Dialectical Study of the Formalist Character of Kenneth Burke's Critical Theory and Practice

162 p.Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1983.This study challenged the conventional view that Kenneth Burke and the New Critics represent divergent approaches to the theory and practice of criticism. By using a telescoping dialectical method, this study unearthed considerable correspondence between Burke and the New Critics. Overall, this study found Burke to be more formalistic and the New Critics less formalistic than metacritical surveys typically suggest. Additionally, it found that viewing Burke as a formalist offered much insight into his theory and practice of criticism.Burke and the New Critics first were shown to share several key historical influences. From these influences this study traced the origins of significant points of coincidence between Burke and the New Critics: the concept of tradition, the primacy of intrinsic criticism, the need for relational analyses of texts, the reliance on rhetorical categories, and the tolerance for multiple interpretations. Burke's inclusion of extrinsic factors and his appeal to the unconscious remained sources of tension between him and the New Critics.Intensively reviewing the New Criticism's propositional content revealed further commonalities with Burke. Both parties claimed science was an inappropriate epistemological model for criticism, and both as well encountered difficulty in reconciling critical theory with critical practice. On the respective relations of experience and history to criticism, moreover, this study established that both parties agree on most central issues.By addressing the more specific questions of form and intention, additional congruence between the two parties was discovered. Both parties concurred that examining internal form was an enterprise based on logic, and that structure was best assessed by not dividing form from content. Burke remained at variance with the New Critics by holding that form can also be illumined by attending to extrinsic factors. Concerning intention, both parties evidenced an unexpected degree of similarity. Bringing Burke in line with the New Critics on the question of intention were two discoveries: the impracticability of the New Critics' anti-intentionalist stance, and the surprisingly formalistic nature of Burke's treatment of intention.U of I OnlyRestricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETD

A Dialectical Study of the Formalist Character of Kenneth Burke's Critical Theory and Practice

162 p.Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1983.This study challenged the conventional view that Kenneth Burke and the New Critics represent divergent approaches to the theory and practice of criticism. By using a telescoping dialectical method, this study unearthed considerable correspondence between Burke and the New Critics. Overall, this study found Burke to be more formalistic and the New Critics less formalistic than metacritical surveys typically suggest. Additionally, it found that viewing Burke as a formalist offered much insight into his theory and practice of criticism.Burke and the New Critics first were shown to share several key historical influences. From these influences this study traced the origins of significant points of coincidence between Burke and the New Critics: the concept of tradition, the primacy of intrinsic criticism, the need for relational analyses of texts, the reliance on rhetorical categories, and the tolerance for multiple interpretations. Burke's inclusion of extrinsic factors and his appeal to the unconscious remained sources of tension between him and the New Critics.Intensively reviewing the New Criticism's propositional content revealed further commonalities with Burke. Both parties claimed science was an inappropriate epistemological model for criticism, and both as well encountered difficulty in reconciling critical theory with critical practice. On the respective relations of experience and history to criticism, moreover, this study established that both parties agree on most central issues.By addressing the more specific questions of form and intention, additional congruence between the two parties was discovered. Both parties concurred that examining internal form was an enterprise based on logic, and that structure was best assessed by not dividing form from content. Burke remained at variance with the New Critics by holding that form can also be illumined by attending to extrinsic factors. Concerning intention, both parties evidenced an unexpected degree of similarity. Bringing Burke in line with the New Critics on the question of intention were two discoveries: the impracticability of the New Critics' anti-intentionalist stance, and the surprisingly formalistic nature of Burke's treatment of intention.U of I OnlyRestricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETD

Attachment, fear of intimacy and differentiation of self among clients in substance disorder treatment facilities

Attachment, fear of intimacy and differentiation of self were examined by means of self-report questionnaires in 158 volunteers, including 99 clients enrolled in addiction treatment programs. As expected, clients (who were undergoing treatment for alcoholism, heroin addiction, amphetamine/cocaine addiction or cannabis abuse) reported higher levels of insecure attachment and fear of intimacy, and lower levels of secure attachment and differentiation of self, compared to controls. Insecure attachment, high fear of intimacy and low self-differentiation appear to characterize clients enrolled in addiction treatment programs. Such characteristics may reflect a predisposition to substance problems, an effect of chronic substance problems, or conceivably both