THE TERMINISTIC SCREEN OF SOCIO-CULTURAL HERITAGE

Charles Stephen Craun

It has been established that words are the symbolic representations of subjective

interpretation, built from experiences in the natural world, which are given substance through the

way in which the subjective system of internalized signification evaluates and interprets personal

experience. The interpretation of personal experience is also moderated in relation to the

interpretation of related experiences of others, which is communicated through the language they

use. The meaning determined to be within words, and subsequently in the greater sign system of

language, is determined by the manner in which an individual’s internalized system of signification

functions in respect to the conditions and conventions of a subjectively perceived reality. The

similarities among perceived conditions of existence in a particular society or sphere of influence

encourage the development of different forms of socio-cultural systems through which a sense of

individual and collective identify is both built and constructed in a constantly shifting network of

actions and reactions. In this analysis it will be observed that the influence of socio-cultural heritage

may act as a form of terministic screen which influences the interpretation of language, and by

extension reality as a whole, by altering the processes of the systems of internalized signification

through which subjective meaning is provided for words as symbolic representations of reality

within the collective sign system of language. Through this analysis it will be demonstrated how the

influence of socio-cultural heritage acts as a terministic screen to mediate the use and interpretation

of language through developing institutionally enforced systems of classification, which function

upon principles of selection, exclusion and identification to mold the constraints within which the

systems of subjective internalized signification are limited to interpret and represent reality through

language.

In order to understand how the subjective meaning interpreted within language is altered

through the over-arching terministic screen produced by the influence of socio-cultural identity, it is

first necessary to understand how this system of conventions of which “shift the attention”(burke) is

formed and functions through and within a collective and individualistic sense of identity. Burke

frames his theory of terministic screens upon the principle of language as a form of “symbolic

action” which represents perceived realities from and through the use of language as a tool of

communication. Burke proposes the theory of the terministic screen as a fundamental principle to

outline the ways in which the systems of internalized signification through which language is given

variable meanings and connotations are influenced through exposure to variable conditions of

existence and forms of interior and exterior influence. The theory of a form of archetypal terministic

screen of which I am attempting to illustrate through the influence of socio-cultural heritage may be

more adequately illustrated to represent the dynamic impact of which it exerts upon the perception

of reality by slightly altering Burke’s notion of “shifting the attention” to “shifting the perspective”,

to reflect how the perception of reality itself is moderated through these systems of signification. “If

any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as terminology it must be a

selection of reality, and to this extent it must also function as a deflection of reality” (Burke). These

systems of reflecting and deflecting reality operate through observing varying structures of

classification, which have been conditioned into existence through variable exposure of the members

of a cultural or national identity to variable conditions of existence in the natural world.

Burke describes words within language as being “symbolic actions” which are formed to

represent “selections” and “deflections” of reality, but it also important to understand how images and

actions themselves are granted different shades of context and symbolic value determined through the

socio-cultural context of perception in which the observer exists. “Behavior must be observed through

one or another kind of terministic screen that directs the attention in keeping with its nature” (Burke).

Burke illustrates this idea to demonstrate how the cultural heritage of socio-political relationships

within a particular sphere of influence function to ascribe internalized cultural and moral values and

connotations which produce varying interpretations of the action or image which is observed. An

example of how this variation in socio-cultural value system attributes to the variation in the

interpretation of an action or image, and can be witnessed to act upon and through both the

microcosmic scale of personal interaction and the macrocosmic scale of the global community, would

be to observe variations in the interpretation of globally influential images or actions. The terrorist

attacks of September 11th, 20011 provide a perfect example through which we may witness how the

variations in value systems produce variations of value based interpretations, and this can

demonstrated by selecting a particular image from this event and observing the ways in which the

response to or critique of the image varies. In the instance of “Satan in the Smoke”, an image bearing

similarities to a face which was captured in the smoke of the world trade center and considered to be

one of the most widely circulated images from the 9/11 tradedegy, the varying ways in which “the face”

in the smoke was interpreted indicate the influence of various different socio-cultural value systems

working to mediate and construct meaning within a symbolic image. The “face” seen in the smoke was

interpreted in a multitude of ways which were described by different Individuals as being

representative of anything from “Satan” or a “businessman” to that of “That Afghan Whacko”, which

may serve as a testament to how the subjective interpretation of various forms of socio-cultural screens

produce a myriad of differing meanings within the interpretation and use of language as a tool of

communication. Language both mediates the existence of reality through conditioned forms of

symbolic representation and attempts to communicate the constraints of its communicative capability

by the nature of the language used. “Many of the observations are but implications of the particular

terminology in terms of which the observations were made” (Burke). but The differences within the

interpretation of this image reflects the influence of which subjective value systems have on the

interpretation of reality through demonstrating the manners in which these subjective value

systems have formed judgments of the actions themselves.

The theory of the terministic screen provides the structure through which the influences

mediating the interpretation of meaning within language, and as an extension mediating the

interpretation of reality itself, can be observed to function as symbolic representations of a perceived

reality of similar conditions. However, if language is considered to be a symbolic representation of a

subjective interpretation of reality, which is constantly modified through the selections and deflection

of certain elements of the natural world, then it seems logical to assume that there is a system which

acts to moderate the nature of the selection and deflection and to establish constraints of use and

interpretation of language within a particular sphere of existence. The linguistic theorist Michael

Foucault illustrates this point “In every society, the discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized

and redistributed according to a certain number of procedures” which serve to moderate the extent to

which language can be employed within a certain socio-cultural sphere of influence. This system of

classification, through which language is granted meaning within a certain socio-cultural frame of

context, is constituted primarily through the process of active exclusion, which is institutionally

developed and supported to encourage a limited comprehension of the true nature of reality. “In

appearance, speech may well be of little account, but the prohibitions surrounding it soon reveal its

links with desire and power” (Foucault) These systems of prohibition and exclusion are institutionally

inbred as tools of control and include the systems which prohibit the use of language, the systems which

establish the perceived distinction between reason and madness, and the systems which define the

limits of knowledge. The prohibition of language has already been mentioned as operating through

allowing only certain words or forms of language to be seen or used in legitimate or socially effective

ways by certain individuals who are considered to have the authority to speak with prohibited

language, such as priests in ritualistic practice, and the remaining two elements of this system of

exclusion further serve to mediate the meaning within language by determining the finite constraining

forms that language must assume to be granted value in socio-cultural discourse, and by adhering to

the historically conditioned systematic construction of definite and measurable substance within

language. “A will to knowledge emerged which, anticipating its present content, sketched out a schema

of possible, observable, measurable and classifiable objects”(Foucault) and this “schema” has

“prescribed the technological level at which knowledge could be employed in order to be verifiable and

useful”.

Of these systems of exclusion and prohibition which govern the form and function of language

accordance with the particular socio-cultural environment in which is employed, Foucault believes that

the “will to truth” to be the most influential due to its ability to influence the alternating relationship

between the prohibition of language and accepted forms of discourse. Foucault describes the

relationship between the will to truth and reality as being “A will to knowledge imposed upon the

knowing subject, in some ways taking precedence over all experience, a certain viewpoint and a certain

function”(Foucault)The will truth not only restricts the use of language to a system of prescribed

definitions, it also limits the observation of reality by limiting the way in which reality may be observed

to exist through imposing an established base of criteria within which the natural world must be

observed and understood.

Perhaps the best way that the influences of this socio-cultural terministic screen may be

observed to influence the interpretation of language is through observing how the systems of

identification and exclusion can be used in conjunction with each other to remediate the process of

subjective internalized signification of language on a socio-cultural level. The ways in which this

remediated process of signification operates to remediate the perceptions of reality can be observed to

have an ultimate and dynamic effect in such cases as Burke’s “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle”. In his

article, Burke describes how Hitler rose to prominence as an orator because of his ability to manipulate

socio-cultural values through directed distortions of symbolic language, and through these distortions

he was able to encourage unity among the German society while providing a means by which to justify

the monstrous acts he would soon encourage. An example of how Hitler was effectively able to alter the

process of signification to produce distorted interpretations of socio-cultural values which redefined

the nature of socio-cultural relationships is easily observed in the ways in which the “international

devil” of the Jewish character was established in Hitler’s ideology as the antithesis of the German “men

who can unite on nothing else can unite on the basis of a common enemy” (Burke). Hitler constructed

the common enemy of the Jew as a material manifestation of every aspect of German society which was

considered to be faulty or fundamentally opposed to the progress of Germany, and therefore he was

able to project the perceptions of the secular uncertainties of the German public upon the single

persona of the Jewish character as “medicine for then Aryan in the projective device of

scapegoat”(Burke) It is also described how Hitler possessed a mastery of both concealing and justifying

the true intentions within the words he used by using “tricks of association” and identification to

express a plurality of meaning within socio-cultural words of symbolic value, or through appealing to a

commonly acknowledged symbol of virtue, such as his appeal to the Christian value structures in his

claim “I am acting in the sense of the almighty creator.”(Burke) Such conflicting forms of meaning

within words were constructed to align the socio-cultural identities and beliefs of the German public

with the ideology of a delusional tyrant to ensure unity among his conception society “As a whole, and

at all times, the efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in the division of attention of a

people, and almost always in concentrating it on a single enemy”(Burke) Hitler manipulated the

interpretation of language to a point in which a distinct plurality between the interpretation of

language and the world it was constructed to represent produced a fragmented sense of reality which

allowed language to mediate the orientation to and relationship between the context of socio-cultural

experience, Although the extent of the influence to which our interpretation of language through a

particular terministic screen of socio-cultural heritage isn’t as extreme as the gravity of influence of

which Hitler exercised in his dominion over German society, it is still absolutely necessary to consider

the possibility of such extremes when regarding our own muddled interpretation of language.

Beyond the monstrosities committed by Nazi Germany, and motivated by the distortions of

meaning and substitutions of value within Hitler’s use of symbolic language, it is absolutely necessary

to recognize the presence of similar forms of socio-culturally mediated and manipulated connotations

of value within the symbolic element of language. We use and observe forms of socio-culturally

mediated symbolic speech on a daily basis to form and represent a sense of socio-cultural or moral

identity, based on the premise of established forms of social or moral values, through which we identify

with other members of comparable belief structures. Killingsworth describes these uses of language in

his essay “Appeal through Tropes” as ways of thinking which function through patterns of “appeal” or

identification through perceived similarities and differences. The use of these patterns of appeal can be

applied to virtually every manner in which language is used as a tool of communication and beyond to

apply to the form and function of the conventional concept of knowledge. “All forms of knowledge and

even the conventional uses of language are built upon a universal foundation of wordplay and

configuration” (Killingsworth). The trope is used within the socio-cultural context to provide the means

through which identification structures can “connect the abstract to the concrete” of an interpreted

context of existence, and therefore tropes can form the bridge which unifies the principles of

socio-cultural values with the personal life of the individual One particular form of trope which is

attributed to this sort of unification is the metaphor, which is credited with providing the fundamental

link between the world and the body, and therefore allows for a personal appeal to individual character

in the process of forming identification. “the foundations for recognizing similarity and contiguity are

fundamental to human thinking, and that metaphor and metonymy form the types of poles of linguistic

practice”(killingsworth)

Metaphor functions as a way of thinking by connecting aspects of the world or a particular

socio-cultural sphere with others previously thought unrelated through the process of identification of

“common ground” The form of the metonymy is important to note because it functions on the principle

of relating associated elements through habitual associations, but these associations lack any necessary

shared traits of which to be identified with and therefore function on the principle substitution. The

evidence of such principle of substitution that functions within contemporary society is the association

of crime with racial minorities. The trope of irony is the one which is most influential in determining

the nature of relationships between varying screens of socio-cultural identity, because it actively

participates in the construction and function of systems of personification to at once encourage unity

and disunity among members of a society “The ironic appeal involving as it does the development and

maintence of communal relationships proves extremely important in the destabilized ever-shifting

social relations of modern times” It is easy to see how such influences as that of the “ironic appeal”

shape and alter our perceptions of socio-cultural identity through constructing conditions of similarity

and difference through which we may perceive ourselves as similar or different from one another, but

these ways of thinking are often manipulated and shift in the context of social relations, If we observe

how Hitler constructed the “international devil” of the Jewish character through the use of this system

to unify the fragmented segments of German public into an individual persona aligned with himself

against the “them” persona of the foreign and sinister “Jewish devil”.

As the ways of thinking which are outlined in the theory of tropes are conditioned within a

particular socio-cultural perspective and form part of a traditional perspective, they become more than

merely “ways of thinking”, they become ways of creating and altering perceived reality through

inscribing these qualities of difference as fixed and finite categories through which reality becomes

interpreted. Gates Jr., in the article “Writing Race” describes how the systems of language reflect

socio-economic interest of the cultures in which they exist “the current language use signifies the

differences between cultures and their possession of power, spelling out the distance between the

subordinate and the superordinate”(Gates Jr.). Gates states that languages develop “simultaneously”

with the economic structure of a society, and for this reason gates states that “literacy is the emblem

which links racial alienation with economic alienation” The link between language and economics is a

reflection of the larger system of socio-economic relationships between socio-cultural identities, and the

tendency of the economically superior “superordinate” identity to assume the responsibility of

providing the subordinate with a form of cultural identity within their own hierarchy of existence is

one that is practiced through the projection of the economic inferiority of the subordinate culture to

observable characteristics of the people who compose this culture in a process of classification. This

projection of inferiority aids in the creation of new form of racial and socio-cultural identity, of which

is an element within “a chain of origins designed to sanction through mythology a political order

created by Europeans” it is fairly obvious how the influence of contrasting forms of socio-cultural

identity interact through the socio-political influence to assume roles of subordinate and superordinate

within society as a whole. Through the imposition of identity upon the subordinate role through the

social structure of the superordinate role, we may witness how discrimination of racial or cultural

orientation, which has no necessary natural or biological foundation, can become immortalized within

the tradition of socio-cultural identity, such as the particularly nasty connotations which can

accompany the description of another socio-cultural identity’s characteristics (such as negative racial

connotations surrounding Latino and Mexican citizens who are perceived as little more than cheap

migrant labor. We can observe our contemporary culture has “written” race by observing the

relationship that the United States maintains with the Islamic people and cultures throughout the

world, and how this relationship is reflected through the conditioned perception of the people who

remain aligned strictly with their fundamental socio-cultural reality. Because of the 9/11 attacks being

perpetrated by “Muslim extremists”, our culture has been conditioned to equate the idea of “Muslim

with “terrorist”, and therefore we have inscribed this prejudice into reality through over a decade of

“war on terror” in the middle east.

It is important to understand how the shifting relationships between these socio-cultural screens

of interpretation mediate the differences in the interpretation of language because we create and

interpret the world through the use of language and it should become necessary to use it in the most

clear and mutually understood way possible to encourage the building of prosperous relationships

between members of different socio-cultural structures. If the ultimate goal of language as a system of

signs is to be a tool of communication, then it must also become necessary to engage in a form of

reversing the process of socio-cultural conditioning through which we are mutually subjected to and

immersed within as members of human civilization. We must begin a process of unlearning the

constraints of our own personal socio-cultural systems of terministic screens in order to adequately

interpret the way in which others use language from an unbiased unfiltered perspective.

Works Cited

Burke, Kenneth. “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle’.” In The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action, Third Edition. Berkeley: U of California P, 1973. 191-220.

Burke, Kenneth. “Terministic Screens.” In Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966. 44-62.

Foucault, Michael “The Discourse on Language” Social Science Information. April 1971. 7-30 Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. “Writing ‘Race’ and the Difference It Makes.” Critical Inquiry 12.1 (1985): 1-20. JSTOR.

Killingsworth, M. Jimmie. “Appeal Through Tropes.” Appeals in Modern Rhetoric: An

Ordinary-Language Approach. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2005. 121-135