Identification

Author: Joe Collins

In the rhetorical realm, identification refers to any means by which a speaker or writer may establish a shared sense of values, attitudes, and interests with an audience (Nordquist, 2017). Individuals strive to identify with one another in order to exist as more than purely individuals. We seek to share experiences, ideas, and relationships with those around us in order to relate and obtain a connection with other people. Identification in rhetoric allows writers and speakers to connect to their readers and listeners and vice versa, and aids the primary function of rhetoric which is to “find the available means of persuasion in any given case” (Atwill, et. al., 1993). Identification occurs in every form of communication, whether it be literature, media, public speaking, or interpersonal communication. The desire to identify is one of the most prominent conscious and subconscious desires people have, and that desire translates over to rhetoric and communications as well.

The word “identification” originates in Medieval Latin in the 1640s, from the verb “identificare.” The original meaning of the word was “treating of a thing as the same as another; act of making or proving to be the same” (Online Etymology Dictionary, 2019). Then, in 1857, the word began to take on a psychological sense of “becoming or feeling oneself as one with another” (OED, 2019). In the mid-twentieth century, it began to take on the meaning of a physical object that represents identity, such as an identification card. One can see through the origins of this word the meaning and importance it has taken in the rhetorical world.

There still remains the degree of caring that is evident in the original Latin verb, “identificare,” as the attempt to relate with an audience indicates a shared caring for what interests each other. Even the physical denotation can provide a window as to how particular interests or experiences identify us, and some are bound to overlap which allows for connections to be made. The combination of the physical and psychological impressions of the term are what manifest themselves in the rhetorical realm. Identification looks to unify groups or individuals to bridge the gaps created by our uniqueness and individuality. Nevertheless, it is in the very nature of the term that while some groups become unified, others are divided or isolated. For example, identifying with people who come from the same place will also isolate those who do not. In rhetoric, we must be aware that no singular thing can link the entirety of people; therefore, we utilize many factors of identification.

Kenneth Burke is revered as one of the fathers of modern rhetoric, and he devoted much of his work to defining and classifying identification in rhetoric. Burke was the first to use the term “identification” in a rhetorical sense (Nordquist, 2017). In his 1950 work A Rhetoric of Motives, Burke took a long look at identifications role in rhetoric and how it manifested. He continues the tradition that rhetoric is the art of persuasion, but adds that the act and/or desire to identify with the audience aids in the aspired persuasion. To frame his ideology, he begins with describing human beings as totally separate. We are all born and live separately and live as separate individuals, but look to identify with one another and form groups defined by either beliefs, mentalities, ideals, or experiences. Burke states that “identification is compensatory to division,” implying that in a good-natured manner the act of identifying with one another allows us to coexist on a more intimate level (Wollin, 2001, p. 177).

After  providing his framework, Burke outlined why we have the desire to identify and be identified with, primarily in the rhetorical realm. An audience may be able to identify with the speaker’s interests, allowing them to be a voice for the group. Nevertheless, if the interests are not the same, the speaker may be able to identify with his or her audience regarding another topic. The identification in this case would then allow for even the slightest connection between speaker and audience, which will then open the possibility of greater association and aid the art of persuasion. Regardless of the method or technique, any attempt to identify presents itself as a valid one, because any identification of interests will establish a rapport between the speaker and his or her audience (Wollin, 2001).

Scholars of rhetoric have continues to build on Burke’s theory of identification, establishing many strategies that an orator may utilize in order to achieve identification with an audience; one such option is the use of metaphors. Metaphors are not only useful methods of achieving identification, they are prime examples of how identification manifests. Metaphors bring together seemingly unlike things in order to facilitate understanding and make something abstract appear tangible (Killingsworth, 2005). In the same way that identification bridges the singularity of humans, metaphors bridge the gaps between concepts and understanding. While metaphors themselves act as a metaphor for identification, they are also a useful tool while trying to identify. Metaphors offer another perspective from a certain viewpoint, as they can show the similarities between two seemingly unrelated positions. For example, if students in a class are worried about being assessed, a teacher can offer the perspective that he or she is assessed by the administration same as the class is graded by him or her. A simple metaphor and comparison can not only make the teacher more relatable to the class, but alleviate tension and perceived one-sidedness from the setting. Metaphors are just one tool used in the theory of identification.

Burke’s emphasis on identification has been examined and commented on since he wrote A Rhetoric of Motives, and many have agreed with the importance of identification. In 2001, Ross Wolin wrote The Rhetorical Imagination of Kenneth Burke, and in it, he describes with grave consequence the importance of the desire to identify. He writes:

The overall thrust of 'Identify, Identification' is that a person's identification with 'manifestations beyond himself' is natural and reflects our fundamentally social, political, and historical makeup. Attempts to deny this and 'eradicate' identification as a positive concept for understanding human nature are folly and perhaps even dangerous, Burke warns. (Wolin, 2001, p. 93)

Wolin agrees that our desire to identify is a natural desire that manifests in every interpersonal aspect of life. He continues to address the inverse, which would be to reject attempts to identify. Self-serving rhetoric and interests not only rarely fulfill the purpose of persuasion, but tend to lead to a degree of hostility. Burke’s framing of the lack of identification introduces several challenges as to how we understand the keyword. It raises the questions of what could be dangerous about it and what would attempts to deny identification look like? The contrast rhetoric he addresses would be called confrontational rhetoric.

Confrontational rhetoric would be arguments and other strategies of persuasion that “directly challenge the authority of an opponent” (Nordquist, 2017). While identification may inherently isolate some people, confrontational rhetorics main objective is to do so. This type of rhetoric may manifest itself in the political realm, by isolating certain groups or people by either outwardly speaking against them or failing to mention them at all, making them seem nonexistent. This rhetoric constitutes another type of persuasion, but the speaker would lose all the benefits that Burke reveals through the theory of identification. Furthermore, the results of confrontational rhetoric may in fact persuade people to join together, but poses threats of mass action and violence. These are the dangers that Burke brings to light and Wolin echoes.

On the other hand, the benefits of identification in rhetoric would be beneficial for all parties involved. In the context of an organization, identification has been shown to positively impact attitudes and performance (Whetten and Godfrey, 1998, p. 185). Also, if workers identify with the organization, they are more likely to think and act in ways that consider organizational beliefs and values (Whetten and Godfrey, 1998, p. 185). These effects can be translated into any setting, where complimentary benefits are yielded through identification.

The concept of identifying with one another has always been an innate human desire, aptly named for centuries, and appropriately described in the rhetorical realm for decades. Kenneth Burke did much of the work to bring such a theory to the surface, but many others have added and cemented the idea of identifying as a crucial one to any rhetorical strategy. There are many ways in which to identify, and many of them lead to proper and improved rhetoric. Ultimately, people feel connected when they can identify, and we have a desire to be connected. In rhetoric, identifying with your speaker furthers the goals of rhetoric and can offer an insight into what methods of communication are most effective.

See Also: Ethos, Identity, Network

Works Cited

Atwill, Janet M., Kennedy, George A., “On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 44, no. 1, 1993, p. 93., doi:10.2307/358900.

Identification (n.). (n.d.). (2019) Retrieved from https://www.etymonline.com/word/identification

Killingsworth, M. J. (2005). Appeals in modern rhetoric: An ordinary-language approach. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Nordquist, R. (2017, March 06). The Characteristics of Confrontational Rhetoric. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-confrontational-rhetoric-1689787

Nordquist, R. (2017, April 30). The Rhetorical Strategy of Identification. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/identification-rhetoric-term-1691142

Whetten, D. A., & Godfrey, P. C. (1998). Identity in organizations building theory through conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wolin, R. (2001). The rhetorical imagination of Kenneth Burke. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.