Fall 1991, 42/3, Pgs. 191-198

The "Lost" Passages of Permanence and Change

Edward Schiappa and Mary F. Keehner

Anyone interested in a thorough understanding of Kenneth Burke’s writings should be aware that the editions of Permanence and Change (hereafter PC) in print are different in nontrivial ways from the original version published in 1935. The purpose of this article is to identify the most important changes and to provide students of Burke with certain interesting passages from the original edition of PC concerning communism and capitalism that Burke himself cut from subsequent editions and printings. Clearly, Burke was a theorist in PC, but he also was a social critic actively participating in a fascinating era in American intellectual and political history. The "lost" passages, viewed as part of their original social context, are an indispensable part of a complete history of Burkean thought and praxis.

The most recent edition of PC includes nearly 113 pages that have been added since 1935. The following summary of the various editions of PC lists the transformations of the text:

1. The original edition was published by New Republic Books in 1935. The book sold for one dollar as part of a series of politically conscious books published by the leftist New Republic magazine.¹

2. A revised edition was published by Hermes Publications in 1954. This edition added a 13-page prologue, a total of five pages of introductory material before each of the three parts, and a 21-page appendix.² Material totaling approximately six pages concerning communism and capitalism were cut from the book; these passages are reproduced below. Another printing of the revised edition, with no significant alterations, was issued in 1964 by Hermes Publications.

3. The revised edition was reissued in 1965 by Bobbs-Merrill Company.³ This edition added a 32-page introduction by Hugh Dalziel Duncan but was otherwise unchanged from the two Hermes versions.

4. A third edition was published in 1984 by the University of California Press that included a 42-page afterward by Burke.⁴

These additional pages, coming mostly at the book’s beginning and end, cannot help but reframe and recontextualize the original argument by overlaying more recent Burkean thought. Accordingly, readers who wish to study how the text was originally received should temporarily bracket subsequent editions and summaries of Burke’s work and focus instead on the 1935 version and the responses it elicited. Readers who wish to understand the development of Burke’s writings in subsequent decades will benefit by comparing the earlier and later versions. As Micheal Feehan puts it: "We need to comprehend Burke’s method of assimilating his old work into the new. Such comprehension comes most clearly when we see the old and the new in juxtaposition, in stereo, where we can watch the boundary between them."⁵

The vast majority of the 1935 text is intact in subsequent editions. Other than the additions noted above, there are two types of changes that occurred in the 1954 revised edition and that were maintained in all later editions of the book. The first category of change is syntactic, changes such as revision of word order, breaking up long sentences, deletions of conjunctions at the beginnings of sentences, and clarifications of referents.⁶ The second category involves semantic changes. Other than the deletion of the expletives "damned" and "dirty," the most significant semantic changes were deletions of discussions of capitalism and communism.⁷ In a number of places Burke simply deleted a passing reference to capitalism or to the demise of capitalism. In other places, Burke cut whole sentences, paragraphs, and pages devoted to capitalism and communism. Writing in the virulently anticommunist early 1950s, Burke explained the deletions, in part, by noting that "under present conditions, the pages could not possibly be read in the tentative spirit in which they were originally written."⁹

A significant part of the original critical response to PC was directly related to the overall socialist themes of the book. For example, Joseph Wood Krutch’s review in 1935 suggested that Burke’s "treatise seems to have two principle aims. The first is to coordinate all the attacks which have been made upon the absolute validity of the neutral or scientific conception of truth; the second is to defend on the basis of this radical skepticism the ideology of communism."¹⁰ And Burke himself identified one goal of the book as that of advancing the communist cause.¹¹ Accordingly, we believe a thorough historical understanding of PC requires familiarity with the "lost" passages. We provide each deleted passage below in bold face and identify precisely where in all subsequent editions each passage would have appeared.

The "Lost" Passages

Part I, Chapter 5, includes two lost sections. The first is titled "The Three Orders of Rationalization," and it discusses the differences among magic, religion, and science. The following passage represents the last sentence of the section, which presently ends in the middle of page 65:

And the great danger of Fascism, in contrast with Communism, is that, whereas both seek to establish the integration of industry and politics which is the ultimate requirement of the scientific rationalization, and hence, both stimulate precisely the same desire to stabilize a status quo, Fascism may undermine the prestige of progress as a slogan too soon, thereby crystallizing a structure which still admits too wide a range of inequalities.¹³

The second section of the same chapter was originally titled "Communism: A Humanistic, or Poetic, Rationalization."¹⁴ In both the table of contents and the section heading (now on page 65), the word communism was deleted. Fully two pages from the original text of this section were also deleted. These pages should be read beginning at the bottom of what is now page 66:

So far as I can see, the only coherent and organized movement making for the subjection of the technological genius to humane ends is that of Communism, by whatever name it may finally prevail. For though Communism is generally put forward on a purely technological basis, in accordance with the strategy of recommendation advisable in a scientific era, we must realize the highly humanistic or poetic nature of its fundamental criteria. The very word suggests its latent affinities with the religious or pretechnological rationalization, which perfected the attitude of inducement that flowers in man’s maximum capacities for the coöperative (a coöperative ability which, as Marx points out, greatly fitted it for preëmption by a privileged class, who could so apply it that a submerged class did most of the coöperating). Indeed, precisely as science, with its emphasis upon the impersonal, has even tended in its speculations to abandon the notion of the personality (the essentially humane concept) and to be concerned with a general stream of consciousness instead, it was under the earlier coöperative rationalization that the concept of the personality arose – having first designated the mask worn by an actor, then the part played by the actor, then the analogous role in life, and finally the character playing this role. The very name Communism suggests echoes of the word "communicant," perhaps the key term about which the entire religious rationalization of the West was constructed.

We do not mean that communism is a reversion, though some adherents of the capitalist structure have condemned it on this score, particularly with their eyes upon the forms of communistic ownership and distribution that distinguish many primitive tribes. As a matter of fact, the vast amount of historical and anthropological documentation now assembled, plus its largely generalized or abstract nature, makes certain that any trend of history, no matter what it may be, will show marked similarity with the past, and hence may be denigrated as a reversion at a time when the prestige of progress is still intact. Our point is simply that a philosophy corrective to the technological rationalization can advocate its correctives only by taking human needs as its point of reference (the kind of human needs, perhaps, whose permanency arises from the permanency of the neurological structure itself). Perhaps the word "coöperative" (as distinct from the "competitive" which flourished when the acquisitions of science were backed by the stimuli of business enterprise) would replace the word "communicant" as the pivotal term of the new rationalization. And a restoration of homogeneity in the means of communication is sought in the Marxian emphasis upon one unifying ideology that will inform the Marxian culture.¹⁵

Readers familiar with Burke’s writings are aware that he often provides lengthy footnotes. In Part II, Chapter 5, Burke discusses his notion of "Exorcism by Misnomer." The footnote now appearing on page 134 is an edited version. The portions in boldface were deleted from the original:

The weakness in the various individualistic schemes of cure offered since the breakdown of the religious rationalization seems to arise from the fact that the resultant socialization is but partial. The texture of new meanings is not rich enough, and does not enjoy sufficient reënforcement from society as a whole, to make it soundly communicative. It is compensatory rather than integral. Also, as it often aims to fit the patient for modes of action that will conform with the collapsing capitalist economy, the materials of its structure are too flimsy.¹⁶

The last section in the conclusion of Part II is titled "Towards a Philosophy of Being." The sentence in boldface was deleted; we reprint the first sentence to provide a clear referent. The passage begins in the middle of the fourth line of the second full paragraph on page 163:

A sound system of communication, such as lies at the roots of civilization, cannot be built upon a structure of economic warfare. It must be economically, as well as spiritually, Communistic – otherwise the wells of sociality are poisoned.¹⁷

Part III, Chapter 4, of PC is "The Ethical Confusion." Burke’s well-known section on "Ethnicizing of the Means of Support" originally contained the following as a footnote. It should be read on page 205 where the footnote originally was placed after "Like hell he did – the [dirty] crook!":

Such considerations make the hope for capitalists’ "reform" sem impossible of fulfillment. The businessman’s morality is built upon the gospel: Overcharge and Underpay. About this imperative hinges the logic of his motivation for work. Were a businessman to reform (as judged by Socialist standards of reform) he would plainly and simply have to deteriorate (as judged by his own criteria of purpose). It seems likely that the businessman will remain moral to the last, abiding loyally by his ethics of exploitation until he is blasted from his position of control. For we can hardly expect a man willingly to reform in ways which, from his point of view, lead simply to decay.

However, the business morality is impossible for the group as a whole. It is too much in its own way. And, as this state of affairs becomes aggravated, fewer and fewer people can accept the logic of its work-patterns. Hence arises the schizoid state, generally called cynicism. The cynicism that goes with many forms of work today would seem to arise from the fact that the natural tendency to ethicize the means of support is frustrated. No man is happy at the thought that he would "bite the hand that feeds him" – yet if he lives by a capitalist economy he must either do precisely this (in despising the duties that are placed upon him) or must give allegiance to a system which demands the expenditure of great effort in unsocial and antisocial ways.¹⁸

Later in the same chapter, the section titled, "Variants of the Ethicizing Tendency" originally contained the following passage. The portions in boldface were deleted from later editions. The passage begins in the middle of the fifth line of the first full paragraph on page 212:

Morals and property and integrally related. They are obverse and reverse of the same coin. They both equip us for living. In fact, it is because of the integral relationship between these two kinds of weapons, tools, or capital, that we must gravely doubt whether the communal property of morals can remain firm unless it is grounded in the communal ownership of its material counterpart.¹⁹

The final chapter of Part III is Burke’s idealistic "The Poetry of Action." In addition to making deletions concerning his advocacy of communism, Burke made subtle changes in wording that have the effect of converting a specific critique and call for action into a more abstract-theoretical description.

In the section titled "In Qualified Defense of Lawrence," the following appeared at the end of the footnote now appearing on page 253:

[In other words, freedom must be defined by purpose ...] A Communist movement can provide such a master purpose. A Fascist movement can also appear to do so for a time - but the Fascist purpose is fundamentally vitiated by the inadequacies of the economic structure which it upholds and by the segregationalism (both economic and psychological) implicit in private ownership of the total group’s resources.²⁰

Two important paragraphs were cut from the original version of PC’s conclusions. The first should be read before the beginning of the first full paragraph on page 268 following the words "ideal denial of his own methods":

The next paragraph on page 268 in the revised editions begins "Once a coöperative way of life were firmly established in human institutions ..."²² The original text began "Once the Communistic way of life were firmly established in human institutions ..."²³ The following passage appeared before the first full paragraph on what now reads as page 271 after "we are forced to live by economic patters which reduce the coöperative aspects of action to a minimum" and before the start of the paragraph beginning "In closing ..."

And there seems far too little likelihood that those who have control of our economy will peacefully relinquish this control in the interests of culture. Rather, they will continue to degrade people, and to contemn them for being degraded. Their very "morality" is involved in their privileges; their means and purposes are adjusted to them; their concepts of the "good life" are grounded in them; their fabulous possessions are their tools and shelter; their incapacity is their training. Hence, it is not likely that we can expect a better day until the opportunity to persist in their kinds of effort has been taken from them.²⁴

Conclusion: The Rhetorical Transformation of PC

It is our hope that the increased accessibility of the "lost" passages along with the essays by our colleagues that follow in this issue will spur further study of an important and interesting stage of Burke’s impressive career. The thirties were remarkable years for American writers. It was a time when radical political change seemed possible and even unavoidable, and the most serious writers felt compelled to make and state the sort of political decisions and convictions that today’s university scholar typically has the leisure to avoid.²⁵ Burke’s long and complicated relationship with Marxism must be understood accordingly.²⁶ William H. Rueckert claims that Burke "defined the major overriding purpose of all his subsequent work" in PC when he "defines and enacts the function of the social critic."²⁷ If so, then Burke’s 1935 text suggests that specific agendas of political action inhere in philosophical contemplation. In the advertisement first announcing the publication of PC in 1935, Burke’s central purpose is described as "to work out a usable attitude toward the present."²⁸ Accordingly, the work can be called rhetorical in the most conventional sense of being aimed at moving the reader toward a specific course of action, namely socialism.

The cumulative effect of the specific syntactic changes, alterations in word choice, and deletions and the addition of introductory and concluding discussions is to transform PC from a rhetorical treatise into a more purely contemplative (theoretical) text. As a result, the current text resembles a late-twentieth century Ivory Tower Marxism more than the "revolutionary" Marxism found in the1935 text. As students of Burke, we need to be aware of the transformations of his texts and recognize that his different texts speak to us in different voices.²⁹ As critics, we need not necessarily take Burke’s explanation at face value. As noted in the articles that follow, clearly there were multiple motivations for the rhetorical move away from procommunism and toward a more academically respectable stance as a communication theorist. As writers, Burke’s revisions should give us reason to ask ourselves if we, too, are faced with the choice of making our writings more "theoretically significant" and acceptable to future generations at the potential cost of lessening their explicit political relevance to our own.³⁰

NOTES

1. Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change (New York: New Republic, 1935), hereafter referred to as the 1935 edition. The first portion of PC is an altered form of Burke’s essay, "On Interpretation," The Plowshare: A Literary Periodical of One-Man Exhibits 10:1 (February 1934): 3-79. Burke ends a brief introduction to the Plowshare essay as follows: "Beginning as an esthete who distrusted the superstructure of values arising from the intensities of economic combat, I have come to the conclusion that this attitude requires for its completion the championing of Communistic ideals, as the only ideals which can adapt the modern productive plant to humanistic ends."

For discussions of the political orientation of The New Republic, see John Patrick Diggins, "The New Republic and Its Times," The New Republic 191 (December 10, 1984): 23-73, especially 36-48; David Seideman, The New Republic: A Voice of Modern Liberalism (NY: Praeger, 1986); and Frank A. Warren, Liberals and Communism (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1966).

2. Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change, 2^nd rev. ed. (Los Altos, CA: Hermes Publications, 1954). The five pages of additional introductory material can be found on pp. 3, 69-70, 167-68.

3. Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change, 2^nd rev. ed., with an introduction by Hugh Dalziel Duncan (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill,1965).

4. Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change, 3^rd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

5. Michael Feehan, "Oscillation as Assimilation: Burke’s Latest Self-Revising," Pre/Text 6 (1985): 321.

6. Most of the syntactical changes merely sharpen the focus of Burke’s argument rather than alter its direction. For example, what now reads on page 106 as "such terms as analysis, synthesis, classification, and ideality are to be viewed similarly" originally reads as "such terms ... are likewise brought into the same merger" (1935 ed., 139). Burke usually signals the reader of later additions but not always; cf. the bracketed comments now on pages 23, 184-185, and 233 with the parenthetic comments added in the middle of pages 72 and 235. Burke sometimes updates his language: "World War I" on page 136 originally read the "World War," and "active combat" on page 140 originally read "the fire-trench" (1935 ed., 179, 185).

7. On page 205, the phrase originally read "Like hell he did – the dirty crook!" and on page 249 the third line originally read "only too damned active: (1935 ed., 260, 319).

8. In the first line of what is now page 41, for "private" read "independent." In the last sentence of the footnote on page 115, for "conditions" read "decaying capitalism." In the thirteenth line of page 239, for "theorists" read "capitalists." In the second paragraph in the footnote on page 265, insert "capitalist" between "long" and "debauch." In the middle of page 269, for "current institutions" read "our capitalist institutions." See the 1935 edition, pp. 59, 152, 306, 340, 346.

9. Burke’s explanation for the deletions can be found in the prologue on pages xv-xvi in the 1954 Hermes edition or on pages xlix-1 in the 1965 Bobbs-Merrill and the 1984 University of California editions.

10. Joseph Wood Kruth, "Marx as Metaphor," The Nation 140 (April 17, 1935): 453-54. See also the reviews of PC in William H. Rueckert, ed. Critical Responses to Kenneth Burke (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969).

11. See Burke’s letter of June 4, 1932, in Paul Jay ed. The Selected Correspondence of Kenneth Burke and Malcom Cowley 1915-1981 (NY: Penguin, 1988), 202-203.

12. The pagination of the main text of all editions subsequent to the 1935 edition is the same; hence, the references to the "present" page numbers in this article can be used as a guide to any of the revised editions.

15. Ibid., 93-94. Burke’s Plowshares version of this passage continues for an additional two pages (77-79).

25. Useful accounts of the intellectual climate of the thirties include Daniel Aaron, Writers on the Left: Episodes in American Literary Communism (NY: Harcourt Brace, 1961), see especially 287-292, 328; Alan M. Wald, The New York Intellectuals (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987); and Rita J. Simon, As We Saw the Thirties (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1967).

26. For examples of "early" Burke writing on Marxism, see "My Approach to Communism," New Masses 10 (March 20, 1934): 16-20; "Revolutionary Symbolism in America. Speech by Kenneth Burke to American Writers’ Congress, April 26, 1935," reprinted in The Legacy of Kenneth Burke, Herbert W. Simons and Trevor Melia, eds. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 267-273; and "What is Americansim? A Symposium on Marxism and the American Tradition," Partisan Review & Anvil 3 (April 1936): 9-11. Useful analyses of Burke’s Marxism include Don Abbott, "Marxist Influences on the Rhetorical Theory of Kenneth Burke," Philosophy and Rhetoric 7 (1974): 217-233; Gregory S. Jay, "Burke Re-Marx," Pre/Text 6 (1985): 169-175; Frank Lentricchia, Criticism and Social Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983). See also Fredric R. Jameson, "The Symbolic Inference; or, Kenneth Burke and Ideological Analysis," Critical Inquiry 4 (1978): 507-523; Kenneth Burke, "Methodological Repression and/or Strategies of Containment," Critical Inquiry 5 (1978): 401-416; Fredric R. Jameson, "Ideology and Symbolic Action," Critical Inquiry 5 (1978): 417-422.

27. William H. Ruecker, "Rereading Kenneth Burke," in The Legacy of Kenneth Burke, 243-244.

28. "Permanence and Change" [advertisement], The New Republic 82 (March 27, 1935): 193.

29. See William Rueckert, "Some of the Many Kenneth Burkes," Representing Kenneth Burke, Hayden White and Margaret Brose, eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982); 1-30. Tilly Warnock, "Reading Kenneth Burke: Ways In, Ways Out, Ways Roundabout," College English 48 (1986): 62-75.

30. We are grateful for the helpful feedback we received on an earlier draft from Charles J.G. Griffin and for the use of Leland M. Griffin’s copy of the 1935 edition of PC.