The goal of this project was to apply Kenneth Burke's methods of Pentadic and Cluster Criticism to analyze two texts. The two texts that I chose were Executive Order number 13769, Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the Unites States, and Executive Order 13780 Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the Unites States.
For a scrollable document, see below, and for the full text, scroll below that.
For a scrollable document, see below, and for the full text, scroll below that.
I chose not to revise this project as I do not think it would benefit appreciably from a revision in the form that it is currently in without fundamentally altering the work. I think that what I set out to accomplish with this project was too broad in scope, and the works that I chose are too complex to analyze well while keeping my report within a reasonable length. I think that my paper is both too long, and too short in its current form. It is too long for the specific project, while still being too short to deeply analyze the works and the rhetoric surrounding them.
Can’t Stump the Trump
An Analysis of the Executive Orders and the Discourse Surrounding Them.
Introduction
On January 27th, 2017, just five days after he was sworn in, President Trump published the Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. This document generated no small amount of controversy, and became a major point of discussion for people both within and outside of the United States. Per the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, “The impact of the executive order was immediate and widespread.” (4)
“Three days later, on January 30, 2017, the State of Washington filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging
sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order, naming as defendants [as] ‘the Government’.” (Washington v. Trump 5) The suit, among other things, alleged that the Executive Order “was intended to enact a ‘Muslim ban’ as the President had stated during his presidential campaign that he would do.” (Washington v. Trump 5) The court issued a temporary restraining order later that night, halting the challenged sections. The Government made an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal, which would reinstate the sections, while an appeal was made. The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected this motion on February 7th, 2017. (Washington v. Trump 29) On March 6th, 2017, an updated version of the Executive Order was published. Clearly the Executive Order had immediate repercussions, and ignited much discourse, but how did the court decisions and public opinion influence the revision of the order, and what was the order trying to accomplish? Was the underlying purpose the same as the stated purpose?
Methodology
Pentadic Criticism:
Pentadic Criticism, also known as Dramatic Criticism is the first method I will be using to analyze my chosen rhetoric. The first step of Pentadic Criticism is to develop a research question, and a text to apply this question to. I will be performing this step differently from how Burke developed it. I will choose a work first, and develop a question specifically about the work. I will discuss my texts, and my reasons for selecting them in the Scope section of this work and I will discuss my research question in my Application/Results section. My second step will be analyzing the text. Within this step are two operations; applying the Dramatistic Pentad of Act, Agency, Scene, and Purpose, to the text, while determining what within the work fits with each of these characteristics and identifying which of the elements of the Pentad are dominant through the use of ratios. The final step in Pentadic Criticism, is writing a critical essay, but I will be substituting this step with this paper.
The Pentadic Method will be useful to me, because it is easy to understand and apply, yet can still reveal complex relationships within the work. It will also be useful because it will allow me to go beyond what is on the surface and dig deeper into the works. The Pentad will allow me to go past the language on the surface, and examine what is behind its use, and where the author hopes to direct me, because as Burke says, “the choice to direct attention to a particular channel is a motivated act.” (McClure, Skwar) The Pentad will also allow me, as the critic, to “see possibilities beyond constructions of reality given to [me].” (Roundtree, Roundtree 350). Pentadic Criticism can also provide me with insight about the author and their intents. It can help me see where the author is trying to direct the audience with their terminology, how they view the audience, their underlying motives and the author’s “grammar of motives,” (Roundtree, Roundtree 357) the way that the elements of the Pentad are interconnected within the structure of the work. Examining the ratios constructed in the final step of the my Pentadic Criticism will allow me to see any domination by a single element, and will enable me to identify any potentially “problematic ratios,” like the scene-act ratio, which when deployed, may be used to “rob people of agency,” (Roundtree, Roundtree 358) by “construct[ing] the scene as requiring their actions.” (Roundtree, Roundtree 358)
Cluster Criticism:
The second method of analysis I will use is Cluster Criticism, also developed by Kenneth Burke. I will also be following a series of steps for this method, and although some of the steps are similar between the two methods, they are still vastly different approaches. The first step is for me to formulate a research question or questions, and to select a rhetorical work for me to analyze. As with the Pentadic Criticism, I will be selecting a work then a question instead of the other way around. This will help provide an answer to my questions. My next step is to analyze my chosen artifact. I will do this in three ways: 1) Identifying key terms within my chosen rhetorical work, 2) Making note of terms that surround these key terms; and 3) Creating clusters from patterns of words around the key terms to determine the meanings of the key terms as intended by the author. There is a fourth step in the “official” cluster criticism method, which is writing a critical essay, but I will be forgoing this essay and will instead include portions of what would be in such an essay in my Application/Results section.
Cluster Criticism will be useful to me as the method was “developed by Burke to help the critic discover a rhetor’s worldview.” (Foss 63) It also helps me by providing the classifications of “God” and “Devil” terms for the key terms that I choose. While not all terms will fall into these classifications, they will still aid me in identifying the “rhetor’s idea of what is best or perfect” or what “represents the ultimate negative or evil for the rhetor.” (Foss 65) By noting “key terms emerg[ing] in opposition to other key terms,” (Foss 65) Cluster Criticism will enable me to pick out any tension that exists within the rhetor’s worldview.
Scope
I will be analyzing two texts within this document. The first of these is the January 27th, 2017 Executive Order from President Trump: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. For the sake of brevity, I will be referring to this text as the first or original Executive Order. I chose this text because the discourse surrounding and stemming it from the Executive Order has been of interest to me, and I wanted to examine the cause of it more closely.
The second text I will be working with is the March 6th, 2017 Executive Order of the same name. I will refer to this text as the second or new Executive Order. I chose this text because, as I said before, the discourse surrounding the original Executive Order interested me, and I wanted to see if I could see within the text of the revised Order the effects of this discourse.
Application/Results
In this section, I will be analyzing the Original Executive order with my chosen methods to break it down and determine the answer to my question. However, for the revised Order, I will also seek to determine how court decisions and public discourse shaped its differences from the original Order.
Application of methods
The Original Executive Order
Pentadic Criticism
I will first apply the Pentadic Criticism method to the original Executive Order. I will seek to discern what the purpose of the Executive Order is, and if its underlying purpose is the same as its stated one. While this seems like a simple question, after all, the answer appears to be right there in the title “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” the answer may not be as simple as it appears to be on the surface. This question will remain the same throughout my methods and texts, in to enable me to gain a more comprehensive answer to it, although for my second document I will add the additional question. Next, I will next determine what each of the points on the Pentad are within the document, then I will discuss whether the terms are major or minor, as it would be unwise to do so before there is a clear sense of the them.
Act
The first point I will examine is Act. The act is the Executive Order itself, and its publishing. This is an extremely broad act, but the Order is broken down into sections, and subsections, which have additional sub-acts within them. From my count, there are 38 of these additional sub-actions to be undertaken. While these additional acts are important, I will not be analyzing them in depth, as that would be outside the scope of this work.
Scene
The second term is Scene, which is made up of the location, and the circumstances of the act. The location in the Executive Order is the United States, specifically the borders of the country. Other locations are mentioned within the Order, and while they are important, and the actions of the Order may affect them, the Order, and the its Act all occur within, and at the borders of the United States. The situation is a growing fear in certain sectors of America of people entering the United States through visas, and refugee programs in order to commit acts of terror against the people in and of America. A growing degradation within the Middle East, and issues that have arisen in countries that have taken in large numbers of these refugees has fueled this fear.
Agent
The third term is Agent, the person or people involved in the Act. There are numerous agents carrying out the actions in this work, all of them agents of the American government. The most powerful of these agents is the President, as he is the agent who gives the Executive Order its authority and provides instructions for the other agents through the work. The other agents who will carry out the acts outlined in the work are the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, the Directors of National Intelligence, the FBI and the Office of Management and Budget and, the Attorney General. While these are the agents explicitly mentioned in the text, there will also be others who will carry out instructions from the previously mentioned agents.
Agency
The Executive Order lays out in plain terms how the Agents will act, what they will do, and the timeframe that the acts will be completed in if applicable. These instructions are many, and too extensive to include.
Purpose
The purpose of the Executive Order is a complicated topic, with both a clearly stated purpose, and underlying ones, although the opinions on what these underlying motives are varied. The title of the Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” provides a very clear statement of what the purpose of the document is, to protect the nation from terrorists entering America. The Policy section of the text provides a more in depth look at this purpose;
“It is the policy of the United Stated to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.” (Exec. Order. 13769 2)
This again shows that the Executive Order is intended to protect the United States and its citizens, but also adds a crucial way to accomplish this purpose, one who’s application became controversial, and catapulted the Executive Order to the forefront of public discourse after its publishing. This purpose, the prevention of terrorist entry into the United States is a key factor of the order, and shapes the sub-acts within the work.
Major Terms
One of the most important terms in the document is the Act. The Act determines and lays out the Scene, Agent, and Agency. The Purpose is also a major term, as without it the Act would not have come into existence. The rest of the terms are minor, the Scene is laid out by the Act, as are the Agents, and Agency is determined by both the Act, and the Agents.
Cluster Criticism
The first step in the Cluster Criticism process it to choose a research question, and a work to help me answer the question. As before, my document is the original Executive Order, and I will be seeking to determine what the Executive Order was trying to accomplish, and if its underlying purpose matched its stated one. I looked for terms that clustered around three key terms, “United States,” “Terrorism,” and “Foreign Nationals.” The clusters based around these terms will be used as a basis to understand what the order sought to accomplish, and what its true purpose was. The terms clustered around each key term will also be examined.
“United States”
A large group of terms clustered themselves around the term “United States.” This should come as no surprise, as the term is used throughout the work, from its inclusion in the title, to its use in the last paragraph of the work. This term forms the backbone of the work, as the United States is where this work was composed, and where it will have its most impactful affects. In this work, “United States” not only refers to the location this document is intended to affect, but also refers to it as an entity, one with a duty, and goal, as can be seen when the document says “The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution.” (Exec. Order. 13769 2) This portrayal of the United States as an entity, and giving it a duty, in turn, passes this duty and obligation on to the citizens of the United States, and makes the documents objectives ones that the citizens should also aspire to achieve.
The entity of the United States is made up of the citizens within it. Susan Wells says, “the term citizen becomes a heightened example of public virtues,” and “a prop for identification.” (Heilker, Vandenberg 12) This is apparent in the Executive Order, as it clearly identifies the citizens through the use of “United States” as a term, and presents and these “public values” through the terms clustered around “United States.”
Around this term are clustered many things. Some of them are laws and codes, such as “the Immigration and Nationality Act,” and others are things that this entity should perform or do, such as “be vigilant,” and “protect its citizens.” A group of terms that is clustered around “United States,” is “citizen,” ‘American,” and “Americans.” These terms identify who is considered to be of the entity of the “United States.” Another set of terms shows the authority figures who are high up in this entity, or who will carry out the acts as directed by the Executive Order. These terms include “President,” “Secretary of State,” “Attorney General,” and “Director of the [FBI].” These terms, identifying those who are included in the entity of the United States, contrasts with the next term, “Foreign National.”
“Foreign National”
Foreign National is another frequently used term in this document. This term is used to identify people who are outside of the United States, and therefore are not part of the entity that is created in the use of “United States.” As such, they are given no responsibilities or duties by the entity, but instead are viewed as the “other,” which can be “a racial, religions, sexual, gender or national group.” (Heilker, Vandenberg 128) In this case, the “other” is a national group, albeit a large one that includes everyone not in the entity of the United States as this other, with no distinction, for race, gender, or sexual orientation, although this document has been accused of targeting a specific other, the Muslims, and has been called a “Muslim ban.” (Washington v. Trump 5)
These “others,” the “Foreign Nationals,” have many terms grouped around them, and many of them carry negative connotations, although some do not. Terms such as “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” “security threat,” “criminals,” and “harm,” all place the foreign nationals in a negative light. There are no terms describing the nationals as positive, and the only way the nationals are shown in a neutral light, is by not placing any describing terms around them, and simply referring to them as “Nationals,” or “Foreign Nationals.” Now, there is one other term that clusters around “Foreign Nationals,” and its omission would be a glaring one, but this term, while further describing and classifying foreign nationals in some cases, can and does also stand on its own. This term is “Terrorism.”
“Terrorism”
Terrorism is another key term frequently used in the document, and in the title. This term has the opposite effect and intention of the use of United States. Instead of creating solidarity and identifying it with the United States, the document sets this term even further away than it places “Foreign Nationals.”
While the term “Foreign Nationals” clearly identifies them as the “others,” in terms of nationality, they can still believe the same things as the “citizens.” While geography can influence ideology, it not the ultimate decider of it. The “terrorists,” the ones committing this “terrorism,” share a fundamentally different ideology, with different “dominating ideas underlying theories and practices,” (Heilker, Vandenberg 96) and this difference is what led to the Executive Order, and who it is trying to “protect the nation” from.
What is clustered around the term shows why this protection is needed. None of the terms around “terrorism” are positive ones, “violence against women,” “attacks,” “oppress,” “malevolent,” and “threat” are all definitively negative. Even if the terms clustered around “terrorism” were positive, it would not matter. The term itself, is a negative and threatening one
Summary of the Original Executive Order
Now that we have examined the Executive Order, it is time to return to the research question, what is the Executive Order trying to accomplish, and is its stated purpose the same as its underlying one? The first part of the question is a simple one, the Order is seeking to protect the nation, the “United States,” the “citizens,” from the “others,” the “terrorists.” The first part of the question requires digging more than the first part did, but the answer is still there to be found. Upon digging deeper into the text, it becomes clear that the underlying purpose was the same as the stated propose. Opinions on the execution of this purpose may vary, but like it or not, the purpose is as stated.
The Revised Executive Order
This section will sound nearly identical to the previous analyses, but this is for good reason. While the two texts are different, they still share the same basic characteristics, and even many of the of the minutia are identical, which leads to the same things appearing when analyzed side-by-side. The differences can be seen much more clearly in a textual comparison, which will occur in a later section.
Pentadic Criticism
As with the original executive order, I will use the Pentadic Criticism to analyze the revised Executive Order first. I will still seek to determine what the purpose of the Executive Order is
Act
The Act in the second executive order remains the same as in the first one, the Executive Order itself. The second Order is also broken into sections, and although there are some key textual differences in the second Order, that does not change the Act.
Scene
The second term, Scene, doesn’t change at all. The Act is still applied within the United States, and at its borders, and has not expanded or contracted at all.
Agent
The Agent or Agents also remain the same. The revised order doesn’t add any new people to the scope of the act, nor does it remove any of them.
Agency
The Agency remains the same, although the revised Order does change this term the most out of all the terms on the Pentad. The revised Order limits who the tools may be applied to, and modifies some of the originally given time frames. Even with these differences, the Agency doesn’t change in any significant way, just in the minutia.
Purpose
The purpose of the new Executive Order remains exactly the same as the old one. This can be seen in the change, or rather the lack of change in the titles of the Orders. The only difference is a lack of a colon in the heading of the second order. This can also be seen in the first sentence of the Policy and Purpose section of the new Order, “It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals.” Both this and the purpose of the first Order are the same. The wording may differ, but even with that difference, there is no argument about the purposes of the acts.
Major Terms
Act remains a major term in the revised Order, as it still determines the Scene, Agent, and Agency. Purpose still defines the Act and was required for the Executive Orders existence, and it is clear that it is extremely important, because President Trump felt that it was important enough to justify releasing an updated version of the order even after all the public and legal challenges to it. The rest of the terms remain minor, defined by the major terms.
Cluster Criticism
As before, I will be using Cluster Criticism as my second method of textual analysis. I will be using the revised Executive Order for this application, and I will be seeking to answer the same question, what was the Executive order trying to accomplish, and was its underlying purpose the same as its stated one? The same three key terms “United States,” “Terrorism,” and “Foreign Nationals,” emerged again in my analysis.
“United States”
“United States” again forms the backbone of the work, providing both a geographical location, and an entity made up of citizens. The same terms cluster around the term, showing both who is considered to be part of the entity of the United States, and who the authority figures who will carry out the parts of the order are.
“Foreign National”
Foreign National is still a key term in the revised Executive Order, identifying the “other.” The same terms cluster around it, all with negative connotations, although the revised order stresses that the original one was not meant to be the “Muslim ban” that it was accused of being.
“Terrorism”
The third key term remains “Terrorism,” identifying not only a “other,” but also an “other” with a differing “ideology” than the United States. The terms clustering around it are still negative, as is the term itself, and nothing could be done to change that, without changing the connotations of the word within society.
Summary of the Revised Executive Order
The answer to the question, of what the order is trying to accomplish remains the same for the new order as it was for the old one, it seeks to protect the United States and its citizens from terrorists, the “others” with differing ideologies. The underlying purpose remains the same as well. It is the same as the stated purpose, to protect the United States.
Comparison:
I will compare both the findings of the analyses of the texts I have performed, and the differences in the texts themselves, as some things may remain hidden if I were to only compare one.
Comparison of Analysis
First, I will compare what emerged from the methods of analysis. This comparison is extremely simple. While there are textual differences in the two texts, the intentions, and many the major points remained the same even after the revision of the Order. I will talk about what changed between the two texts in the next section, and for now I will simply compare the stated and underlying motives of the two Orders. The stated motives for both of the orders remains the same, and this can be seen in the titles, as they are almost identical, and the occlusion of the colon from the first title in the second one changes its purpose not at all. The underlying purpose also does not change, while sections are omitted or changed in the second document, this only changes the minutia, not the intent of the Order.
Text Comparison
Now, while much of the two documents are identical, there are crucial changes made to the revised version. First, the country of Iraq was removed from the list of countries whose citizens’ entry to the United States was deemed as “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” (Exec. Order. 13769 3) and were banned from entering the United States for a period of time in the original order. Secondly, the new order provided clarification on the original orders stance on prioritizing “refugee claims […] on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.” (Exec. Order. 13769 5) In the context of the banned countries in the original executive order, this meant that non-Muslim refugees would be prioritized. This piece was removed in the new order, which states the prioritization “applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion,” (Exec. Order. 13780 3) and that the portion in the original order “was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities --whoever they are and wherever they reside.” (Exec. Order. 13780 3) The order also loosened slightly the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), by allowing the “Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to jointly grant case-by-case waivers,” (Exec. Order. 13769 3) instead of the 120-day blanket suspension, and revision of the program in the original order. The new order also provided additional clarification on who the suspension of entry applies to, along with providing a list of exceptions for who the suspension does not apply to, listing the qualifications for visa to be issued to citizens of the banned country, and reinstating any visas that were canceled because of the first order.
The most important part of the new order however, is the fact that the old order will not exist as of “12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017.” (Exec. Order. 13780 14) President Trump stated that
“I am revoking Executive Order 13769 and replacing it with this order, which expressly excludes from the suspensions categories of aliens that have prompted judicial concerns and which clarifies or refines the approach to certain other issues or categories of affected aliens.” (Exec. Order. 13780 6)
This is important because it shows that civic discourse and the court decisions had a definitive effect on the revisions made to the order. Indeed, Trump takes makes sure to note that the revised order “expressly excludes” the portions of the original work that caused the most controversy, instead of not mentioning it, and letting us figure it out on our own.
Conclusion
Both Executive Orders are complicated documents, with many parts, but for both, the purpose is in the title “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” This purpose is clearly stated, and the underlying purposes remain the same as the stated ones. These purposes combined, show what the Executive Orders were trying to accomplish, which was to establish policies that would better protect America. Now, for the more complicated portion of the question, how did the court decisions and public discourse influence the revision of the order? The effects can clearly be seen in comparing the revised Order to the original one. The specific portions challenged in court, and the most publicly challenged portions of the document, like the suspension of the USRAP, were either clarified, or outright eliminated in the revised Order, and as I said, President Trump takes pains to stress that those portions are no longer in effect.
References
Exec. Order No. 13769, 3 C.F.R. (2017). Print.
Exec. Order No. 13780, 3 C.F.R. (1017). Print.
Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical criticism: exploration and practice. 4th ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2009. Print.
Heilker, Paul, and Peter Vandenberg. Keywords in writing studies. Logan: Utah State U Press, 2015. Print.
McClure, Kevin and Julia Skwar. “Towards a Dramatistic Ethics.” KB Journal Vol. 11, no. 1, 2015.
Rountree, Clarke, and John Rountree. "Burke’s Pentad as a Guide for Symbol-Using Citizens." Studies in Philosophy and Education 34.4 (2014): 349-62. Web.
State of Washington, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. c17-0141JLR U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle. Web.
State of Washington, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al.17-35105. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Web.
An Analysis of the Executive Orders and the Discourse Surrounding Them.
Introduction
On January 27th, 2017, just five days after he was sworn in, President Trump published the Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. This document generated no small amount of controversy, and became a major point of discussion for people both within and outside of the United States. Per the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, “The impact of the executive order was immediate and widespread.” (4)
“Three days later, on January 30, 2017, the State of Washington filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging
sections 3(c), 5(a)-(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order, naming as defendants [as] ‘the Government’.” (Washington v. Trump 5) The suit, among other things, alleged that the Executive Order “was intended to enact a ‘Muslim ban’ as the President had stated during his presidential campaign that he would do.” (Washington v. Trump 5) The court issued a temporary restraining order later that night, halting the challenged sections. The Government made an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal, which would reinstate the sections, while an appeal was made. The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected this motion on February 7th, 2017. (Washington v. Trump 29) On March 6th, 2017, an updated version of the Executive Order was published. Clearly the Executive Order had immediate repercussions, and ignited much discourse, but how did the court decisions and public opinion influence the revision of the order, and what was the order trying to accomplish? Was the underlying purpose the same as the stated purpose?
Methodology
Pentadic Criticism:
Pentadic Criticism, also known as Dramatic Criticism is the first method I will be using to analyze my chosen rhetoric. The first step of Pentadic Criticism is to develop a research question, and a text to apply this question to. I will be performing this step differently from how Burke developed it. I will choose a work first, and develop a question specifically about the work. I will discuss my texts, and my reasons for selecting them in the Scope section of this work and I will discuss my research question in my Application/Results section. My second step will be analyzing the text. Within this step are two operations; applying the Dramatistic Pentad of Act, Agency, Scene, and Purpose, to the text, while determining what within the work fits with each of these characteristics and identifying which of the elements of the Pentad are dominant through the use of ratios. The final step in Pentadic Criticism, is writing a critical essay, but I will be substituting this step with this paper.
The Pentadic Method will be useful to me, because it is easy to understand and apply, yet can still reveal complex relationships within the work. It will also be useful because it will allow me to go beyond what is on the surface and dig deeper into the works. The Pentad will allow me to go past the language on the surface, and examine what is behind its use, and where the author hopes to direct me, because as Burke says, “the choice to direct attention to a particular channel is a motivated act.” (McClure, Skwar) The Pentad will also allow me, as the critic, to “see possibilities beyond constructions of reality given to [me].” (Roundtree, Roundtree 350). Pentadic Criticism can also provide me with insight about the author and their intents. It can help me see where the author is trying to direct the audience with their terminology, how they view the audience, their underlying motives and the author’s “grammar of motives,” (Roundtree, Roundtree 357) the way that the elements of the Pentad are interconnected within the structure of the work. Examining the ratios constructed in the final step of the my Pentadic Criticism will allow me to see any domination by a single element, and will enable me to identify any potentially “problematic ratios,” like the scene-act ratio, which when deployed, may be used to “rob people of agency,” (Roundtree, Roundtree 358) by “construct[ing] the scene as requiring their actions.” (Roundtree, Roundtree 358)
Cluster Criticism:
The second method of analysis I will use is Cluster Criticism, also developed by Kenneth Burke. I will also be following a series of steps for this method, and although some of the steps are similar between the two methods, they are still vastly different approaches. The first step is for me to formulate a research question or questions, and to select a rhetorical work for me to analyze. As with the Pentadic Criticism, I will be selecting a work then a question instead of the other way around. This will help provide an answer to my questions. My next step is to analyze my chosen artifact. I will do this in three ways: 1) Identifying key terms within my chosen rhetorical work, 2) Making note of terms that surround these key terms; and 3) Creating clusters from patterns of words around the key terms to determine the meanings of the key terms as intended by the author. There is a fourth step in the “official” cluster criticism method, which is writing a critical essay, but I will be forgoing this essay and will instead include portions of what would be in such an essay in my Application/Results section.
Cluster Criticism will be useful to me as the method was “developed by Burke to help the critic discover a rhetor’s worldview.” (Foss 63) It also helps me by providing the classifications of “God” and “Devil” terms for the key terms that I choose. While not all terms will fall into these classifications, they will still aid me in identifying the “rhetor’s idea of what is best or perfect” or what “represents the ultimate negative or evil for the rhetor.” (Foss 65) By noting “key terms emerg[ing] in opposition to other key terms,” (Foss 65) Cluster Criticism will enable me to pick out any tension that exists within the rhetor’s worldview.
Scope
I will be analyzing two texts within this document. The first of these is the January 27th, 2017 Executive Order from President Trump: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. For the sake of brevity, I will be referring to this text as the first or original Executive Order. I chose this text because the discourse surrounding and stemming it from the Executive Order has been of interest to me, and I wanted to examine the cause of it more closely.
The second text I will be working with is the March 6th, 2017 Executive Order of the same name. I will refer to this text as the second or new Executive Order. I chose this text because, as I said before, the discourse surrounding the original Executive Order interested me, and I wanted to see if I could see within the text of the revised Order the effects of this discourse.
Application/Results
In this section, I will be analyzing the Original Executive order with my chosen methods to break it down and determine the answer to my question. However, for the revised Order, I will also seek to determine how court decisions and public discourse shaped its differences from the original Order.
Application of methods
The Original Executive Order
Pentadic Criticism
I will first apply the Pentadic Criticism method to the original Executive Order. I will seek to discern what the purpose of the Executive Order is, and if its underlying purpose is the same as its stated one. While this seems like a simple question, after all, the answer appears to be right there in the title “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” the answer may not be as simple as it appears to be on the surface. This question will remain the same throughout my methods and texts, in to enable me to gain a more comprehensive answer to it, although for my second document I will add the additional question. Next, I will next determine what each of the points on the Pentad are within the document, then I will discuss whether the terms are major or minor, as it would be unwise to do so before there is a clear sense of the them.
Act
The first point I will examine is Act. The act is the Executive Order itself, and its publishing. This is an extremely broad act, but the Order is broken down into sections, and subsections, which have additional sub-acts within them. From my count, there are 38 of these additional sub-actions to be undertaken. While these additional acts are important, I will not be analyzing them in depth, as that would be outside the scope of this work.
Scene
The second term is Scene, which is made up of the location, and the circumstances of the act. The location in the Executive Order is the United States, specifically the borders of the country. Other locations are mentioned within the Order, and while they are important, and the actions of the Order may affect them, the Order, and the its Act all occur within, and at the borders of the United States. The situation is a growing fear in certain sectors of America of people entering the United States through visas, and refugee programs in order to commit acts of terror against the people in and of America. A growing degradation within the Middle East, and issues that have arisen in countries that have taken in large numbers of these refugees has fueled this fear.
Agent
The third term is Agent, the person or people involved in the Act. There are numerous agents carrying out the actions in this work, all of them agents of the American government. The most powerful of these agents is the President, as he is the agent who gives the Executive Order its authority and provides instructions for the other agents through the work. The other agents who will carry out the acts outlined in the work are the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, the Directors of National Intelligence, the FBI and the Office of Management and Budget and, the Attorney General. While these are the agents explicitly mentioned in the text, there will also be others who will carry out instructions from the previously mentioned agents.
Agency
The Executive Order lays out in plain terms how the Agents will act, what they will do, and the timeframe that the acts will be completed in if applicable. These instructions are many, and too extensive to include.
Purpose
The purpose of the Executive Order is a complicated topic, with both a clearly stated purpose, and underlying ones, although the opinions on what these underlying motives are varied. The title of the Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” provides a very clear statement of what the purpose of the document is, to protect the nation from terrorists entering America. The Policy section of the text provides a more in depth look at this purpose;
“It is the policy of the United Stated to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.” (Exec. Order. 13769 2)
This again shows that the Executive Order is intended to protect the United States and its citizens, but also adds a crucial way to accomplish this purpose, one who’s application became controversial, and catapulted the Executive Order to the forefront of public discourse after its publishing. This purpose, the prevention of terrorist entry into the United States is a key factor of the order, and shapes the sub-acts within the work.
Major Terms
One of the most important terms in the document is the Act. The Act determines and lays out the Scene, Agent, and Agency. The Purpose is also a major term, as without it the Act would not have come into existence. The rest of the terms are minor, the Scene is laid out by the Act, as are the Agents, and Agency is determined by both the Act, and the Agents.
Cluster Criticism
The first step in the Cluster Criticism process it to choose a research question, and a work to help me answer the question. As before, my document is the original Executive Order, and I will be seeking to determine what the Executive Order was trying to accomplish, and if its underlying purpose matched its stated one. I looked for terms that clustered around three key terms, “United States,” “Terrorism,” and “Foreign Nationals.” The clusters based around these terms will be used as a basis to understand what the order sought to accomplish, and what its true purpose was. The terms clustered around each key term will also be examined.
“United States”
A large group of terms clustered themselves around the term “United States.” This should come as no surprise, as the term is used throughout the work, from its inclusion in the title, to its use in the last paragraph of the work. This term forms the backbone of the work, as the United States is where this work was composed, and where it will have its most impactful affects. In this work, “United States” not only refers to the location this document is intended to affect, but also refers to it as an entity, one with a duty, and goal, as can be seen when the document says “The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution.” (Exec. Order. 13769 2) This portrayal of the United States as an entity, and giving it a duty, in turn, passes this duty and obligation on to the citizens of the United States, and makes the documents objectives ones that the citizens should also aspire to achieve.
The entity of the United States is made up of the citizens within it. Susan Wells says, “the term citizen becomes a heightened example of public virtues,” and “a prop for identification.” (Heilker, Vandenberg 12) This is apparent in the Executive Order, as it clearly identifies the citizens through the use of “United States” as a term, and presents and these “public values” through the terms clustered around “United States.”
Around this term are clustered many things. Some of them are laws and codes, such as “the Immigration and Nationality Act,” and others are things that this entity should perform or do, such as “be vigilant,” and “protect its citizens.” A group of terms that is clustered around “United States,” is “citizen,” ‘American,” and “Americans.” These terms identify who is considered to be of the entity of the “United States.” Another set of terms shows the authority figures who are high up in this entity, or who will carry out the acts as directed by the Executive Order. These terms include “President,” “Secretary of State,” “Attorney General,” and “Director of the [FBI].” These terms, identifying those who are included in the entity of the United States, contrasts with the next term, “Foreign National.”
“Foreign National”
Foreign National is another frequently used term in this document. This term is used to identify people who are outside of the United States, and therefore are not part of the entity that is created in the use of “United States.” As such, they are given no responsibilities or duties by the entity, but instead are viewed as the “other,” which can be “a racial, religions, sexual, gender or national group.” (Heilker, Vandenberg 128) In this case, the “other” is a national group, albeit a large one that includes everyone not in the entity of the United States as this other, with no distinction, for race, gender, or sexual orientation, although this document has been accused of targeting a specific other, the Muslims, and has been called a “Muslim ban.” (Washington v. Trump 5)
These “others,” the “Foreign Nationals,” have many terms grouped around them, and many of them carry negative connotations, although some do not. Terms such as “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” “security threat,” “criminals,” and “harm,” all place the foreign nationals in a negative light. There are no terms describing the nationals as positive, and the only way the nationals are shown in a neutral light, is by not placing any describing terms around them, and simply referring to them as “Nationals,” or “Foreign Nationals.” Now, there is one other term that clusters around “Foreign Nationals,” and its omission would be a glaring one, but this term, while further describing and classifying foreign nationals in some cases, can and does also stand on its own. This term is “Terrorism.”
“Terrorism”
Terrorism is another key term frequently used in the document, and in the title. This term has the opposite effect and intention of the use of United States. Instead of creating solidarity and identifying it with the United States, the document sets this term even further away than it places “Foreign Nationals.”
While the term “Foreign Nationals” clearly identifies them as the “others,” in terms of nationality, they can still believe the same things as the “citizens.” While geography can influence ideology, it not the ultimate decider of it. The “terrorists,” the ones committing this “terrorism,” share a fundamentally different ideology, with different “dominating ideas underlying theories and practices,” (Heilker, Vandenberg 96) and this difference is what led to the Executive Order, and who it is trying to “protect the nation” from.
What is clustered around the term shows why this protection is needed. None of the terms around “terrorism” are positive ones, “violence against women,” “attacks,” “oppress,” “malevolent,” and “threat” are all definitively negative. Even if the terms clustered around “terrorism” were positive, it would not matter. The term itself, is a negative and threatening one
Summary of the Original Executive Order
Now that we have examined the Executive Order, it is time to return to the research question, what is the Executive Order trying to accomplish, and is its stated purpose the same as its underlying one? The first part of the question is a simple one, the Order is seeking to protect the nation, the “United States,” the “citizens,” from the “others,” the “terrorists.” The first part of the question requires digging more than the first part did, but the answer is still there to be found. Upon digging deeper into the text, it becomes clear that the underlying purpose was the same as the stated propose. Opinions on the execution of this purpose may vary, but like it or not, the purpose is as stated.
The Revised Executive Order
This section will sound nearly identical to the previous analyses, but this is for good reason. While the two texts are different, they still share the same basic characteristics, and even many of the of the minutia are identical, which leads to the same things appearing when analyzed side-by-side. The differences can be seen much more clearly in a textual comparison, which will occur in a later section.
Pentadic Criticism
As with the original executive order, I will use the Pentadic Criticism to analyze the revised Executive Order first. I will still seek to determine what the purpose of the Executive Order is
Act
The Act in the second executive order remains the same as in the first one, the Executive Order itself. The second Order is also broken into sections, and although there are some key textual differences in the second Order, that does not change the Act.
Scene
The second term, Scene, doesn’t change at all. The Act is still applied within the United States, and at its borders, and has not expanded or contracted at all.
Agent
The Agent or Agents also remain the same. The revised order doesn’t add any new people to the scope of the act, nor does it remove any of them.
Agency
The Agency remains the same, although the revised Order does change this term the most out of all the terms on the Pentad. The revised Order limits who the tools may be applied to, and modifies some of the originally given time frames. Even with these differences, the Agency doesn’t change in any significant way, just in the minutia.
Purpose
The purpose of the new Executive Order remains exactly the same as the old one. This can be seen in the change, or rather the lack of change in the titles of the Orders. The only difference is a lack of a colon in the heading of the second order. This can also be seen in the first sentence of the Policy and Purpose section of the new Order, “It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals.” Both this and the purpose of the first Order are the same. The wording may differ, but even with that difference, there is no argument about the purposes of the acts.
Major Terms
Act remains a major term in the revised Order, as it still determines the Scene, Agent, and Agency. Purpose still defines the Act and was required for the Executive Orders existence, and it is clear that it is extremely important, because President Trump felt that it was important enough to justify releasing an updated version of the order even after all the public and legal challenges to it. The rest of the terms remain minor, defined by the major terms.
Cluster Criticism
As before, I will be using Cluster Criticism as my second method of textual analysis. I will be using the revised Executive Order for this application, and I will be seeking to answer the same question, what was the Executive order trying to accomplish, and was its underlying purpose the same as its stated one? The same three key terms “United States,” “Terrorism,” and “Foreign Nationals,” emerged again in my analysis.
“United States”
“United States” again forms the backbone of the work, providing both a geographical location, and an entity made up of citizens. The same terms cluster around the term, showing both who is considered to be part of the entity of the United States, and who the authority figures who will carry out the parts of the order are.
“Foreign National”
Foreign National is still a key term in the revised Executive Order, identifying the “other.” The same terms cluster around it, all with negative connotations, although the revised order stresses that the original one was not meant to be the “Muslim ban” that it was accused of being.
“Terrorism”
The third key term remains “Terrorism,” identifying not only a “other,” but also an “other” with a differing “ideology” than the United States. The terms clustering around it are still negative, as is the term itself, and nothing could be done to change that, without changing the connotations of the word within society.
Summary of the Revised Executive Order
The answer to the question, of what the order is trying to accomplish remains the same for the new order as it was for the old one, it seeks to protect the United States and its citizens from terrorists, the “others” with differing ideologies. The underlying purpose remains the same as well. It is the same as the stated purpose, to protect the United States.
Comparison:
I will compare both the findings of the analyses of the texts I have performed, and the differences in the texts themselves, as some things may remain hidden if I were to only compare one.
Comparison of Analysis
First, I will compare what emerged from the methods of analysis. This comparison is extremely simple. While there are textual differences in the two texts, the intentions, and many the major points remained the same even after the revision of the Order. I will talk about what changed between the two texts in the next section, and for now I will simply compare the stated and underlying motives of the two Orders. The stated motives for both of the orders remains the same, and this can be seen in the titles, as they are almost identical, and the occlusion of the colon from the first title in the second one changes its purpose not at all. The underlying purpose also does not change, while sections are omitted or changed in the second document, this only changes the minutia, not the intent of the Order.
Text Comparison
Now, while much of the two documents are identical, there are crucial changes made to the revised version. First, the country of Iraq was removed from the list of countries whose citizens’ entry to the United States was deemed as “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” (Exec. Order. 13769 3) and were banned from entering the United States for a period of time in the original order. Secondly, the new order provided clarification on the original orders stance on prioritizing “refugee claims […] on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.” (Exec. Order. 13769 5) In the context of the banned countries in the original executive order, this meant that non-Muslim refugees would be prioritized. This piece was removed in the new order, which states the prioritization “applied to refugees from every nation, including those in which Islam is a minority religion,” (Exec. Order. 13780 3) and that the portion in the original order “was not motivated by animus toward any religion, but was instead intended to protect the ability of religious minorities --whoever they are and wherever they reside.” (Exec. Order. 13780 3) The order also loosened slightly the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), by allowing the “Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to jointly grant case-by-case waivers,” (Exec. Order. 13769 3) instead of the 120-day blanket suspension, and revision of the program in the original order. The new order also provided additional clarification on who the suspension of entry applies to, along with providing a list of exceptions for who the suspension does not apply to, listing the qualifications for visa to be issued to citizens of the banned country, and reinstating any visas that were canceled because of the first order.
The most important part of the new order however, is the fact that the old order will not exist as of “12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017.” (Exec. Order. 13780 14) President Trump stated that
“I am revoking Executive Order 13769 and replacing it with this order, which expressly excludes from the suspensions categories of aliens that have prompted judicial concerns and which clarifies or refines the approach to certain other issues or categories of affected aliens.” (Exec. Order. 13780 6)
This is important because it shows that civic discourse and the court decisions had a definitive effect on the revisions made to the order. Indeed, Trump takes makes sure to note that the revised order “expressly excludes” the portions of the original work that caused the most controversy, instead of not mentioning it, and letting us figure it out on our own.
Conclusion
Both Executive Orders are complicated documents, with many parts, but for both, the purpose is in the title “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” This purpose is clearly stated, and the underlying purposes remain the same as the stated ones. These purposes combined, show what the Executive Orders were trying to accomplish, which was to establish policies that would better protect America. Now, for the more complicated portion of the question, how did the court decisions and public discourse influence the revision of the order? The effects can clearly be seen in comparing the revised Order to the original one. The specific portions challenged in court, and the most publicly challenged portions of the document, like the suspension of the USRAP, were either clarified, or outright eliminated in the revised Order, and as I said, President Trump takes pains to stress that those portions are no longer in effect.
References
Exec. Order No. 13769, 3 C.F.R. (2017). Print.
Exec. Order No. 13780, 3 C.F.R. (1017). Print.
Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical criticism: exploration and practice. 4th ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2009. Print.
Heilker, Paul, and Peter Vandenberg. Keywords in writing studies. Logan: Utah State U Press, 2015. Print.
McClure, Kevin and Julia Skwar. “Towards a Dramatistic Ethics.” KB Journal Vol. 11, no. 1, 2015.
Rountree, Clarke, and John Rountree. "Burke’s Pentad as a Guide for Symbol-Using Citizens." Studies in Philosophy and Education 34.4 (2014): 349-62. Web.
State of Washington, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. c17-0141JLR U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle. Web.
State of Washington, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al.17-35105. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Web.