Running Head: SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS 1

Shock-Rock Ethics: A Pentadic Analysis

Selena Marquez

St. Edward’s University

April 18, 2011

Rhetorical Criticism
SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
2

Abstract

This essay explores the consistency of Manson’s philosophical schools of thought in his stated

three lists of everyday ethics, separately titled Drugs, Homosexuality, and Cheating. Using

pentadic criticism method, the three lists are charted using the pentad provided by Burke’s theory

of dramatism to determine the prevalence of act, agent, agency, scene, and purpose in the

artifact. Coding the artifact in this way reveals each list has its own set of controlling terms and

dominant ratios. The Drugs list reveals a list of drug addict qualities with agent as dominant term

and agent-act as the dominant ratio. The Homosexuality list reveals a list of gay qualifications

with agency as the common terminological ancestor and agency-act as the dominant ratio. The

Cheating list reveals a list on the do’s and don’ts of cheating with act as the dominant term and

act-purpose, act-agency, and act-scene as an equally shared dominant ratio. By applying the

corresponding philosophical schools of thought to the dominant ratio, three separate schools of

thought emerge. With regards to Manson’s perceived worldview, the Drugs list employs realism,

the Homosexuality list employs pragmatism, and the Cheating list employs realism as a guiding

school of thought. While some implications could be made from the comparison of differing

philosophical schools of thought, this article concludes additional research is necessary to reveal

why Manson inevitably chooses to apply three different philosophical schools of thought. In

addition, this study leaves behind a solid framework with which to begin understanding Marilyn

Manson’s worldview.
SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
3

A Pentadic Analysis of Shock-Rock Ethics

People always want to know about my religious and philosophical beliefs. But few

people ever ask me about my everyday ethics– the rules I use when dealing with

day-to-day society. (Manson, 1999, p. 131)

Manson’s book, the long hard road out of hell, is comprised of 16 chapters utilizing

various writing forms throughout the autobiographical journey including narration, public

documents, magazine interviews, tour journals, photos, illustrations, and lists. Simply titled “the

rules”, Chapter 9 is comprised of three different lists separately titled Drugs, Homosexuality, and

Cheating. Manson (1998) uses four short sentences in the chapters to explain the subsequent lists

as his “everyday ethics–the rules I use when dealing with day-to-day society” (p.131). Spoken

directly to the reader, Manson (1998) also suggests posting the three lists on “your mother’s

refrigerator for easy reference” (p.131). Based on extensive music media analysis, Halnon

(2006) places Manson in a group of artists who, “break through the noise of commercial culture

by raising the transgression ante to the extreme and challenging nearly every conceivable social

rule governing taste, authority, morality, propriety, the sacred, and some might say civility itself”

(p.34). These three lists provide an unexpectedly candid window with which to view the

mysterious mind of a specific shock-rock artist and uniquely provide three different topics to

analysis and compare with regards to such an artist’s worldview. Additionally, “pentadic

criticism offers a set of conditions with a near-mathematical order, providing a way to compare

common elements across a number of artifacts” (Sealey-Morris, 2009, p. 408) In an attempt to

utilize this exemplary “representative anecdote” (Crable, 2000, p. 318) this study will attempt to

determine if Marilyn Manson maintains a consistent philosophical school of thought throughout

his three stated lists of everyday ethics. Applying pentadic criticism method to Manson’s three
SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
4

lists will demonstrate what type or types of philosophical school of thought the lead singer of a

controversial shock-rock band employs. By discovering Manson’s dominant school of thought

further understanding of his actions and his work as an artist can occur. Additionally, examining

his rhetoric through pentadic analysis may provide further insight with regards the people who

strongly associate with Manson’s messages such as avid fans of his music.

This study will first review a brief history of pentadic criticism method and other

scholarly articles that reference Marilyn Manson, followed by the analysis of Manson’s three

stated lists of everyday ethics using pentadic criticism method. Finally, the results of the analysis

and the rhetorical influence will be evaluated.

Literature Review

The first sections of this literature review will overview the history and method of

pentadic criticism. The second sections will provide a brief overview of scholarly studies using

pentadic criticism as well as scholarly studies where Marilyn Manson is referenced.

Pentadic criticism method is based on Burke’s dramatistic theory (Foss, 2009, p. 355).

The theory explains that we live our lives as if they were themselves a play or drama. The

method applies this theory to rhetoric, relying on two basic assumptions and three necessary

conditions (Foss, 2009, p. 355). The first basic assumption is that language use constitutes

action, not motion. In this assumption, action is defined as “the ability of an organism to acquire

language or a symbol system” (Foss, 2009, p. 355). There are three necessary conditions for

action. The first condition is that action must involve freedom or choice. The second is action

requires purpose. The third is action requires motion because action cannot exist without motion

(Foss, 2009, p. 356). The second assumption of dramatism is that humans make messages as if

they were presenting a play. Humans “use rhetoric to constitute and present a particular view of
SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
5

the situation” (Foss, 2009, p. 355). As a result, rhetoric can be used to understand a person’s

mentality, worldview, or most importantly, a philosophical school of thought (Foss, 2009, p.

363). Burke (1945) created a pentad using act, agency, agent, scene, and purpose as points to

code a person’s rhetoric (p. xv). Once an artifact is coded, a ratio will be found showing the

prevalent common terminological ancestor. This dominant ratio is assigned to a philosophical

school of thought, which is used to determine motive (Foss, 2009, p. 363).

Following the establishment of pentadic criticism, a number of scholarly studies were

conducted applying Burke’s pentad method (Sealy-Morris, 2009; Crable, 2000; Kelley,

1987). The general findings of these studies showed Burke’s pentad and pentadic criticism

method provided an “adequate vocabulary for the study of motives” (Crable, 2000, 318),

could be utilized to analyze and compare specific rhetorical decisions in speech, written, and

non-verbal communication, and succeeded in determining additional insight into a rhetor’s

worldview or philosophical school of thought. These studies are most helpful because they

work to strengthen the utility of Burke’s pentadic criticism method while also providing

preliminary research for additional pentadic criticism.

In addition, a number of scholarly studies were conducted in reference to Marilyn

Manson (Halnon, 2004, 2006; Gunn, 1999). While the methods of study varied from concert

fieldwork studies and extensive music media analysis to methods of sub-cultural identity

rhetorical analysis, the general findings of these studies sited ethnographic research as an

important means to understanding Manson in relation to his associated genre of music. These

studies also put Manson in a peers group of shock-rock musician and inferred connections

between Marilyn Manson as well as other shock-rock bands with the subcultures that support

the artists. These studies are helpful because they provide preliminary understanding of
SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
6

Manson from an outside perspective and provide a baseline for which to understand Manson.

These studies also work to suggest additional research of Manson’s rhetoric as well as

additional ethnographic implications.

Consequently, my contribution to furthering rhetorical criticism through pentadic criticism

method will shed light on Manson’s personal worldview via his own rhetorical choices. The

results of this study will also provide some of the first rhetorical analysis focused on Manson in

particular and additionally focused on his worldview and not his connection to others.

Analysis

In the following analysis, “the rules” chapter format plays a large role in how Burke’s

Pentad is used in determining each of the list’s corresponding philosophical school of the

thought. While charting the pentad in each of the three lists, three subsequent sections appear.

Therefore, in the following analysis, the pentad is separately applied to the prelude, the list itself,

and the rules I’ve broken sections. Coding the artifact in this way reveals a direct connection

between the prelude and the list itself in determining the dominant term and ratios, with the rules

I’ve broken section acting as validation and further explanation of corresponding philosophical

school of thought. In attempt to provide a better understand how the method was applied to the

artifact, a brief overview of the chapter format precedes the pentad application summary and

findings.

Chapter Format

The three separate lists all share the same format. Each of the lists can be seen in their

entirety across a two page spread and appear directly one after the other. First a short

introduction from Manson’s point of view is used to prelude the list. Then “the rules” are listed

numerically and are mostly written in sentence fragments. Finally, a short section titled “Rules
SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
7

I’ve Broken” immediately follows each of the lists. These broken rules are admitted simply as

numbers separated by comas, occasionally followed by a short sentence in parenthesis explaining

the violation of a specific numbered rule before the next broken rule number is listed. The third

list of “rules” concludes the chapter.

DRUGS List: Qualities of a Drug Addict

In the Drugs list, the prelude reveals Manson’s position on drugs.

scene: introducing guiding “everyday ethics” related to drug use and addiction

act: outline drugs and addiction in terms of others and to himself comparatively

agent: people who use drugs including Manson

agency: list qualities of a drug addict

purpose: reveal if a person would be considered an addict under Manson’s drug-related

“everyday ethics”

The prelude establishes Manson’s day-to-day drug-related ethics rely on the agent and the

decisions chosen by the agent. Manson refers to his “everyday ethics” as rules; however the

pentad reveals a list made up of “qualities” of an addict. These agent “qualities” describe a kind

of person to determine addiction, verifying agent as the dominant term. The list following the

prelude is then the supporting agencies, scenes, acts, and purposes of addict determinants. Also,

a difference between a drug user and a drug addict is established, with being a drug addict

perceived as negative. “It is the people who abuse drugs that make the people who use them look

bad,” and “…I have nothing but utter contempt for anyone who is addicted to drugs” (Manson,

1998, p. 132) express these differences. Manson therefore considers being an addict a negative in

his own life. The pentad coding includes Manson as part of the agent implying being an addict is

breaking his own rules.

SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
8

The numeric Drugs list reveals the dominant ratio and supports the common

terminological ancestor established in the prelude.

scene: various locations associated with drugs

act: choices/decisions/reactions related to drug addiction

agent: anyone who is addicted to drugs (aka a drug addict)

agency: objects directly associated with (agent’s) drug addiction

purpose: results are the effect of drug addiction

To fully understand the connection between the prelude and the list, it is important to note the

final sentence of the prelude as “Consider yourself an addict if…” and the numeric list that

follow as a catalog of “rules” to complete that sentence. Each of the numbered “qualities” was

coded for pentad assignment and then paired with the agent terminological ancestor.

agent-act.

Agent-act was determined to be the dominant ratio after identifying seventeen of the

twenty-seven rules to be act. For example, rule number twenty-four states “[Consider yourself an

addict if…] you have your bodyguard watch the door when you go to the bathroom,” and

“[Consider yourself an addict if…] you actually pay for drugs” (Manson, 1998, p. 132). The

agent’s actions and choices are what most often determined the agent’s status as an addict.

agent-scene/ agent-agency.

The other ten “qualities” were identified mostly as either scene or agency. According to

Manson’s list, if “you live in New Orleans” or “you pay for groceries with rolled-up dollar bills”

(Manson, 1998, p. 132), the agent’s scene (New Orleans) or agency (rolled-up dollar bills) in that

instant would determine them as an addict.

SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
9

The final Drugs list section labeled “Rules I’ve Broken” reveals Manson as an agent with

a varying conviction.

scene: after listing qualities of an addict; under the title Rules I’ve Broken

act: admission of specific rules (“qualities”) broken including small explanation

agent: Marilyn Manson

agency: disclosure and listing

purpose: verify rules get broken even though self-imposed

In the “Rules I’ve Broken” section, the agent (Manson) confesses which of the addict qualities

he’s had. By admitting to breaking his own “self-imposed” rules and not complying with his own

ethics, the pentad reveals an internal agent battle. If an act, agency, or scene is a result of the

agent’s drug addict status, then a factor about the agent must change for drug use to become drug

abuse. With the negative connotation assigned to drug abuse, the admitted rule breaking would

be referencing negative times in the agent’s life.

idealism.

According to Burke’s pentadic method, once a terminological ancestor is assigned, a

corresponding philosophical school of thought can be recognized (Foss, 2009, p. 363). The

philosophical school of thought can then be used to further analyze the artifact and decipher

motive (Foss, 2009, p. 363). With agent identified as the dominant term, idealism corresponds

with the worldview proposed via the Drugs list. Idealism supposes reality is shaped or created by

people and people are the reason reality exists (Burke, 1945, p. 171). Under the Drugs list, the

agent ultimately determines if he or she is a drug addict. Idealism determines drug addiction as a

reality shaped by the agent. Companioned with the agent’s drug use, a negative state of being

would seemingly cause a shift in the agent’s reality where drug abuse could be validated.
SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
10

Therefore, using idealism as a guiding philosophical school of thought, Manson would describe

his shaping of reality as dynamic with his admitted drug use playing a larger role when paired

with a negative state of being. This explains how Manson can consider himself a drug user even

though he has broken rules and qualified as a drug addict. This would also mean Manson’s

believes addiction is a controllable state of being.

HOMOSEXUALITY List: Qualifications for Being Gay

In the Homosexuality list, the prelude reveals Manson’s position on homosexuality.

scene: introducing guiding “everyday ethics” related to homosexuality

act: outline homosexuality in terms of what “qualifies”/ “makes” someone gay

agent: people (men) who are/ have been gay

agency: list qualifications of being gay

purpose: reveal if a person’s choices/actions qualify as gay under Manson’s drug-related

“everyday ethics”

The prelude establishes Manson’s day-to-day homosexuality-related ethics rely on the agency of

an act, scene, agent, or purpose to qualify as gay. The pentad also reveals Manson’s

homosexuality rules are actually a list of gay qualifications. If these “qualifications” are what

makes (determines if) you are gay, agency is then verified as the dominant term. Statements such

as “I’m not against being gay–I just want to clarify what makes you gay,” and “…if you meet

any of the qualifications below, you are gay” (Manson, 1998, p. 134) exemplify Manson’s focus

on the means or how something is done as the gay determinant. The prelude also establishes the

list as only male-oriented, because “all women are by nature lesbians.” Even when considering

females, it is the agency (by nature) that determines the sexual orientation. The prelude’s final
SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
11

line seems to title the subsequent list as What Makes You Gay with the numeric list adding

supporting details to the means.

The numeric Homosexuality list reveals the dominant ratio and supports the common

terminological ancestor established in the prelude.

scene: various locations associated with homosexuality

act: actions/choices/reactions that qualify as gay

agent: description/characteristic of a person that qualifies as gay

agency: what makes you gay

purpose: reasoning behind decision/choice/action qualifies as gay

agency-act.

Agency-act was determined to be the dominant ratio after identifying twenty-three of the

thirty-nine rules to be act. For example, rule number thirty-seven states that “if you get choked

up listening to ‘Boys Don’t Cry’ by the Cure” (Manson, 1998, p. 135) you are gay. Here, the

agency (the song “Boys Don’t Cry”) determines if the act (getting choked up) qualifies the

person as gay. Similarly, rule number thirteen states “if you get a boner watching Gilligan’s

Island” (Manson, 1998, p. 134) you are gay. It is Gilligan’s Island as the means to the boner that

makes the action, or in this case reaction, gay.

agency-scene.

Agency-scene was the second most frequent ratio, with eight out of thirty-nine.

According to Manson’s list, if “you’ve ever had a haircut while a Morrissey or Smith’s album

was playing in the room” (Manson, 1998, p. 135) you are gay. Once again, it is not until the

agency is identified that the action can be determined as gay.

SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
12

The Homosexuality list section labeled “Rules I’ve Broken” reveals Manson as an agent

with a varying conviction.

scene: after listing gay qualifications; under the title Rules I’ve Broken

act: : admission of specific rules (“qualifications”) broken with some explanation

agent: Marilyn Manson

agency: disclosure and listing

purpose: verify rules have been broken even though he’s not gay

In the “Rules I’ve Broken” section, the agent (Manson) admits to doing certain things in ways

that qualify him as gay. If Manson believes the agency determines homosexuality rather than

homosexuality being a quality of the agent, maintenance of his day-to-day homosexuality ethics

would require agency monitoring by the agent.

pragmatism.

Under the Homosexuality list, the agency determines is something is gay. With agency

identified as the dominant term, pragmatism corresponds as the worldview proposed via the

Homosexuality list. Pragmatism is focused on how something is done or accomplished as well as

the means by which it was done, with a concern for function, operation, and application (Burke,

1945, p. 175). This philosophical school of thought explains why homosexuality is imposed as

an agency in the list of qualifications for being gay. Though not given a negative connotation,

Manson clearly states in the prelude that he is not gay. Using pragmatism as a guiding school of

thought also implies that homosexuality is a temperamental characteristic and confirms why

Manson can do gay things without being gay. Therefore, his admission to breaking some of his

own self-imposed homosexuality rules reveals Manson as a straight agent who sometimes fails to

monitor his gay agencies.

SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
13

CHEATING List: Rules on Cheating

In the Cheating list, the prelude reveals Manson’s position on cheating.

scene: introducing guiding “everyday ethics” related to cheating

act: outline cheating in terms of what does AND does not count as cheating

agent: people who are in a (committed) boyfriend/girlfriend relationship

agency: lists rules (dos and don’ts) of cheating

purpose: reveal if an action/reaction/situation is/is not cheating under Manson’s

cheating-related “everyday ethics”

The prelude establishes Manson’s day-to-day cheating-related ethics rely on the act and whether

the act would or would not be considered cheating. In this list the act of rule breaking or rule

complying determines if cheating has occurred, verifying act as the dominant term of the

Cheating list. Also, “cheating” itself is an act. Manson seems to draw a focus on justifying his

own faithfulness, He states, “I can honestly say that I have never cheated on my girlfriend. And

that’s because I play by the rules” (Manson, 1998, p. 136). By saying he has never cheated on his

girlfriend, Manson directly excludes himself from the agent. It is important to note, the prelude

gives little information about what being a relationship means to Manson, except to say he has a

girlfriend. The prelude ends by labeling the subsequent numeric list “the rules Manson plays by”.

The numeric list confirms or denies if an act is or is not considered cheating by the agent in the

relationship.

The numeric Cheating list reveals the dominant ratio and supports the common

terminological ancestor established in the prelude.

scene: various locations/times that justify whether an action is/is not cheating

act: action/reaction/choice considered cheating/not cheating

SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
14

agent: characteristic of a person that cause action/reaction to be/not be cheating

agency: how or means in which the action/reaction/choice is done is considered to be/not

be cheating

purpose: reasoning behind action/reaction/choice makes it/doesn’t make it cheating

act-purpose/ act-agency/ act-scene.

After applying the pentad to the Cheating list, a shared dominant ratio was revealed.

Purpose of the act, agency of the act, and scene of the act equally as often determined if cheating

had or had not occurred. Five out of sixteen of the rules were found for each of the three pentadic

terms. Rule number four, “Blow jobs don’t count–they’re like handshakes and autographs”

(Manson, 1998, p. 136) is an example of act-purpose. The act (blow job) is discredited because

of the reasoning behind it (they’re like handshakes and autographs).

In an example of act-agency, “if you cuddle, you’re cheating” (Manson, 1998, p. 136), it is how

the agency (a delicate form of embrace) determines the act (cuddling) to be cheating. Rule

number twelve, “if it’s someone’s birthday, it doesn’t count” (Manson, 1998, p. 137), is an

example of act-scene. In this example, the scene (someone’s birthday) determines the act (it)

doesn’t count.

The Cheating list section labeled “Rules I’ve Broken” reveals Manson as an agent able to

maintain his rules on cheating.

scene: after listing cheating rules; under the title Rules I’ve Broken

act: admission of clean record with regards to cheating

agent: Marilyn Manson

agency: disclosure

purpose: verify cheating rules (dos and don’ts) can be fully abided by
SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
15

In the “Rules I’ve Broken” section, the agent (Manson) admits to not breaking any of his

rules on cheating. This is plausible considering agent was not a part of the dominant

ratios found after applying the pentad. This implies that Manson bases relationship

infidelity on every other factor except for himself. This could also mean cheating has less

to do with remaining faithful and more to do with not breaking the rules imposed. The

list’s theme is one that doesn’t condone cheating but somehow still promotes sexual

promiscuity.

realism.

Under the Cheating list, the act (rule complying or rule breaking) is ultimately what

determines if the agent has cheated. With act identified as the dominant term, realism

corresponds as the worldview proposed via the Cheating list. Realism supposes a person is

defined by his or her actions and focuses on individual responsibility and the morality of an act

(Burke, 1945, p. 227). The Cheating list partially agrees with this philosophical school of

thought. While morality is featured, individual responsibility is somewhat deflected. However, it

is important to note, Manson himself defined the Cheating list and under the realism framework

a person is defined by his or her actions (Burke, 1945, p. 227). If Manson is the one defining

what is and what is not cheating, his individual responsibility is somewhat restored by being the

determinant of an action’s morality or value in his life. There is also some conflict between the

consistency of morality supposed by realism and the list’s validation of certain sexual trespasses

normally considered cheating. Using realism as a guiding school of thought, Manson would

associate cheating with morality and is suggesting inconsistent cheating rules so as to maintain

his relationship credibility.

SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
16

Results

Applying the pentad to the Drug list established the section would outline drugs and

addiction in terms of the agent using anyone who is addicted to drugs as the controlling concept,

identifying agent as the common terminological ancestor. Further application of the pentad

revealed agent-act as the dominant ratio identifying idealism as the corresponding philosophical

school of thought. Idealism provided further implications towards Manson’s worldview such as

determining drug addiction as a reality shaped by the agent, with addiction as a controllable state

of being affected by agent’s existing drug use and level of negative life perception.

Pentad application to the Homosexuality list established the section would outline

homosexuality in terms of what qualifies or makes someone gay using what makes you gay as

the controlling concept, identifying agency as the common terminological ancestor. Additional

pentad application revealed agency-act as the dominant ratio, identifying the corresponding

school of thought as pragmatism. Using pragmatism towards Manson’s worldview fostered

additional implications such as perceiving homosexuality as temperamental characteristic, with

Manson as a straight agent who sometimes fails to monitor his gay agencies.

Pentad coding of the Cheating list established the section would outline cheating in terms

of what does and does not count as cheating using action, reaction, and choices considered

cheating or not cheating as the controlling concept, identifying act as the common terminological

ancestor. Further application of the pentad revealed act-purpose, act-agency, and act-scene as

equally dominant ratios, recognizing realism as the corresponding school of thought. Realism

provides further implications towards Manson’s worldview such as suggesting inconsistencies in

the cheating rules as a means to maintain his relationship credibility, with possible variations in

his concept of morality.

SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
17

After comparing the three lists, three different philosophical schools of thought were

found to guide the construction of Manson’s everyday ethics. Burke’s pentad was successfully

able to reveal those differences. Additionally, these differences share significance because of

their topic specification. Burke’s pentadic criticism revealed Manson uses idealism to guide him

when dealing with drugs, pragmatism when concerned with homosexuality, and realism when

determining cheating. This finding can provide a solid base of comparison with which to analyze

additional controversial musicians, artists, or performers. Further understanding as to why

Manson employs different philosophical school of thought requires additional research.

Manson’s inconsistency in philosophical school of thought raises some social and

cultural implications. Manson, as the lead singer of a controversial shock-rock band, is a public

figure. He has been the target of parents, school boards, and religious groups, just to name a few.

Many opponents of Manson have made extreme allegations as to the affects his music has had on

the youth of America. Additional research using rhetoric may provide a way to truly understand

what connects Manson to his fans, especially to determine if his rotating philosophical lens has

an effect on why or why not people love or resent him.

Applying Burke’s pentad to the three lists revealed additional research is necessary so as

to make stronger inferences from the findings of this study. Future critics should consider the

means by which Manson chooses to express himself. For example, Manson chooses to use many

different writing formats in the long hard road out of hell. Additional rhetorical criticism could

be applied to the rest of the book and compared using the findings of this study for preliminary

research and comparison. This approach did not reveal why Manson inevitably chose to use

different philosophical school of thought. Further inquiry may provide supplementary reasoning
SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
18

with regards to motive. In conclusion, this study leaves behind a solid framework with which to

begin understanding Marilyn Manson’s worldview.

Final word count: 4,196

SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
19

References

Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Retrieved from Google Scholar database.

Crable, B. (2000, August). Burke’s perspective on perspectives: Grounding dramatism in the

representative anecdote. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 86(3), 318-333. Retrieved from

Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Foss, S. K. (2009). Pentadic criticism. In Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (4th ed.,

pp. 355-386). Long grove, Illinois: Waveland Press.

Gunn, J. (1999). Marilyn Manson is not goth: Memorial struggle and the rhetoric of subcultural

identity. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 23(4), 408-431. Retrieved from Academic

Search Complete database.

Halnon, K. B. (2004). Inside shock music carnival: Spectacle as contested terrain. Critical

Sociology, 30(3), 743-779. Retrieved from SocINDEX with Full Text database.

Halnon, K. B. (2006). Heavy metal carnival and dis-alienation: The politics of grotesque realism.

Symbolic Interaction, 29(1), 33-48. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Kelley, C. E. (1987). The 1984 Campaign Rhetoric of Representative George Hansen: A

Pentadic Analysis. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51(2), 204-217.

Manson, M., & Strauss, N. (1998). The rules. In The long hard road out of hell (pp. 131-137).

New York, NY: HarperCollinsPublisher.

SHOCK-ROCK ETHICS: A PENTADIC ANALYSIS
20

Sealey-Morris, G. (2009). “A cool drink of water before I die:” Four modern John Henry songs.

Southern Communication Journal, 74(4), 406-421. Retrieved from Communication &

Mass Media Complete database.