A high school student misses eighteen days of class in one semester. The attendance office calls it truancy. A counselor calls it anxiety-driven school avoidance. A social worker points out that the student has been caring for a younger sibling. The transportation office discovers that the student's bus route has become unreliable.
Same student. Same eighteen absences. But suddenly there are four different versions of the problem. One directs attention toward rule-breaking. Another toward mental health. Another toward family responsibility. Another toward institutional access. And each version makes a different response seem reasonable: discipline, counseling, accommodation, transportation reform. The words did not merely rename the situation. They reorganized it.
Kenneth Burke called the vocabulary through which this happens a terministic screen. This article, a companion to the Reclaiming Rhetoric video, explains what Burke meant, how screens shape evidence, experts, and solutions, how to analyze one, and why the idea does not mean every description is equally valid.
Foundations Series · Volume 2
How to Analyze Any Argument
A visual guide to claims, evidence, assumptions, and reasoning.
What is a terministic screen?
Burke develops the idea in an essay titled "Terministic Screens," collected in Language as Symbolic Action (1966). The word screen works in two useful ways. A screen can display something, like a movie screen. But a screen can also screen something out. A terminology does both: it gives us a way of seeing reality while directing attention away from other parts of it.
Burke's more unsettling point is that this is not something only propagandists, advertisers, or dishonest speakers do. We cannot communicate without terms, and whatever vocabulary we choose will make certain features easier to notice than others. In his words, "We must use terministic screens, since we can't say anything without the use of terms." A terministic screen is therefore not simply a distortion placed between us and an otherwise neutral reality. It is part of how symbolic communication works in the first place.
Burke grounds the essay in a memory: some photographs he once saw, "different photographs of the same objects," made with different color filters. Even something as seemingly factual as a photograph changed in texture and form depending on the filter. The objects have not changed; the filter determines what stands out. That is the core of the idea, and the presenter holding gold, teal, and navy panels below is a nod to it.
Reflection, selection, deflection
Burke describes the work of a terminology through three closely connected ideas. The key sentence is worth quoting in full:
Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function also as a deflection of reality.
(Burke, Language as Symbolic Action, p. 45; University of California Press.)
- Reflection. Call the student chronically absent, and that reflects something real. The student has missed a significant amount of school.
- Selection. The terminology places attendance totals, thresholds, participation, and compliance at the center of attention.
- Deflection. Because it selects those features, it also turns attention away from others. The unreliable bus route may disappear from view. So might caregiving, anxiety, housing instability, or something else entirely.
Every vocabulary captures something. No vocabulary captures everything. That is why a screen does not have to lie in order to leave something out. It can describe one part of reality accurately and still produce a partial account of the whole situation.
A screen is a vocabulary, not a single word
We sometimes explain rhetorical language through pairs such as affordable versus cheap or protest versus riot. Those examples are useful, but Burke's idea reaches further. A screen is often an entire vocabulary, a cluster of terms that begins organizing the case around itself.
- Call the student a truant, and nearby terms appear: unexcused absence, violation, compliance, discipline, parental notification, consequence.
- Call the student anxious, and another cluster forms: symptoms, stress, avoidance, counseling, treatment, support.
- Call the problem transportation access, and suddenly the talk is of route reliability, missed pickups, service areas, infrastructure, and institutional responsibility.
The keyword brings a symbolic neighborhood with it, and that neighborhood helps determine what kind of problem we think we are looking at.
Same absences, different questions
This is where terministic screens become practically powerful. Each screen poses its own central question, and the question decides which evidence, experts, and responses count.
- Truancy screen. Why is this student violating the attendance rule? The strongest evidence becomes the attendance record. The relevant authority may be an administrator. The likely response is enforcement.
- Mental-health screen. What distress is making attendance difficult? Symptoms, stresses, and behavioral patterns become relevant. The expert may be a counselor. The response becomes assessment and support.
- Caregiving screen. What responsibilities outside school are competing with attendance?
- Access screen. What institutional barrier is preventing the student from getting there?
Same absences; different questions, different evidence, different experts, different assignments of responsibility, different solutions. If you know Burke's pentad, you can see the family resemblance: each screen quietly decides which element of the situation (the act, the agent, the scene) explains the rest.
Terministic screens and framing
Terministic screens overlap with framing without being exactly the same thing. Framing analysis often asks how a particular communicator presented an issue: what did this message foreground, and what did it push into the background?
A terministic screen analysis can go deeper. It asks what vocabulary made the situation recognizable as this kind of issue in the first place. An attendance officer does not have to consciously decide to frame a student unfairly. The officer may simply be working inside an inherited administrative vocabulary built around absences, thresholds, compliance, and intervention codes. A screen can be deliberate, but it can also be professional, institutional, disciplinary, cultural, or so familiar that nobody experiences it as a screen at all.
That is also why screens are hard to see from the inside. Experts are trained into vocabularies. That training is what makes them experts, and it is also what makes some features of a case almost invisible to them. A physician, a lawyer, an economist, and a social worker can look at the same household and each see a different emergency.
Screens are not only made of words
A screen does not even have to be made of sentences. Imagine an attendance dashboard where the student appears as a red square. That visualization makes a pattern visible immediately, and that can be genuinely useful. But it also turns the student into a count, a threshold, and a risk category.
Reorganize the same attendance data by bus route, and perhaps a transportation pattern becomes visible. Organize it by housing location, and perhaps an access problem emerges. The underlying absences have not changed; the screen through which they are arranged has. Categories, scales, groupings, dashboards, forms, databases, and charts can all guide attention much as vocabulary does.
When the screen becomes an institution
This becomes even more consequential when a terminology is embedded in an institution. A private vocabulary shapes how one person interprets something. An institutional vocabulary can determine what goes into an application form, a medical record, a school policy, a legal code, a budget, a database, or an eligibility rule.
Once a category becomes procedural, it can influence which experiences count, which experts have authority, which interventions are permitted, and where resources go. If the form has a box for "unexcused absence" but no box for "bus did not arrive," the second explanation has to fight its way into the record. The power to name is, in part, the power to organize the response.
Terms that join, terms that divide
Burke adds a further distinction that is easy to overlook. "Basically," he writes, "there are two kinds of terms: terms that put things together, and terms that take things apart." Some vocabularies stress continuity: what a case shares with others, how one category shades into the next, differences of degree. Others stress discontinuity: sharp boundaries, separate kinds, differences in kind.
Both are legitimate, and both are screens. Describe the eighteen absences on a continuum (a student who is attending less and less) and you invite early, graduated support. Describe them as crossing a threshold (a student who is now chronically absent) and you invite a categorical response triggered by a rule. Policy debates often turn on this choice without anyone naming it. Is a given behavior a more extreme version of something ordinary, or a different thing altogether? The answer usually shapes the response more than any single word does.
When you analyze a screen, then, notice not only which terms are used but whether they are building bridges between cases or drawing lines between them.
How to analyze a terministic screen
A practical method has seven steps. It fits neatly inside a broader rhetorical analysis.
- Start with the key terms. What words repeatedly name the people, actions, problems, and outcomes?
- Map the cluster. What other ideas, causes, experts, values, and solutions gather around those terms?
- Ask what the vocabulary reflects. Give it credit for what it genuinely makes visible.
- Ask what it selects. What has moved into the foreground?
- Ask what it deflects. What has become harder to notice, describe, measure, or discuss?
- Ask what action begins to feel obvious. Punishment, treatment, surveillance, accommodation, reform?
- Switch screens. Describe the same situation through a different professional, moral, economic, historical, or experiential vocabulary, and see what changes.
The last step is the most useful habit to build. You do not need to decide which screen is "right" before switching. Simply re-describing a situation in a second vocabulary often reveals the evidence that the first one left out.
A warning: not every screen is equally good
If every terminology selects and deflects, it can sound as though every interpretation is equally valid. It is not. The student was either absent or present. The bus arrived or it did not. Reality can resist our vocabulary, and evidence can expose what a screen fails to explain.
Some terminologies account for more of the facts. Some make better predictions. Some distribute responsibility more fairly. Some remain open to correction. And some survive only by screening out anything that threatens them. The point of noticing screens is not to dissolve judgment into relativism; it is to judge better by comparing what different vocabularies can and cannot account for.
Terministic screens in everyday life
Once you know the idea, you will see it everywhere. A workplace calls a reorganization streamlining, and the vocabulary of efficiency crowds out the vocabulary of workload. A news story calls a price increase inflation in one paragraph and price gouging in the next, and the responsible agent shifts from the economy to particular companies. A family describes a teenager as lazy or as exhausted, and the conversation that follows takes completely different paths.
None of these terms is necessarily false. Each makes something visible. The habit worth building is asking, each time, what the chosen word made it easier to say next, and what it made harder.
You can learn to see the screen
The point is not that truth disappears behind language. The point is that our terms help determine which parts of reality receive our attention first. One student misses eighteen days. Call the student truant and you ask who broke the rule. Call the student anxious and you ask what distress needs support. Call the student a caregiver and you ask what responsibility has been ignored. Call the situation an access failure and you ask what institution failed to provide a path.
Each vocabulary may reveal something real. Each may also leave something important outside the screen. Terministic screens remind us that words do not simply sit on top of reality after we have already seen it clearly. They help organize what becomes visible, what counts as evidence, who receives responsibility, and what action feels reasonable next.
So when a description starts sounding neutral, complete, or inevitable, ask: What does this terminology help me see? What does it screen out? And what other words would reorganize the problem? You cannot step outside terminology completely, but you can learn to see the screen.
To keep going, browse all articles, explore structured lessons on the Courses page, or see the illustrated guides on the Guides page.
Foundations Series · Volume 2
How to Analyze Any Argument
A visual guide to claims, evidence, assumptions, and reasoning. Stop reacting. Start diagnosing.
A visual method for seeing where an argument actually works, and where it does not. Name the claim, test the evidence, and find the assumption holding it all together.
Sources and further reading
- Burke, K. (1966). Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. University of California Press ("Terministic Screens," pp. 44–62)
- Burke, K. (1945). A Grammar of Motives. University of California Press
- Reclaiming Rhetoric, Burke's Pentad
- Reclaiming Rhetoric, How Framing Changes What You Believe
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a terministic screen?
Kenneth Burke's term for the way any vocabulary directs attention toward some features of reality and away from others, shaping what we notice and what seems to follow.
Where does the idea of terministic screens come from?
From Burke's essay "Terministic Screens" in Language as Symbolic Action (1966).
What does Burke mean by reflection, selection, and deflection?
Any terminology reflects something real, but it must also select certain features, and by selecting them it deflects attention from others.
Is a terministic screen the same as framing?
They overlap. Framing usually asks how a message presented an issue; a terministic screen analysis asks what vocabulary made the situation recognizable as that kind of issue at all.
Are terministic screens always manipulative?
No. Burke's point is that we cannot speak without them. Screens are often professional or institutional habits rather than deliberate spin.
Does this mean every interpretation is equally valid?
No. Facts can resist a vocabulary. Some screens account for more evidence, predict better, and stay open to correction.
How do you analyze a terministic screen?
Identify the key terms, map their cluster, ask what they reflect, select, and deflect, notice which action feels obvious, then re-describe the situation in another vocabulary.
Reclaiming Rhetoric is independent and reader-supported.
If this helped, you can help keep it free.
