User:Macarroll924/Rhetorical situation

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The rhetorical situation is the circumstance of an event that consists of an issue, an audience, and a set of constraints. It is often referred to as the

rhetorical triangle (or rhetorical stance), the points consist to "text," "audience," and "author." A rhetorical situation arises from a given context or exigence. An article by Lloyd Bitzer introduced the rhetorical situation in 1968, later challenged by Richard E. Vatz (1973) and Scott Consigny (1974). In more recent scholarship, the rhetorical situation model has been further adapted, challenged, and modified to to include more expansive understandings of rhetorical operations and ecologies.[1]

Theoretical Development

There are the three seminal texts concerning rhetorical situation: Lloyd Bitzer's "The Rhetorical Situation," Richard E. Vatz's "The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation," and Scott Consigny's "Rhetoric and Its Situations." Bitzer argues that a situation determines and brings about rhetoric, Vatz proposes that rhetoric creates "situations" by making issues salient, and Consigny explores the rhetor as an artist of rhetoric, creating salience through a knowledge of commonplaces.

Bitzer's definition

Lloyd Bitzer began the conversation in his 1968 piece titled "The Rhetorical Situation." Bitzer wrote that rhetorical discourse is called into existence by situation. He defined the rhetorical situation as "a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence."[2] With any rhetorical discourse, a prior rhetorical situation exists. The rhetorical situation dictates the significant physical and verbal responses as well as the sorts of observations to be made. An example of this would be a president focusing on health care policy reform because it is an apparent problem. The situation, thus, calls for the President to respond with rhetorical discourse concerning this issue. In other words, rhetorical meaning is brought about by events.

However not all situations can be defined as rhetorical situations if speech cannot rectify the problem. Bitzer especially focuses on the sense of timing (

exigence
.

Three constituent parts make up any rhetorical situation.

  1. The first is the exigence, or a problem existing in the world. Exigence is not rhetorical when it cannot be changed by human interaction, such as a natural disaster or death. However, exigence is rhetorical when it is capable of positive modification and when that positive modification calls for the act of persuasion. A rhetorical exigence may be strong, unique, or important, or it may be weak, common, or trivial.
  2. The second constituent part Bitzer speaks of is audience. Rhetorical discourse promotes change through its influence of an audience's decision and actions.
  3. The third constituent part is the set of constraints. Constraints are made up of persons, events, objects, and relations that limit decisions and action. Theorists influenced by Marx would additionally discuss ideological constraints, which produce unconscious limitations for subjects in society, including the social constraints of gender, class, and race. The speaker also brings about a new set of constraints through the image of his or her personal character (ethos), the logical proofs (logos), and the use of emotion (pathos).

Critical Respsonses

Vatz's challenge

An important response to Bitzer's theory came in 1973 from

Chaim Perelman: "By the very fact of selecting certain elements and presenting them to the audience, their importance and pertinency to the discussion are implied. Indeed such a choice endows these elements with a presence…" [3]

In essence, Vatz claims that the definitive elements of rhetorical efforts are the struggle to create for a chosen audience saliences or agendas, and this creation is then followed by the struggle to infuse the selected situation or facts with meaning or significance. What are we persuaded to talk about? What are we persuaded it means or signifies? These questions are the relevant ones to understand persuasion, not: What does the situation make us talk about? or, What does it intrinsically mean? Situations that do not physically make us attend to them, such as illness, hurricanes, bombs, etc. are not unavoidable agenda items.

This introduces the significance of

objectivism
.

While the two opinions have been widely recognized, Vatz has acknowledged that his piece is less recognized than Bitzer's. Vatz admits, while claiming that audience acceptance is not dispositive for measuring validity or predictive for future audience acceptance, that "more articles and professionals in our field cite his situational perspective than my rhetorical perspective."[4] Bitzer's objectivism is clear, and easily taught as a method, however errant it may be according to Vatz's construction, for rhetorical criticism. Vatz claims that portraying rhetoric as situationally based vitiates rhetoric as an important field; portraying rhetoric as the cause of what people see as pressing situations enhances the significance of rhetorical study.

Vatz has written a book that was published by McGraw-Hill in 2017 and later editions have been published by LAD Custom Publishing, 2021 Buy.ladportal.com/course-pack/view/id/121 titled The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion: the Agenda-Spin Model, which further explicates his views on persuasion, rhetoric, and situations.[5]

Consigny's challenge

Another response to Bitzer and Vatz came from Scott Consigny. Consigny believes that Bitzer's theory gives a rhetorical situation proper particularities, but "misconstrues the situation as being thereby determinate and determining,"[6] and that Vatz's theory gives the rhetor a correct character but does not correctly account for limits of a rhetor's ability.

Instead, he proposes the idea of rhetoric as an art. Consigny argues that rhetoric gives the means by which a rhetor can engage with a situation by meeting two conditions.

  1. The first condition is integrity. Consigny argues that the rhetor must possess multiple opinions with the ability to solve problems through those opinions.
  2. The second condition is receptivity. Consigny argues that the rhetor cannot create problems at will, but becomes engaged with particular situations.

Consigny finds that rhetoric which meets the two conditions should be interpreted as an art of topics or commonplaces. Taking after classical rhetoricians, he explains the topic as an instrument and a situation for the rhetor, allowing the rhetor to engage creatively with the situation. As a challenge to both Bitzer and Vatz, Consigny claims that Bitzer has a one-dimensional theory by dismissing the notion of topic as instrument, and that Vatz wrongly allows the rhetor to create problems willfully while ignoring the topic as situation. The intersection of topic as instrument and topic as realm gives the situation both meaning (as a perceptive formal device) and context (as material significance). Consigny concludes:

The real question in rhetorical theory is not whether the situation or the rhetor is "dominant," but the extent, in each case, to which the rhetor can discover and control indeterminate matter, using his art of topics to make sense of what would otherwise remain simply absurd.[6]

Other Critical Responses

Flower and Hayes

In their 1980 article, "The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem," Linda Flower and John R. Hayes expand upon Bitzer's definition of the rhetorical situation. In studying the cognitive processes that went discovery, Flower and Hayes propose the model of the rhetorical problem. The rhetorical problem consists of two elements: the rhetorical situation (exigence and audience) and of the writer's goals for the reader, persona, meaning, and text.[7] The rhetorical problem model looks at how a writer responds to and negotiates a rhetorical situation while addressing and representing their goals for a given text.

Garret and Xiao

Twenty-five years after Bitzer's seminal article, Mary Garrett and Xiaosui Xiao call for alterations to the rhetorical situation as they examine the response of the Chinese public to the Opium Wars of the 19th century. They call for three major changes to the existing theory of the rhetorical situation:

  1. An understanding of audience as a defining factor of rhetorical situation, rather than speaker, because of its role in deciding exigency, kairos ("fittingness"[8]), and constraints.
  2. Recognition that the power of discourse traditions within a given culture influences the audiences's perceptions exigency, kairos, and constraints.
  3. Emphasis on the interactive and dialectical nature of the rhetorical situation.[8]

Gorrell

Recent theories

Edbauer

In their 2005 article, "Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies," Jenny Edbauer argued for an understanding of the rhetorical situation beyond the three traditional elements of audience, exigence, and constraints. Edbauer argues that the rhetorical situation lies within larger networks of meaning, or "ecologies."[1] A shift from "rhetorical situations" to "rhetorical ecologies," then, takes into account the complex, overlapping, and constantly shifting nature of audience, exigence, and constraints, as well as the distribution of public rhetorics. Edbauer argues for a broader understanding of the rhetorical situation as ecologies by saying that "we begin to see that public rhetorics do not only exist in the elements of their situations, but also in the radius of their neighboring events."[1]

Gallagher

John R. Gallagher depicts the rhetorical situation in their 2015 article "The Rhetorical Template." This article addresses the rhetorical situation in relation to "Web 2.0" and the templates of social networking sites, such as Facebook. Gallagher defines these Web 2.0 templates as "prefabricated designs that allow writers to create a coherent text."[9] Gallagher contends that rhetorical templates offer a new approach to making meaning within new exigency. Rhetorical templates function within constraints of the genre, but also affect the exigence and purpose by creating how the text is written and read.

Trapani and Maldonado

References

  1. ^
    ISSN 0277-3945
    .
  2. ^ Bitzer, Lloyd, "The Rhetorical Situation," Philosophy & Rhetoric 1, no. 1 (January 1968): 3.
  3. ISBN 978-90-277-1019-2
    , retrieved 2021-04-06
  4. ^ Vatz, Richard E., "The Mythical Status of Situational Rhetoric: Implications for Rhetorical Critics' Relevance in the Public Arena". The Review of Communication 9 no. 1 (January 2009): 1-5.
  5. ISBN 978-1465259257
    .
  6. ^ a b Scott Consigny, "Rhetoric and Its Situations," Philosophy and Rhetoric, no. 3 (Summer 1974): 175-186
  7. ^ Flower, Linda, and Hayes, John R. “The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 31, no. 1, National Council of Teachers of English, 1980, pp. 21–32.
  8. ^ a b Garret, Mary, and Xiao, Xiaosui. “‘The Rhetorical Situation Revisited.’” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 2, Informa UK Limited, Mar. 1993, pp. 30–40.
  9. ^ Gallagher, John R. “The Rhetorical Template.” Computers and Composition, vol. 35, Elsevier, Mar. 2015, pp. 1–11.
  • Gorrell, Donna. “The Rhetorical Situation Again: Linked Components in a Venn Diagram.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 30, no. 4, Penn State University Press, 1997, pp. 395–412.
  • Trapani, William C., and Maldonado, Chandra A. “Kairos: On the Limits to Our (Rhetorical) Situation.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 3, Routledge, May 2018, pp. 278–86.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Macarroll924/Rhetorical_situation&oldid=1016587388"