Bitzer's article on the rhetorical situation is an interesting take on the idea, but seemingly narrow. The idea of a theory of situation is not an idle one no, but I think he takes it a little far. Yes certain situations "invite utterances" , but that situation does not fully define what will come from the words (4). This essay touched on what has been bothering me all semester: the seemingly light weight that the words and the actual message play in an argument. Sure the situation matters, and finding the kairos is something a rhetor should always do, but it is not the overarching purpose. In my mind I still put a great onus on the text itself and what it is doing to me.
Look at a book in a library, how is that situational? Bitzer says that "rhetorical discourse comes into existence as a response to a situation," but now that the book is on a shelf next to others, when I pick it up I am not privy to the situation that sparked the penning of it (5). Granted in an example like that, I will not understand everything about the text since I don't have a real context for it, but I can still be moved by the words knowing nothing about the situation. I think that the rhetorical situation does play a large role in the overall accepting of an idea/being moved to an action by an audience, but I think the responsibility falls on the author/speaker to convey the appropriate amount of desperation or need for the audience to act in that way. Not everything starts with the situation.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Kennedy Blog
I found this article to be very confusing. Kennedy took a whole lot of liberties with the word "rhetoric", and expanded its definition to be more along the lines of "communication". He seemed to get more and more wild as it went on, although admittedly he lost me around the time when he gave plants the ability to use rhetoric. I mean I can get on board with rhetoric being prior to speech, since lots of factors can contribute to a decision, but I think he goes a little too far.
That being said, I think the beginning of this piece if dead on. When he says that "the receiver's knowledge of the rhetorical code - determines what the receiver does when the message arrives", I think he is wholly correct (8). The situation and the surroundings and the precursors to the actual message can shape a receiver's mind and it establishes the "code", as Kennedy calls it, to function as a filter through which the incoming message will be interpreted. "Rhetoric allows" according to Kennedy, "a 'switch' in the code" (8). This is when persuasion happens.
He loses me on his third thesis: "Rhetoric is prior to intentionality or to any belief on the part of the speaker about the meaning of a sign or its effect on others" (9). I can get on board with the fact that rhetoric can be before a lot of things, and that many things influence people to a decision, but I don't call those coincidental factors tools of rhetoric. Sure I can put up posters of a band all over my room for no reason other than I like the band, but I don't think it is rhetoric at work when someone else sees the posters and then listens to the band. In all I think he makes some interesting points, but his definition of rhetoric is a little broad for my taste.
That being said, I think the beginning of this piece if dead on. When he says that "the receiver's knowledge of the rhetorical code - determines what the receiver does when the message arrives", I think he is wholly correct (8). The situation and the surroundings and the precursors to the actual message can shape a receiver's mind and it establishes the "code", as Kennedy calls it, to function as a filter through which the incoming message will be interpreted. "Rhetoric allows" according to Kennedy, "a 'switch' in the code" (8). This is when persuasion happens.
He loses me on his third thesis: "Rhetoric is prior to intentionality or to any belief on the part of the speaker about the meaning of a sign or its effect on others" (9). I can get on board with the fact that rhetoric can be before a lot of things, and that many things influence people to a decision, but I don't call those coincidental factors tools of rhetoric. Sure I can put up posters of a band all over my room for no reason other than I like the band, but I don't think it is rhetoric at work when someone else sees the posters and then listens to the band. In all I think he makes some interesting points, but his definition of rhetoric is a little broad for my taste.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)