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.
Stewart - I really like this post. I had a hard time accepting Bitzer's idea of a rhetorical situation and the way he outlines it as if each element is absolutely constructed and necessary. You said, "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" - I think that there it completely true. This kind of challenges Bitzer's idea that the situation dictates the rhetoric. I, too, think there is an incredible amount of responsibility that falls onto the shoulders of the rhetor - if there wasn't, it makes me wonder if the person delivering the rhetoric would really matter at all - would we really care who was saying it if it was already predetermined by the situation? Your last sentence, "Not everyone starts with a situation," made me think about Vatz's argument. I disagreed to an extent with Vatz's argument against Bitzer's rhetorical situation, as he said the rhetoric creates the situation, not the other way around. But this last sentence of yours made me consider Vatz's argument in a different way - perhaps I was taking his theory too literally. I suppose rhetoric can come from nothing in a sense, that is, there doesn't have to be an overwhelming need for rhetoric in order for it to come about. I mention in my Bitzer post that I really think rhetorical situations come about as long as there is rhetoric involved. What I mean is that as long as rhetoric comes about, is used, affects, creates, makes, follows. does something to, etc, a situation, it's a rhetorical situation.
ReplyDelete