SRR Submit: Bitzer
Originally Submitted January 17, 2011: This SRR on "The Rhetorical Situation" represents my thinking on readings at the beginning of the course.
Lloyd Bitzer’s “The Rhetorical Situation” proposes situation as a foundational concept for the study of rhetorical discourse. That is, there must be a rhetorical situation in order for discourse to be considered rhetorical in nature. A rhetorical situations consists of three parts: exigence, audience, and constraints. An exigence might be described as a need. A rhetorical exigence is a need that can be addressed through rhetoric. Audience, that is, someone who can be influenced by rhetoric, must be present in a rhetorical situation, even if that audience is the self or imaginary. Constraints are those things that can constrain modification of the exigence. There are two types of constraints, those controlled by the rhetor and those already extant in the situation. Following the definition, Bitzer uses several (then contemporary) examples, such as the Kennedy assassination and the civil rights movement, to further describe the nature of rhetorical situations.
Despite this being my third reading, I still found “The Rhetorical Situation” somewhat difficult to make my way through. I understand the concept, and I appreciate it, but I find Bitzer’s style to be rather cyclical and, in some places, unnecessarily indirect. I suspect that part of the difficulty stems from the time period in which the piece was written. Obviously, it was meant for a contemporary audience in the 60s when stylistic expectations were different from what they are now. In addition, my own preference in writing style is for language and sentence structure to be as simple and direct as possible without over-simplifying the subject at hand. Stylistic frustrations aside, however, the core concepts of the piece are quite clear and still relevant to discussions of rhetorical discourse.
One criticism I have heard of “The Rhetorical Situation” is that it supposes that a rhetorical situation is something that exists in material reality. This criticism is, of course, strongest from post-structuralists and other similar post-modern schools of thought in which the idea of material reality is contingent or perhaps even non-existent. Although I don’t entirely discount the idea of material reality as an objective concept in my own thinking, I do wonder whether rhetoric or a situation which calls for rhetoric can ever be said to simply exist in this way. If someone hits me with an object, that action will injure me whether or not I choose to believe in the material reality of the object. A similar statement cannot be made of a situation requiring or not requiring rhetoric. The idea of exigence, particularly, seems to me to be too contingent on individual and/or cultural ideas of what does or does not require modification and of how that modification can be achieved to ever be said to simply exist.
Bitzer uses the example of President Kennedy’s assassination to illustrate the idea of rhetorical situations and changing exigencies. This led me to think of similar current events, particularly the recent shooting in Tucson. Within American culture, it seems clear that some form of rhetoric was required; however, even very shortly after the event, it seems that there were widely differing opinions as to what sort of rhetoric was required. These differences seemed to stem from different ideas of the audience, constraints, and even the exigence (political assassination attempt or random shooting of innocent citizens who just happened to include a congresswoman and a federal judge). Bitzer claims that a rhetorical situation demands a “fitting response,” but this event seems to show just how difficult it is to determine what kind of response might be considered “fitting” for a given situation. If all the aspects of a rhetorical situation are so contested, even in what seems to be a very clear example of such a situation, it might also be said that the existence of the situation itself is in question. I don’t mean to say by this example that I don’t find the concept of rhetorical situation useful, rather that the concrete existence of a set of exigence, audience, and constraints is difficult to pin down. Therefore, it might be better to consider the rhetorical situation a more contingent concept, rather than one that objectively exists.
Lloyd Bitzer’s “The Rhetorical Situation” proposes situation as a foundational concept for the study of rhetorical discourse. That is, there must be a rhetorical situation in order for discourse to be considered rhetorical in nature. A rhetorical situations consists of three parts: exigence, audience, and constraints. An exigence might be described as a need. A rhetorical exigence is a need that can be addressed through rhetoric. Audience, that is, someone who can be influenced by rhetoric, must be present in a rhetorical situation, even if that audience is the self or imaginary. Constraints are those things that can constrain modification of the exigence. There are two types of constraints, those controlled by the rhetor and those already extant in the situation. Following the definition, Bitzer uses several (then contemporary) examples, such as the Kennedy assassination and the civil rights movement, to further describe the nature of rhetorical situations.
Despite this being my third reading, I still found “The Rhetorical Situation” somewhat difficult to make my way through. I understand the concept, and I appreciate it, but I find Bitzer’s style to be rather cyclical and, in some places, unnecessarily indirect. I suspect that part of the difficulty stems from the time period in which the piece was written. Obviously, it was meant for a contemporary audience in the 60s when stylistic expectations were different from what they are now. In addition, my own preference in writing style is for language and sentence structure to be as simple and direct as possible without over-simplifying the subject at hand. Stylistic frustrations aside, however, the core concepts of the piece are quite clear and still relevant to discussions of rhetorical discourse.
One criticism I have heard of “The Rhetorical Situation” is that it supposes that a rhetorical situation is something that exists in material reality. This criticism is, of course, strongest from post-structuralists and other similar post-modern schools of thought in which the idea of material reality is contingent or perhaps even non-existent. Although I don’t entirely discount the idea of material reality as an objective concept in my own thinking, I do wonder whether rhetoric or a situation which calls for rhetoric can ever be said to simply exist in this way. If someone hits me with an object, that action will injure me whether or not I choose to believe in the material reality of the object. A similar statement cannot be made of a situation requiring or not requiring rhetoric. The idea of exigence, particularly, seems to me to be too contingent on individual and/or cultural ideas of what does or does not require modification and of how that modification can be achieved to ever be said to simply exist.
Bitzer uses the example of President Kennedy’s assassination to illustrate the idea of rhetorical situations and changing exigencies. This led me to think of similar current events, particularly the recent shooting in Tucson. Within American culture, it seems clear that some form of rhetoric was required; however, even very shortly after the event, it seems that there were widely differing opinions as to what sort of rhetoric was required. These differences seemed to stem from different ideas of the audience, constraints, and even the exigence (political assassination attempt or random shooting of innocent citizens who just happened to include a congresswoman and a federal judge). Bitzer claims that a rhetorical situation demands a “fitting response,” but this event seems to show just how difficult it is to determine what kind of response might be considered “fitting” for a given situation. If all the aspects of a rhetorical situation are so contested, even in what seems to be a very clear example of such a situation, it might also be said that the existence of the situation itself is in question. I don’t mean to say by this example that I don’t find the concept of rhetorical situation useful, rather that the concrete existence of a set of exigence, audience, and constraints is difficult to pin down. Therefore, it might be better to consider the rhetorical situation a more contingent concept, rather than one that objectively exists.