Let us suppose that our total environment presents no problems — no poverty, injustice, or war; no personal illness or tragedy; no petty squabbles; no questions inviting answers; no controversy needing resolution; no object or idea awaiting discovery or invention; no condition of any sort inviting us to adjust ourselves or the environment. Would there by [sic] any pragmatic communication in this “best of all possible worlds”? If our environment were perfect, would we seek to effect change through discourse or other means? In the absence of perplexity or exigence of any kind, there would be no need for adjustment; no need for rhetorical inquiry, advocacy, persuasion, debate, or mediation; no reason to effect change through pragmatic thought, action, or communication. There would be no work for teachers, scientists, philosophers, and news reporters because in the ideal world there are no lacunas in that which we want to know, should know, or could know. In the absence of exigences rhetorical communication would be unnecessary.
However, between the best of all possible worlds and the world we live in — between the ideal and the real — falls a shadow.
…
An exigence is an imperfection marked by some degree of urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something to be corrected. (25-26)
I just really like the way Bitzer words this passage.
Bitzer, Lloyd F. “Functional Communication: A Situational Perspective.“ Rhetoric in Transition: Studies in the Nature and Uses of Rhetoric. Ed. Eugene E. White. University Park, PA: The Penn State UP, 1980. 21-38.
