Lloyd F. Bitzer defines it “as a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence which strongly invites utterance; this invited utterance participates naturally in teh situation, is in many instances necessary to the completion of situational activity, and by means of its participation with situation obtains its meaning and its rhetorical character” (5), of which the three requirements of audience, constraints, and exigence are the most important for the creation of rhetorical discourse (6). Thus:
(1) rhetorical discourse comes into existences as a response to situation […] (2) a speech is given rhetorical significance by the situation […] (3) a rhetorical situation must exist as a necessary condition of rhetorical discourse […] (4) […] many rhetorical situations mature and decay without giving birth to rhetorical utterance; (5) a situation is rhetorical insofar as it needs and invites discourse capable of participating with situation and thereby altering its reality; (6) discourse is rhetorical insofar as it functions (or seeks to function) as a fitting response to a situation which needs and invites it. (7) Finally, the situation controls the rhetorical response[…]. Not the rhetor and not persuasive intent, but the situation is the source and round of rhetorical activity — and, I should add, of rhetorical criticism. (5-6)
Richard E. Vatz responds to Bitzer’s article by claiming that Bitzer’s view of the rhetorical situation is problematic, in that Bitzer views the situation as natural and objective with meaning intrinsic in the events. There is an indefinite amount of information for the rhetor to choose from in a situation, and “The very choice of what facts or events are relevant is a matter of pure arbitration” (157). The process of translating chosen information into meaning is “an act of creativity,” “an interpretive act” (157). How the rhetor interprets events plays a huge part in creating meaning, and doesn’t create a set rhetorical response to an exigence; thus, Vatz feels he is putting more responsibility on the rhetor: “the rhetor is responsible for what he [sic] chooses to make salient” (168).
Vatz argues the reverse of Bitzer:
I would not say “rhetoric is situational,” but situations are rhetorical; not “…exigence strongly invites utterance,” but utterance strongly invites exigence; not “the situation controls the rhetorical response…” but the rhetoric controls the situational response; not “…rhetorical discourse… does obtain its character-as-rhetorical from the situation which generates it,” but situations obtain their character from the rhetoric which surrounds them or creates them. (159).
Vatz examines the examples Bitzer gives, and notes that these situations (the Vietnam War, the presidential election, political crises, etc.) are created through rhetoric, not natural events that give rise to rhetoric (159). He concludes, “rhetoric is a cause not an effect of meaning” (160).
Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1.1. (Jan. 1968): 1-14.
Vatz, Richard E. “The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 6.3 (1973): 154-161.
Bitzer’s take says that rhetoric isn’t important at all. It’s the situation, stupid!
So what should anyone major in rhetoric?
I think Vatz’s response to Bitzer, as I summarized it above, is a fairly adequate response to this question, Grey. Bitzer’s view of the situation is a bit too “pre-determined,” in that the meaning already lies there, and that the rhetoric that comes out of a situation is almost seen as predetermined. But we know that people read situations differently, that we can’t know certainly what response/rhetorical moves are going to be the best response to achieve the rhetor’s goals (or even if the rhetor actually knows his or her goals).
As Vatz notes, situations rise out of rhetoric, out of discourse. They are created by the rhetoric that comes before and during these situations. The Vietnam War is not an isolated situation, but rather a situation created by rhetoric.
So, why study or major in rhetoric? For a variety of reasons, I believe. Perhaps a student wants to understand various possibilities of rhetorical moves to make in situations, perhaps one wants to learn how situations are created, how our world is created, through discourse. Perhaps a students wants to become a better writer or compositionist and learn how to respond to various audiences. Perhaps one wants to teach others to think critically about rhetorical situations and think about how best to insert themselves into discourse and change situations. Perhaps a student is firmly committed to democratic deliberation and views rhetoric as the best lens through which to help foster democratic discourse. Perhaps one is interested in social justice and wants to be an advocate for others and to help others to advocate for themselves, and to consider what the best means of persuasion are for certain situations and audiences. And there are many, many, other possibilities for reasons to study rhetoric.
Colleagues: this is an excellent and insightful exchange.
Indeed, why should anyone think rhetorical study is important if rhetoric is just the inexorable effect of situations and involves no creation by agents? Who can read situations better than rhetoricians? Oh, political scientists, historians, anthropologists etc. etc. etc. For the field of rhetoric to be significant one must conclude that it is persuaders’ competition for salience and agenda, meaning and spin for specified audiences.
In January take a look at Review of Communication on-line issue for a follow-up on this matter, and I may quote this good exchange in San Diego at the National Communication Association convention?
Thank you.
Richard E. Vatz
Social Movements, Rhetorical Situations, and the Enduring Salience of the Bitzer-Vatz Exchange
Unit: Rhetorical and Communication Theory Division
Scheduled Time: Sat, Nov 22 – 9:30am – 10:45am, Building/Room: Manchester Grand Hyatt / Elizabeth B
Presenter on individual presentation: Implications and Consequences of the Use of the ‘Rhetorical Situation’
Thank you for your comment, Professor Vatz. You can certainly quote anything from this blog.
Best of luck at NCA. I wish I was going to be there.
Pingback: revisiting the rhetorical situation | A Collage of Citations
Hi, Michael! I am student Phd in São Luís-Maranhão/Brazil. Could you help me? Bitzer said in his essay that death is not a rhetorical exigence. Is there another point of view about this? May writing eulogies as some obituaries, epitaphs and mementos exhibit formal features considered rhetorical? Do they come into existence as a rhetorical response?
Hi Fabola. I don’t recall Bitzer talking about death. But I’d probably turn to Carolyn Miller’s 1984 “Genre as Social Action” to understand the genre of eulogies as a social action in recurrent social situations. Jamieson’s 1973 article “Genre Constraints and the Rhetorical Situation” would probably also be helpful.
Why does Vatz think the rhetorical situation is a myth?
Simply stated, he sees a rhetorical act as creating the situation — the situation doesn’t exist prior to an act, according to Vatz.
Michael, look for my new book, just published by Kendall Hunt (1.800.228.0810): The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion” which lays out the arguments with which you have been concerned.
Richard
Richard E. Vatz, Ph.D.
Towson Distinguished Professor
Towson Student Government Association first Faculty Member of the Year, 2009-2010
Professor, MCOM/COMM; University Senate; Towson University
Blogger, Red Maryland
Thomas Szasz Civil Liberties Award
Associate Psychology Editor, USA Today Magazine; Editor, Current Psychology