Guidelines for journal #1—
In about 500 words or less, I want you to explore the following questions. Be specific in your responses. You can use direct quotes from Bitzer’s piece (and in fact this might be the most helpful in your explanation of a rhetorical situation). Journal entries and blog posts are free and open and their language is casual. I should be able to begin to see who you are as a composer—through your voice, style and language choices.
According to Bitzer, what is rhetoric? What is a rhetorical situation? Why are both important in the understanding of how to compose? What do you believe comes first—the writing or the rhetorical situation? Do you believe all writing needs a rhetorical situation in order to compose? Why or Why not?
If you are NOT the first one to post you need to mention at least one or two of your peers’ responses in your entry i.e. you may agree or disagree with what someone else’s definition of what rhetoric is. You would cite this person in your response and note why you are citing this person (for example, Kara mentioned that any situation can be rhetorical, but I’m not sure I agree. I believe...). Don't forget to do this as it is part of the assignment.
Bitzer said that a rhetorical situation has three parts.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bitzer, rhetoric is a type of discourse that seeks to meet certain goals and adapt ideas to an audience. Bitzer describes a rhetorical situation as “the context in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse” (1). Bitzer further describes his rhetorical situation as having three parts: an exigence, an audience, and constraints.
ReplyDeleteThe exigence is defined as a problem or obstacle which needs to be removed or altered. Bitzer claims that it is “something that is waiting to be done” (6). He uses examples such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the events which provoked Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in order to help his readers understand the imperativeness of an exigence.
The audience, Bitzer says, is always required by rhetoric, since it seeks to fall upon the minds of “mediators of change,” those people who are capable of removing or fixing the exigence (7). It can be argued whether Bitzer had in mind such an audience as ideal and well-rounded as Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s universal audience, or one as specific to the exigence as their particular audience.
Bitzer’s constraints are pretty straight-forward and self-explanatory. He describes them as any part of the situation that has the “power to constrain the decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (8).
Both rhetoric and the rhetorical situation are important in understanding how to compose because a rhetor must understand the complexities of language and how to use them to his advantage so that he might adapt his ideas to any audience, as believed by Gorgias back in the days of ancient Greece. An understanding of the rhetorical situation is also important because one must know what type of change they are aiming to bring about, the type audience which they are addressing and that audience’s ability to bring about the aforementioned change, as well as the limitations (or constraints) which surround and run throughout the particular situation.
As for which comes first, I believe the rhetorical situation must come before the writing, because that way one can know Bitzer’s three aspects of the situation before the writing (or speaking) begins. This way, the writer/speaker can tweak their claims and rhetoric to fit the situation at hand. Should the writing come first, one can only hope for a coincidence such as that described by Bitzer in his idea of a man writing fictitious eulogies (9-10).
However, I do not believe that all writing requires a rhetorical situation in order to be composed. I agree with Bitzer’s explanation that the speech of a character in a novel or a play is not rhetorical, though the setting may appear to be authentic enough. He brings up a valid point when he states that such a speech has the ability to be rhetorical if the work in which it is contained is a rhetorical response to a certain event or situation (11). It is my belief that, while a written work may be provoked by a certain event or situation, that work could merely be for the entertainment of an audience, without meaning to bring about any form of changes whatsoever.
The existence of rhetoric and rhetorical discourse reinforces the existence of therhetorical situation. While Bitzer relates that rhetoric is used to persuade, one can argue that rhetoric is also used to invoke. His belief is that rhetoric exists to create change and alter reality. Yet, still relating to situational circumstances, invocation ranges from the subtlest of feelings to the most bombastic and outward shows of emotion. This theory does correlate with Bitzer’s idea that rhetoric is ultimately used “to produce action or change in the world,” but also brings forth the idea that rhetoric is multifaceted in that it works with the entire spectrum of situational thoughts and ideas involving “persons, events, objects, and relations” (6).
ReplyDeleteThe precept forms that the situation comes before writing or utterances. Evidence to buttress this emerges in Malinowski’s example of the fishing expedition (4). If one issues the commands to “lift the net” in a situation without any net involved, the meaning is lost as context does not call for any instruction of that sort. The situation communicates constraints for words and writing that would not be appropriate in other conditions. So, as Bitzer states, “the situation controls the rhetorical response” even in a primitive situation as compared a more artistic form of discourse (6).
With exigence, the organization of the rhetorical situation finds clearer audience. The “positive modification” of the brought on by the discourse sometimes remains hidden even to the rhetor, but the persons, events, objects, and relations within a rhetorical situation identify with the exigence of the rhetoric and engage the audience further (7).
Constraints, the pieces within the situation binding the rhetoric to certain ideals, have the power to “constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (8). The aforementioned persons, events, objects, and relations all contribute to constraints in a situation, but Bitzer elaborates that there are not only situational constraints, but also constraints created by the rhetor to distinguish what is proper and improper (8).
In terms of the fictitious eulogies, the idea that they may become rhetorical, should they “fit a situation” gives ground to the idea of response by means of the situation existing (9). Without the situation, the eulogies remain “unrhetorical” (9). The maturation of situations spawns written work just when “most fitting” (13). From maturation, Bitzter presents that situations have the opportunity to decay or persist. With either option, exigences can bring forth change or the situation may die down and not preserver through the appropriate timing.
Pertaining to the words of Michael above, I too agree that the rhetorical situation comes before the written word involving the three aspects of the situation that exist before writing. Yet, I tend to disagree with his belief that rhetoric within the rhetorical situation exists without meaning to create change, as even a piece written to entertain has the even the slightest traces of characteristics that involve modification of the world and altering of current reality. With “rhetorical exigences abound” our world is, according to Bitzer, fated to partake in change brought on by rhetoric inspired through situations.
In Bitzer’s essay, he spends a great deal of time breaking down the definition of “rhetoric”, “discourse” and, of course, “rhetorical situation”.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bitzer, rhetoric is pragmatic, exists for a higher purpose, functions to produce action or change and performs a task. It was important for Bitzer to define rhetoric, because he then goes on to explain the exact role rhetoric plays in a rhetorical situation. His equation essentially means that primitive language plus the context of the situation then equals out to the preliminary model of a rhetorical situation.
My overly simplified definition of a rhetorical situation is usually when an event occurs and someone either writes some kind of copy or gives a speech that causes the reader/hearer to respond in some kind of positive way. This definition is supported by the examples that Bitzer gives the essay: the Declaration of Independence, Churchill’s address on Dunkirt and JFK’s Inaugural Address.
Obviously if the definition was that simple, the essay wouldn’t have been fifteen pages long. Once Bitzer explains what a rhetorical situation is, he then breaks it town into three continuants: exigence (which is only rhetorical when it is capable of positive modification which is assisted by discourse), audience (a distinguished body) and constraints (beliefs, attitudes, etc.). It’s important for us to understand these elements because they act as the basic outline for what needs to be addressed in a rhetorical discourse concerning a rhetorical situation.
These two definitions are important for not only us, as readers and writers, but for everyone to understand because the essay is pretty much a formula on how to be an effective writer/speaker. Using the JFK Inaugural Address example, if JFK had discussed, say, the weather and not said a word about his plans for the United States, the American people probably would have thought they elected an unworthy candidate. However, JFK knew his audience (the American people), understood the exigence (positive modifications that could be made in America and abroad) and he knew the audience’s constraints. Understanding these elements, he gave what is still considered to be one of the greatest speeches ever made.
I agree with Michael that a rhetorical situation must come before the writing. The explanation for this is pretty simple: you’ve got to know what you’re writing about before you write it. It’s like having a sports writer come up with an article on the NBA Finals, without actually watching the game and seeing the outcome. It doesn’t work very well.
I also agree that not all writing needs to be a rhetorical situation in order to be written down. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have all these books available to use to read at our leisure. Some works are merely made for our entertainment as opposed to inspire us to do something in response to some sort of situation.
Rhetoric is comprised of an audience, and their expectation of certain criterion to be fulfilled. The situation that the audience is in and their response or reaction to the situation comprises a rhetorical situation. A rhetorical situation is one that always provokes a result or an outcome; however the audience must be knowledgeable with the topic in order for a valid response to be shown. The objective of a rhetorical situation is persuasion, and while with any type of speech or display comes persuasion, a rhetorical situation cannot persuade a person who is unfamiliar with the topic. A rhetorical situation is dependant upon three factors: exigence, audience, and constraints.
ReplyDeleteExigence is described as the problem. It is the obstacle preventing the outcome to occur. The important factor in a rhetorical exigence is that it is capable of being changed, which is why not all exigences are rhetorical. Unchangeable factors, such as natural occurrences, are not considered rhetorical.
The second factor of a rhetorical situation is audience. The audience must be one capable of understanding the situation. “…a rhetorical audience consists only of those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change.” (8) Blizter mentions that although some studies such as science are important, most outcomes provoke an audience’s attention, but do not require the guidance of an audience for completion. This proves that such instances would not be rhetorical.
Finally the last factor is constraints. The implications and obstacles of situations characterize constraints. An example of a constraint could be an Indian tribe located in Florida in 2010, yet living with the traditions their ancestors presented. Their traditions and beliefs would be the constraints in this situation.
Rhetoric is important to understand because the audience is reliant on the language and display in order to properly relate to what the composer is trying to depict. Rhetorical situations are also important, because the outcome of the situation itself is reliant on the audience and their capability to bring the desired change. Without the proper knowledge of both of these concepts the audience would not be able to relate to the composer.
I believe that the writing and the rhetorical situation would be inversely brought up. In some situations the writing may have been thought about first, while in others the situation could have provoked the writing. Although it is true that in all writings, their must have been some sort of motive, however, the order may be switched. “One cannot say that the situation is the function of the speaker’s intention, for in this case the speakers’ intentions were determined by the situation.” (9)
I agree with Michael, that all writings may not have rhetorical situations in order to be composed. First, the writing may have not been intended for some sort of outcome as Michael mentioned, but there is also more to it. The writing may in fact be for some sort of change, however, in order to be characterized as a rhetorical situation the audience must be familiar with the topic. For example, picture a composer educating a group of foreigners on the American way of life. Yes, the composer does have an out come in mind, but the audience is completely unfamiliar with this topic. The rhetorical situation in my opinion is not a factor that a composer must have in the forefront of his mind in order to compose, but rather his intention of persuasion to any audience whether knowledgeable or not.
According to Bitzer, rhetoric is determined by situations. Rhetorical situations want to invite reactions of a certain kind. “A situation which is strong and clear dictates the purpose, theme,
ReplyDeletematter, and style of the response” (10). So in order to create a rhetorical situation, the rhetor must determine what kind of response is warranted or expected. Rhetoric is the guide to reach those responses however simple or complex they may be. The ability to change or alter a person's viewpoint is determined by the structure of the rhetorical situation. “Rhetorical situations exhibit structures which are simple or complex, and more or less organized” (11).
Situations that are simple and structured seem to have some of the largest impacts. Based on the ideas and examples discussed by Bitzer, I take the view of Michael and Alissa: that the situation is best determined first. Rhetoric appears to work best with structure than by happenstance. Many impromptu speeches can have a high impact and influence, but most aren't going to hold the same appeal as the Gettysburg Address. Depending on the author's wants, a situation might be required to properly compose. “The world really invites change — change conceived and effected by human agents who quite properly address a mediating audience” (13).
Bitzer’s definition of rhetoric is essentially the art of persuasion. A rhetorical situation is composed of three constituents, as Kara commented, exigence, audience, and constraints. Exigence is the demand or urgency of something in the situation, an imperfection able to be modified by means of discourse. Audience, of course, is who or what the situation concerns, although not all discourse requires an audience. Constraints are what influence the rhetor and can be brought upon the audience. Constraints have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence. They are the things that shape the rhetorical situation.
ReplyDeleteRhetoric does not always mean the utterance of words. Hence when someone replies to a remark that is meant to be rhetorical. It is to my own understanding that the primary purpose of rhetorical discourse is reflection. But it is still unmistakable that the objective of the speaker is persuasion. Bitzer did say that rhetoric ultimately functions to produce action or change in the world performing some task.
Rhetoric and rhetorical situation are important to the knowhow of composition because appealing to an audience is important to the writer, unless poetic.
I am in agreement with DJ Wik’s argument that rhetorical writing can be invoking as well. A person’s response can be as undetectable as an underlying emotion. There are chances that their reaction will never be made known. Try as you might, you will not be able to persuade everybody to side with your own discourse in a given rhetorical situation but I think it should considered enough of an accomplishment to at least leave them invoked.
In response to Michael Dorbin’s argument to whether or not Bitzer meant a universal audience or an audience specific to an exigence, I would reply that the audience would indefinitely have to be specific to the rhetorical situation. Bitzer makes it clear that rhetoric is situational. There can only be rhetorical discourse when there is a rhetorical situation, although situations are not always accompanied by discourse. The situation attracts a particular audience and the distinction of who makes up that audience depends on the discourse.
This indirectly answers questions four, five and six. The rhetorical situation calls for the rhetorical response, unless as mentioned earlier the composition is poetry. If someone were to argue the other way around, the rhetoric would then be considered causation for the situation. Rhetorical discourse comes into existence as the response to a situation in the same way an answer comes into existence in response to a problem, according to Bitzer.
According to Bitzer, rhetoric is considered rhetoric because of the fact that it is a response to a situation of a certain kind. He believes that it is “essentially related to situation.” I agree with Bitzer on this point and therefore I think that a rhetorical situation is necessary in order to compose. I also believe that since rhetoric influences reality, writing can create its own rhetorical situations.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading when Bitzer used Malinowski’s analogy of the fishermen communicating in response to the situation that they were in, it helped me to understand and better develop my opinion on this subject. He said in response to the analogy, “The difference between oratory and primitive utterance, however, is not a difference in function; the clear instances of rhetorical discourse and the fishermen’s utterances [described by Malinowski] are similarly functional and similarly situational… Observing both the traditions of the expedition and the facts before him, the leader of the fishermen finds himself obliged to speak at a given moment—to command, to supply information, to praise or blame—to respond appropriately to the situation.” I am even writing according to situation right now. I was given this blog assignment, and that is my rhetorical situation for writing this post. The way I express myself now is different than how I would speak to my roommate, chat on Facebook or write a letter, which are all different rhetorical situations. All types of writing require a situation in order to compose. However, the writing could perhaps create a new rhetorical situation. For example, a newspaper could print an article about a political candidate and a reader could write a letter to the editor in response. The journalist who wrote the first article created the rhetorical situation for the reader.
I agree with Alissa that it is hard to simplify a definition of the rhetorical situation when Bitzer was able to write fifteen pages on the subject, and honestly I’m not sure that I grasp its full meaning. However, the main point that I took away from this essay was that writing comes in response to a situation and this seems logical to me.
According to Bitzer rhetoric is the communication of an idea/problem to others and with the expectation of some kind of feedback. The only time something qualifies as rhetoric is if the idea/problem can be influenced or changed because of the feedback received from the audience.
ReplyDeleteBitzer says that the rhetorical situation, “…may be defined as a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removes if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence.”(6) His definition says that the discourse or response of the audience is not a part of the rhetorical situation because some rhetorical situations happen without being commented upon. They just need the openness to be influenced or changed by a possible audience. He further goes on to say that the situation is divided into three parts; the exigence, the audience and the constraints. The exigence is the question, view, ect. that can be changed, discussed or manipulated. It reminded me of the question at the beginning of an experiment in science that you create a hypothesis for. Then like in the rhetorical situation you test your hypothesis/possible answer to see if it’s the right one. The second part, the audience, is made up of the people who can influence or change the exigence. The third and final part is the constraints imposed upon the situation either by the person posing the exigence or the environment of the situation and the things in it. The constraints could be a person’s gender, religion, physical strength, etc.
I personally think of the rhetorical situation as the setup of a discussion, or the first chapter of a book or the lab that you have to do in science. It’s a situation that gets you interested enough to participate in something and maybe change the end result to how you want it to be.
Both rhetoric and the rhetorical situation are important because learning about them, what they are made up of and the definitions of each part helps authors to better utilize rhetoric and rhetorical situation in their writing. It makes for better organized and concise writing. Also, writing in such a way that it evokes a reaction or response helps to make the reader/listener more engaged and interested.
I agree with Kimi, Alyssa, Michael and DJ that the rhetorical situation came first. In order to talk/write about something you have to have something to talk/write about even if it is just in your head and not actually on paper. If you’re writing a book you don’t start in the middle of a sentence with random words pouring out with no explanation as to why you are speaking them. No you start at the beginning, making the rhetorical situation by describing what time period, place, the main characters background, appearance, job and standing in society.
I agree with Michael that all writing needs a rhetorical situation. In fact this is one point which I disagree with Bitzer. I think that even the poetry he talks about, he says that it doesn’t count because someone cannot have a discussion to change it. I think that he is wrong. You can change a work that was put up. You can discuss it and change it how you want, look at the Harry Potter movies, or the Lord of the Rings movies or the movie Blood and Chocolate. All of those movies were books that were taken by people and when changed to a different media were changed by those who were making the movie. You can even go beyond that, think about it, whenever you put a work out there you leave it open for discussion by whoever reads it. They may discuss it with others and put different meanings to things than you intended or they may wish for your story to go differently and write up a different avenue that was not put forth in your work. I mean that’s exactly what fanfiction.net and other sites like it are used for.
According to Bitzer, rhetoric is "a mode of altering reality... by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action." However, a piece of rhetoric obtains its meaning and character based on the details and meaing of its context. It's important to keep in mind that anything that can be considered a work of rhetoric is "pragmatic." Being so, a rhetorical piece exists for "the sake of something beyond itself." Rhetoric exists to perform a task (ultimately to produce or mediate change).
ReplyDeleteBitzer defines the rhetorical situation as " a natural context of persons, events, objects, reations, and an exigence." It's most concerned with the context of a piece of rhetoric, the historical or personal conditions that create the situation upon which the piece is created. These determine the type of discourse that occurs as a response to the exigence.
A rhetorical situation must have a certain set of characteristics. An exigence, audience, and set of constraints are all neccessary.
An understanding of both rhetoric and the rhetorical situation are needed to compose writing because they go hand-in-hand. The rhetorical situation has to exist already, if the discourse is to take place. Fully understnading the exigence and audience of a situation can determine the success of a rhetorician. If he does not understand these things, it is impossible to manipulate the constraints (and the minds of his audience) to produce the desired effect or action. It's impossible to create a discourse that promotes change if you do not know the situation on which it depends.
I definitely think the rhetorical situation has to come before the writing. Bitzer himself says, "So controlling is the situation that we should consider it the very ground of rhetorical activity." The situation makes the discourse neccessary, and actually brings it into existence. We can consider "writing" as a rhetorical response or discourse. The purpose of discourse is its function as a fitting response to an exigence. Kimi mentioned that she thought it plausible that writing could come before the situation, but I'm not so sure of that. I think that if you are going to produce a piece of rhetorical discourse, it MUST be prefaced by a situation. Otherwise, how do you go about it not knowing WHO you're talking to, WHAT you're addressing, and what possible constraints affect your discourse. However, not all situations elicit ressponsive discourse. This proves that they can exist seperately, that rhetorical situation CAN exist without the response. But I guess that makes the situation ineffective if it fails to bring the discourse into existence, like it's supposed to.
I don't think ALL writing requires a pre-existing rhetorical situation. Althouh language is primatively a mode of action, it can be used in other (non-rhetorical) ways as an instrument of reflection. In such cases, the composer doesn't need all the components of a rhotorical situation. Bitzer points out the fact that "neither scientific nor poetic discourse requires an audience... in order to produce its end." Not all pieces of writing or discourse carry that purpose of mediating change or action, so they don't need an audience capable of that.
According to Bitzer, rhetoric is “pragmatic; it comes into existence for the sake of something beyond itself”. The purpose of rhetoric is to create some type of action with relation to a specific situation through discourse. Because the sole purpose of rhetoric is to create a change, then Bitzer explains that rhetoric is “always persuasive”.
ReplyDeleteA rhetorical situation, then, is defined by Bitzer as “a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence.” At first glance, the definition may seem a bit daunting, but Bitzer manages to separate this into three parts to further explain what makes up a rhetorical situation.
The first element of a rhetorical situation is exigence, which in short is the “imperfection” that needs to be changed immediately. Although there may be more than one exigence, Bitzer states that “an exigence is rhetorical when it is capable of positive modification and hen positive modification requires discourse or can be assisted by discourse.”
The second element is the audience because rhetoric always requires an audience because one is needed in order to spark an influence of change over those who are presented with the discourse. Lastly, as Bitzer claims “every rhetorical situation contains a set of constraints” which are basically people or events that make up the situation because of the power they hold “to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence”.
I believe both rhetoric and rhetorical situation are important to understand when it comes to composing because without them one would not know what exactly is needed to be said or written in order to modify a situation that may be going on around you. Although I always think of composing as something a bit more creative, the examples Bitzer gives (the Gettysburg Address, presidential campaigns, etc) shows that understanding rhetoric and being able to create a rhetorical situation can help with problems going on in society. Without the knowledge of these terms our writings would not properly address what to do with certain urgent situations at hand.
As far as what comes first, I agree with Bitzer in saying that the rhetorical situation comes first. If the situation was not there to begin with, then we would not know what we were writing in order to spark a change in our society. Without the situation, there would be no dire need to modify something, and therefore, no need for the composing of a speech or news release.
I would have to agree with Michael in saying that I believe all writing does not need a rhetorical situation to be composed. Some novels or fictional writings may have been composed with no set rhetorical situation in mind, and merely for the act of creating. However, the topic can get a bit confusing, because as Kimi mentioned, some writings may be created for some change, but since they are not familiar to a certain topic then it is not considered a rhetorical situation, and if that is the case, then one can argue that maybe the author was actually attempting to create a rhetorical situation but was unsuccessful because of the audience it was presented to.
According to Bitzer, rhetoric is “a mode of altering reality… by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action.” A work of rhetoric exists for the purpose of something beyond itself – it is pragmatic. The purpose of rhetoric is to elicit some form of action or change, it performs a task.
ReplyDeleteThe rhetorical situation is highly dependent upon context. It is “a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations and an exigence.” Exigence is an essential element of the rhetorical situation, so are audience and constraints. All of these things define the rhetorical situation, and it cannot exist without all three of them.
Both rhetoric and the rhetorical situation are vital parts of composition because they go hand-in-hand. It would be difficult to produce a piece of writing that promoted a change for a situation if it were unknown. It’s important to understand that discourse is a response to the exigence of a situation. The constraints and audience of that situation influence that discourse. A good rhetorician should consider his audience, and the best way to appeal to them according to the present restraints. To produce an action (because that’s the point of rhetoric) or response, you’ve got to fully understand the situation and all its parts. The context of the situation sets the stage for the response or discourse that follows.
The rhetorical situation definitely has to come before a writing. Kimi said she thinks its possible for the writing to come first, but I disagree. Discourse that follows the exigence of a rhetorical situation is a response to it. The actual situation dictates the types of actions taken or the words that are uttered. Bitzer himself says that “it is the situation which calls the discourse into existence.” How can you create a response to something if you don’t know the context? What are you talking about? Who are you talking to? What factors influence your audience or the situation as a whole?
However, I don’t think ALL writing requires the pre-existence of a situation. “Neither scientific nor poetic discourse requires… an audience in order to produce its end.” I believe some forms of writing or composition are independent of the situation, for the simple reason that they do not require all its components. Scientific or poetic writings can exist on their own because they don’t need an audience to serve as a mediator of change. Even if they do seem to promote some sort of action, response or proceeding discourse is not needed, as it is not their purpose. Rhetorical composition is a breed all its own.
I find it almost ironic how Bitzer spends his time exploring rhetoric, the rhetorical situation, discourse and their importance towards the process of composing when Bitzer, himself, has based his writings on a loose and complex rhetorical situation. I fail to see the rhetorical situation that complies with his writings on the subject of rhetoric. However, it does lead me to think whether teaching itself, is a discourse to a rhetorical situation. Bitzer himself describes rhetoric as 'a mode of altering reality not by the direct application of energy to objects but by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation’ (pg 4) and I can understand how teaching could easily be seen as a discourse to the world of education and knowledge. What I am still puzzled about is how it is a fitting response to a rhetorical situation. Maybe I am completely missing the point or exploring a loose and complex rhetorical situation myself.
ReplyDeleteWhat I can follow is Bitzer’s further discussion of the rhetorical situation and it’s constituents. Bitzer does provide a solid definition of the rhetorical situation by stating the major components (exigencies, audience and constraints) and the interaction between all three components, discourse and rhetoric. Bitzers description of a rhetorical situation clearly points out that with the presence of an actual or potential exigency there must be some form of discourse that can overcome all constraints and lead to some form of significant modification. Linguistically, rhetorical situations affect the interaction between the audience and the exigencies present, whether through primitive utterance, as in Malinowski’s fisherman situation, or an oratory response like that of Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech. Both being speech given with significance to the rhetorical situation.
Bitzer description of both simple and complex structured situations caused me to think about Bitzers approach to rhetoric. Malinowski’s situation involving the fisherman and the canoes was direct, simple and structured. Every utterance may have been primitive, however they where direct towards all exigencies present and were fitting discourses to the situation. On the other hand Bitzer presents us with a complex and loose situation involving W L Garrison preaching from town to town and creating new constraints requiring furher discourse. However, Bitzers situation that I pointed out earlier involving teaching and failing to see the rhetorical situation it fit, was brought to me after looking at Garrisons constraints. Like Garrison, as writer, would Bitzer not be creating his own constraints by, unknowing to it’s popularity, choose to publish his work. In fact, could it be that perhaps spreading any message, be it educational or informational, is not rhetoric in any way?
After revisting my previous statement I began to think. I may have been wrong earlier stating teaching and writing does not comply with a rhetorical situation. The fact that Bitzer has no knowledge of an involved audience with his situation may be a constraint but does not rule out his rhetorical situation being real and true. Bitzer’s situation may not be saying writing can be composed without rhetorical situation, more so that a rhetorical situation can exist with certain constraints. A similar situation could be the example provided above regarding a sports writer covering the finals and not knowing what’s happening. He has only imposed a new constraint on the same audience. The rhetorical situation has created a new rhetorical situation due to new constraints. The audience overcomes these constraints by having alternate forms of discourse to address the new exigency. Showing writing is composed with rhetorical situations and that rhetorical situations can exist with certain constrains and exigencies left without discourse.
In his essay, The Rhetorical Situation, Lloyd F. Bitzer attempts to clearly define the terms of a rhetorical situation and prove its vital role in the more popular and widely recognized rhetorical discourse. Bitzer begins by outlining rhetoric as “a mode of altering reality… through mediation of thought and action” (4). This also leads to the point that the nature of rhetoric is always persuasive in an attempt to move the audience into action. However, it is paramount to recognize that rhetoric gains its existence and significance through the presence of a fitting situation and thereby it is suiting to explicitly understand a rhetorical situation.
ReplyDeleteA situation is rhetorical insomuch as it facilitates a need for discourse that is appropriate and alters the reality of the situation it stems from. All rhetorical situations must consist of three main components; exigence, audience, and constraints. In simpler but longer terms this means that there must be “an imperfection marked by urgency” (6) that can be changed through the means of discourse, an audience of people who is capable of being influenced and facilitate change, as well as constraints that limit the decisions and changes that can occur.
It is imperative to have a clear grasp of both of these elements in order to be a proficient rhetorician in writing or speech. Without this essential knowledge it is unlikely to give an effective speech that will produce much more than flying tomatoes and loud jeers. It seems to be a logical conclusion that if rhetoric only has significance through a particular situation then they must be mutually inclusive. One must know how to influence and persuade through words alone and what situation those words are most fitting in.
While I tend to agree with Michael’s aforementioned theory that the rhetorical situation must precede the writing I feel the need to point out that many times the perfect speech is composed before it has a purpose or situation. This seems to be the case with Winston Churchill who supposedly “went around searching for ‘finest hours’” (2). It would seem he had specific speeches planned and hunted down the perfect situation to implement them, tweaking them only slightly to assure they remained relevant.
I do not feel that all writing needs a rhetorical situation, but I do notice that it tends to implement it anyways. Even those works meant to entertain generally have a moral or lesson that becomes apparent. While not always a rousing call to arms these modes of entertainment are cleverly disguised rhetorical discourse that cause its audience to ponder the aspects of life focused on. Why is this? Perhaps because it is a widely held view that everything produced must have a purpose.
Bitzer spends a great deal of time breaking down rhetoric into three main groups. According to him the rhetorical situation is made up of three “constituents: exigence, audience, and constraints.” As Michael Dobrin said, “rhetoric is a type of discourse that seeks to meet certain goals and adapt ideas to an audience.” I believe he nailed the definition in this statement. The entirety of Bitzer’s essay is spent analyzing and breaking down the ways certain discourse is meant to satisfy a rhetorical situation. In the beginning, he focuses on the importance of the rhetorical situation and compares the rhetorical discourse to an answer, while the rhetorical situation serves as a question. You cannot have one without the other.
ReplyDeleteBefore I go further on Bitzer’s rhetorical situation I would like to take a little more time breaking down his constituents, which make up the backbone of his argument. First, Bitzer explains that “an exigence is an imperfection marked by urgency.” Based on the reading, this comes across as a situation which derives response, such as the assassination of a president, Hurricane Katrina, or the earthquake in Haiti. These circumstances demand a response with a certain emotional appeal. If the discourse that followed an assassination of a beloved leader was happy and filled with jokes it wouldn’t make any sense and clearly wouldn’t fit in with the situation. The exigence therefore serves an important role. Next, Bitzer brings up the audience. I’ve always believed that the audience is one of the most important factors in discourse; however, Bitzer states that the audience must “consist of only [people] who are capable of being influenced.” This strict stipulation caught me off guard and caused my idea of a rhetorical discourse to switch perspectives from the need of an audience to the need for an influential audience. The final constituent Blitzer mentions are “constraints made up of persons, events, objects, and relations” which can all alter the rhetorical situation.
In order to compose, one must understand the rhetoric, the rhetorical situation as well as the factors surrounding the situation. If someone gave a fourth grade class a lecture on Physics and how it impacts their lives the message would be lost in translation. The audience must be able to understand the speaker in order to be “influenced by the discourse.”
I believe that the question must always come before the answer and therefore find it relevant to believe that the rhetorical situation must come before the rhetorical discourse. In order to have a solution there must first be a problem, as stated by DJ in agreement with Michael “the rhetorical situation [must] come before the written word involving the three aspects of the situation that exist before writing.”
Blitzer lost me a little when he said that a rhetorical situation is required for discourse. I believe that in some instances, while the situation allows for a better mode of discourse and poses a question to be asked, rhetorical discourse can still serve a purpose without answering a question. For some, it may simply serve as an expression of mood or a mode of thought while still influencing an audience of similar emotional states.
What is rhetoric? That is a wonderful question. After reading this essay and trying to piece together Bitzer’s definition of what rhetoric is, I have kind of a confused and jumbled definition that I was able to pull out of the context of the situations he presented us with. Rhetoric is a cause/effect deal. Rhetoric is a “fitting” response to a situation. Meaning, some event happened, which warranted the oral or written persuasion of another to make the situation more positive. Rhetoric does not occur where a person is not intending to influence another person, and it is almost exclusively situational.
ReplyDeleteA rhetorical situation is one where one person has the ability to change the perspective of another or an audience. The best way to describe a rhetorical situation (based only on what I have gathered from this essay) is by describing a situation that is, in fact, rhetorical. Basically, when an event happens, or there is an exigency (intrinsic urgency) among others, it has become a rhetorical situation. However, there are some situations that fit the description I’ve just given that are not rhetoric. These are situations which cannot be changed, regardless of words or actions. This includes events like natural disasters.
Rhetoric is important in understanding how to compose because it sets the orator or writer’s aim before they shoot. It gives us a cause/effect sort of outline. Without knowing what issue is at hand, one will not know how to properly address it, or what it is trying to convince others of. Rhetorical situation is crucial in understand if the orator or writer’s point is even valid. Meaning, is it a rhetorical situation? In the cases of science and poetry, it is not. Therefore, knowing whether or not to attempt rhetoric is extremely important. The rhetorical situation comes first. This sets the tone and agenda for the writing.
I don’t believe that all writing needs a rhetorical situation in order to compose. Bitzer said it himself, science and poetry are not rhetorical. While some might contest science as writing, there is no debate as to whether poetry is legitimate writing or not. While most works of literature or speech are riddled with persuasive subtleties and hidden agendas, clearly some are not.
Rhetoric according to the understanding I interpreted from Bitzer was how we describe a situation. Bitzer makes mention in the very first few lines that “if someone remarks, I find myself in an embarrassing situation, again the statement implies certain situational characteristics.” (1) From that it can be said that a rhetorical situation has to have some back bone in it, going back to basics of who and what. Bitzer mentions that there needs to be context and the situation can be from a speaker’s point of view or the writers. The form of writing can be any from my understanding, but there needs to be some discourse in order for it to play out. There also needs to be some dept in the writing, which the reader or speaker can paint a clear picture to the audience. This way the audience can capture that moment in time or have it affect them on a deeper level. Bitzer said “every audience at any moment is capable of being changed in some way by a speech; persuasive situation is altogether general” (3) I believe that any one of us in this class can say that we all in some way have been changed by a speech we have heard or have it stuck in our heads for a while, pondering on the deeper meaning.
ReplyDeleteThe importance of rhetoric and the situation when it comes to composing in my opinion is that a voice needs to be found in the writing. Anyone can be a writer by just jotting down a bunch of bull that makes no sense. When it comes to composing, a good writer is going to make an impact to the audience by the way it is presented, meaning it needs to be clear, structured, and hitting on that deeper level. Coming down to it I believe that the rhetorical situation had to come first before the writing because there has to be some context to write. There does not necessarily have to be a rhetorical situation to compose because there are different genres when it comes to writing. A situation does not have to be from the real world, it can come from imagination to spark those deeper feelings that an audience would feel and come to think about later. A fun example would be the Harry Potter books, they are fiction but the way that the series of books plays out, as an audience going deep into the book, the situation is relatable. We can relate to the situations on school, family, and friends, while getting sucked into this magical world in the book.
I agree with Sarah Kate on how the rhetorical situation must come before the writing, as I also mentioned above. It is like the question about, “which came first the chicken or the egg.” In other words there needs to be a starting point and Sarah’s explanation was probably a hell of a lot better than mine. In honesty, I did not fully understand what Blitzer was trying to explain with rhetoric because it seemed repetitive, but just from reading the above is my own understanding and never having a class on rhetoric at all.
Bitzer says that rhetoric “functions ultimately to produce action or change in the world” (4). He explains that rhetoric influences its audience through its engaging form; it is persuasive. The rhetorical situation is “the context in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse” (1).
ReplyDeleteBitzer adds that there are three parts to the rhetorical situation: exigence, audience, and constraints. Rhetorical exigence refers to an issue that needs to be addressed or changed, and only an issue that can actually be altered by people. Bitzer says the exigence is “something waiting to be done” (6). The audience is the group of people that can potentially change that issue, while the constraints are anything coming in the way of the audience acting. I think these three parts are equally important because you can’t essentially have any change without one of the three parts interacting with another.
I agree with Alissa Margaret about the rhetorical situation coming before the writing. I think any thought that comes before the writing counts as a rhetorical situation. The situation might not always involve something urgent or making an important change, but it is a situation nonetheless. For example, a rhetorical situation where the exigence is not an issue of great importance to most people or society might be overlooked by people. This doesn’t mean that there is no situation, though.
I don’t believe that all writing needs a rhetorical situation in order to compose (meaning that there doesn’t need to be an exigence), but I think that it is almost always there, whether the author (or audience, for that matter) notices it or not. I don’t think you need to look for a situation or have something in mind while writing. I think sometimes the situation is just in the context of the writing.
It is so important to understand rhetoric and the rhetorical situation because they can be extremely powerful to the speaker or writer (and later, the audience). When you fully understand the concepts that Bitzer talks about, it is clear that carefully considering what the rhetorical situation is and how to use rhetoric in that situation are to the writer or speaker’s advantage, especially because of the persuasive nature of rhetoric. I liked what Kimi said about these two concepts being important because they create the relationship between the speaker/writer and the audience. That relationship is what really allows rhetoric to be so powerful.
According to Bitzer rhetoric is “a mode of altering reality... by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action”. He states that when we look at rhetoric as a discipline it “provides principles, concepts and procedures by which we effect valuable changes in reality” through the thought and action of a rhetor’s audience. This is the goal of the examples that Bitzer uses in his essay. Lincoln gave his Gettysburg address in response to the historical events of the time to inspire those audience members capable of action to abolish slavery. This enforces Bitzer’s idea that the main function of rhetoric is to perform a task, and that task is to effect change upon the exigence.
ReplyDeleteRhetorical situations aim to inspire some sort of moral action that will effectively change an exigence. Bitzer states that the rhetorical situation is composed of three constituents: the exigence, the audience, and the constraints. An exigence is a situation that needs to be changed and can be changed through discourse, which for example could be slavery – as addressed in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The audience consists only of those “persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change”. To continue with Lincoln’s speech as an example the audience could be anyone who could vote to abolish slavery – white, male property owners or government officials etc. There are a myriad of constraints that can affect the “decision and actions needed to modify the exigence”. The beliefs or predispositions of the audience, the style or logic that the rhetor uses in their argument, facts, images, motives etc. are all constraints. The constraints in President Lincoln’s speech are pretty obvious; many people held the belief that African Americans were inferior and shouldn’t be freed etc. All three of those elements function in a rhetorical situation to elicit a “fitting response” that will change the exigence.
I think that knowledge of both rhetoric and rhetorical situations is essential to knowing how to compose. Without that knowledge you would be unable to organize your arguments or understand your constraints so that you can appeal to your audience. Knowing about the beliefs of your audience, which facts to present, what style of language to use etc. are essential in creating discourse.
I would have to agree with Bitzer that the rhetorical situation spurs the rhetor to create discourse. Continuing with the example of Lincoln’s speech, if there were no slaves than there wouldn’t have been a need for the Gettysburg Address. His speech would have been recorded and possibly used later if slavery arose, but I don’t think that everyone thinks in that order. That is why I respectfully disagree with Kimi’s thought that “in some situations the writing may have been thought about first”. I feel that, for example no, one would write a speech about the negative effects of global warming if there was no current exigence dealing with that issue.
Do I believe all writing needs a rhetorical situation in order to compose? No. Simply because as Bitzer mentions in his essay, all writing isn’t necessarily rhetorical and rhetorical discourse would be used to address a rhetorical situation. Poetry isn’t always composed to inspire readers or audiences to take action and change a situation, and when I wrote essays for my technique class I certainly didn’t have any exigence in mind that I was writing in response to.
On a side note, I also thought that Zack’s comment about “whether teaching itself, is a discourse to a rhetorical situation…[and] how teaching could easily be seen as a discourse to the world of education and knowledge” was pretty interesting since one of the three main functions of rhetoric is to teach. I don’t fully understand what Zack meant but when I read his comment it instantly made me think of rhetoric as a means to teach, delight and persuade.
In Lloyd F. Bitzers “The Rhetorical Situation”, he goes on to explain what exactly rhetoric and the rhetorical situation mean, and how they correlate with one another to create works. Bitzer defines rhetoric in three main parts: exigence, audience, and constraints. Each one is crucially important to the other. They are the basic means necessary for the construction of an argument. As Jocelyn said: "Exigence is the demand or urgency of something in the situation, an imperfection able to be modified by means of discourse. Audience, of course, is who or what the situation concerns, although not all discourse requires an audience. Constraints are what influence the rhetor and can be brought upon the audience. Constraints have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence." She couldn’t have described it better.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bitzer the rhetorical situation is: "a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence. Prior to the creation and presentation of the discourse, there are three constituents of any rhetorical situation: the first is the exigence; the second and third are elements of the complex, namely the audience to be constrained in decision and action, and the constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience." (6) In that passage Bitzer went on to explain the rhetorical situation, as well as how it goes hand in hand with rhetoric, which leads me to my next point.
Rhetoric and the rhetorical situation work off one another. One cannot exist without the other, as the situation is what triggers the writing. Like Sarah Kate said: "If someone gave a fourth grade class a lecture on Physics and how it impacts their lives the message would be lost in translation. The audience must be able to understand the speaker in order to be “influenced by the discourse.”"
Like Alissa said: "I agree with Michael that a rhetorical situation must come before the writing. The explanation for this is pretty simple: you’ve got to know what you’re writing about before you write it. It’s like having a sports writer come up with an article on the NBA Finals, without actually watching the game and seeing the outcome. It doesn’t work very well." She used a prime example of how necessary it is to have the rhetorical situation before the writing about the actual situation, the order is vital.
I agree with what anw said completely: "I do not feel that all writing needs a rhetorical situation, but I do notice that it tends to implement it anyways." This statement exemplifies the fact that every little thing has a purpose in this life. Even stories that are pure fiction are made for people to enjoy them. Every author expects to reach out to a certain audience, ideally all audiences, but sometimes it doesn't work out that way. Nonetheless, each piece has a goal.
A rhetorical situation is a three part situation. As Bitzer says a rhetorical discourse is a response to a situation. I definitely agree with him. Everything we say and do is a response to something else such as a problem, a question or even another response. The three parts of a rhetorical situation are an exigence, an audience, and constraints. Exigence is the problem. Audience is who he is speaking to and constraints are something that have power over a decision.
ReplyDeleteThe audience is a huge factor that changes the entire situation as well. I am fascinated by this concept. The number of people one is talking to, and what is being spoken of, and how delicately it is being spoken is a huge factor is determining the harshness, suttlety, and power of the message being delievered.
His views on the rhetorical situation to me are basically a giant breakdown of a conversation and all the ways it can go considering the limitations given to that conversation based upon the constraints and audience.
The rhetorical situation definitely comes before rhetorical discourse, because there simply would be no reason to have discourse if there was not first a “problem.” If there were no “problems” there would be no need for rhetorical discourse, for everything we say and respond to stems from a “problem.”
I disagree with Michael Dobrin when he states he “does not believe that all writing requires a rhetorical situation in order to be composed.” Every piece of text composed has a purpose, has a way to explain what is unknown, or is just a response to information that is in demand, information that one may hold to help people better understand a situation.
Bitzer definitely gives us something to think about in everyday life. Yesterday I tried to assess the rhetorical situation every time I spoke and it was entertaining to say the least.
Bitzer's "The Rhetorical SIutation" takes the time to analyze how discourse, rhetoric, and rhetorical situation all function together to create different pieces. Bitzer makes valid points by explaining that the rhetoric persuades the audience and influences how they view a piece. When it comes to defining rhetoric for myself I have to agree with Doeadeer, "Rhetoric is a cause/effect deal. Rhetoric is a “fitting” response to a situation. Meaning, some event happened, which warranted the oral or written persuasion of another to make the situation more positive. Rhetoric does not occur where a person is not intending to influence another person, and it is almost exclusively situational. " Thinking of rhetoric as cause and effect situation works perfectly and easy to grasp that concept.
ReplyDeleteBitzer himself defines rhetorical situation as, "a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence." (6) Bitzer goes on to say that there are three components that make up a rhetorical situation: exigence, audience and constraints. Each three are very important to the overall rhetorical situation because if one is not represent there there is no way persuasion can take place. The example Sarah Kate provided about the fourth grade class room being taught Physics and the impacts it has over their lives, was perfect way to put things in perspective. Obviously the concepts would go over their heads because they haven't a clue as to how Physics works. In order for an audience to be persuaded they must actually understand the speaker. Now whether rhetorical situation or writing comes first I personally feel that they are both so important the have to work together. But I do feel that a situation would create a need for writing. Agreeing with Alissa's statement that "you’ve got to know what you’re writing about before you write it. It’s like having a sports writer come up with an article on the NBA Finals, without actually watching the game and seeing the outcome. It doesn’t work very well." Her example was perfect, you need to know what you're writing about in order to write. So with that said, if I had to choose I would say that writing about a situation follows rhetorical situation.
Honestly, I'm not completely sure if all writing needs a rhetorical situation in order to compose, but it does tend to happen that way. Personally I feel all work that is created has an audience, whether that audience is yourself, a small group, or more large scale and the author hopes the audience will connect with the piece.
After reading Bitzer’s “The Rhetorical Situation” I was initially confused. I’ve never studied rhetoric before and I hadn’t realized its full scope. According to Bitzer’s definition rhetoric is almost anything we say or do. It’s our response to a problem or situation. The three main requirement of a rhetorical situation are exigence, audience, and constraints. Exigence refers to the problem, Audience refers to the people you’re trying to reach and constraints are anything that has an impact on the audience’s decision. I agree with Jocelyn’s statement that rhetoric “functions to produce action or change.” The main purpose of rhetoric is persuasion according to Bitzer.
ReplyDeleteLike many of my classmates I too believe that the rhetorical situation must come before the writing. How can someone compose without an idea of the context of the discourse and the intended target audience? You need to know what you’re talking about and why it’s important to the audience if you hope to connect with them and influence their action or perceptions.
I feel that most writing is rhetorical because it is in essence the author’s response to his surroundings. Anw observes that many works that are written to entertain also address rhetorical situations by causing the “audience to ponder aspects of life.” So while not all novels or poems are rhetorical, they should not be deemed non-rhetorical for the mere reason that they are entertaining. An excellent example of this Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. Miller wrote his play about the Salem witch hunts in order to connect with his audience and show them the similarities between the ignorance and hysteria of that situation and the fear of Communism that was prevalent at the time. Although Miller’s objective was to entertain he also sought to influence his audience’s perceptions and change their way of thinking.
I’m excited to learn more about rhetoric and it application in my writing, speaking and daily communications.
Yancey talks in her article about her quartets, although they were a bit hard for me to grasp, I have come up with my own thoughts about the change of Rhetoric and Composition. These are, to me, the largest changes I have seen in my lifetime.
ReplyDeleteQuartet 1:
Books are dying. The way through which we read has changed. The Kindel and iPad are what people are now reading from. Google books and JSTOR are online reading materials that we use to get our information. There are benefits to this for us; convenience and cost efficiency. The downside is not being able to go into a library or a bookstore and buy a book, which is also bad for the publishers pocket. This new way of reading, however, is much more accessible. People have many more resources at the touch of a button that they would have to spend hours flipping through at the library.
Quartet 2:
The Internet. This has changed rhetoric and composition immensely! It not only changes how we read, but what we read as well. Facebook and twitter, blogging and all those outlets that come along with that category are literary innovations. This is a huge moment for English as a whole! This new media has mainly changed English by giving people the means to publish their own work. There are so many more thoughts and ideas out there than we had before. The internet is their “safe place” to store their thoughts, anonymously or not. It is an interesting phenomena of changing composition.
Quartet 3:
People are lazy. Despite the internet and having things becoming more accessible, I almost feel in a way that reading is dying. My GPS in my car has a program that reads books to me while I’m driving. The internet provides a summary for just about anything you could want. They even shorten relatively short articles. Many people my age do not read, only those Ive met in my major read “for fun” or even for school. When we were younger in school, we did Accelarated Reading and read books to get to a prize through taking quizzes. Perhaps now in our adult lives were waiting for a prize? I must admit, I am guilty of this too. I love to write, but I don’t much care for reading what others have to say.
After reviewing my quartets, it looks like technology is the culprit that I have come up with in all the ways rhetoric and composition are changing. Those things will soon change as the stone tablet and writing on animal skin changed and transformed into what we know today, and so on and so forth. I am unsure what will come of reading and what other ways we will find literature, but I know more change is upon us, and technology will be the culprit.
According to Bitzer , rhetorical situation is defined as, “A complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, and so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence.” He wrote that rhetorical discourse is called into existence by situation. So therefore Bitzer is saying without rhetorical situation there would be no discourse.
ReplyDeleteThe rhetorical situation determines the significant verbal and physical outcome and therefore the discourse of the situation. The reason for discourse is to respond to a situation that has an apparent problem. If there is a problem, it is apparent that discourse needs to be taken into action to address the issue.
Although many situations exist, not all are defined as rhetorical situation. There are three parts that make up any rhetorical sitution:
1.Exigence, problem existing in the world. It is not rhetorical when it can not be changed by a human in the world, such as a natural disaster or death. Only is it rhetorical when a positive act can modify it through persuasion.
2.Audience; discourse happens through the actions of the audience mediating change.
3.Constraints; made up of persons, events, objects and relations that limit decisions and actions.
It is important to understand both rhetoric and rhetorical situations when composing because they both play an important role in why and how we begin writing. While rhetorical situation may in my opinion become before or after the writing, it still is a tool used to shape the goal of what is being composed.
I disagree with Michael and Autumn in that all writing needs a rhetorical situation. I don’t believe all writing needs a rhetorical situation to compose, because according to Bitzer not all situations are considered rhetorical. So those writings that are composed but are not considered rhetorical are still composed whether they are rhetorical or not.