My plan was to cover the elements of what is called the Rhetorical Situation for Wednesday. The Rhetorical Situation describes the elements that are present in discourse. Much of the thinking on this subject follows the work done by Lloyd Bitzer, who wrote an essay describing these elements. There are people who have disagreed with Bitzer; notably, Richard Vatz.
Read Bitzer's essay here: Rhetorical Situation Bitzer
and respond to this post with one thing from the essay you found yourself agreeing with and one question the essay made you ask.
I will see you on Friday, where we will pick up a quick review of your responses to Lutz and Allport.
Thank you!
Sharita P. section29
ReplyDeleteA concept i find myself agreeing with is the concept of how situations are constructed. Some situtins can be considered as minuscule to others while other take it as a very important topic. Bitzer discusses the exigence in each situation can make the situation weak in structure. For instance my exigence for writing this may be to obtain the grade while the exigence of another student may be to get the assignment out of the way. Exigence and situtations vary from oerson to person.
I don't have any questions about exigence, constraints, or audience because I have covered the topic in my previous ENC 1101 class lasst semester.
Jamie O.
ReplyDeleteSection 2
There are 2 lines in this text that I find to agree with. Bitzer states that "An act is moral because it is an act performed in a situation of a certain kind; similarly, a work is rhetorical because it is a response to a situation of a certain kind". An example to this statement is when Bitzer was talking about the Declaration of Independence along with Churchill's Address on Dunkirk. Those actions wouldn't exactly fit in today's society but at the time it was necessary to produce those responses. There is a question that comes to mind though when thinking about this, how much would the responses change if the situation was slightly different?
Rachel Lee
ReplyDeleteENC 1102-2
One idea that I had definitely agreed with was that "a work of rhetoric is pragmatic; it comes into existence for the sake of something beyond itself; it functions ultimately to produce action or change in the world; it performs some task." It explains how the use of language can create different perspectives through thoughts and action. Rhetoric simply has a purpose in every situation, and I agree that rhetoric is always persuasive in some way towards someone or an idea.
One question that formed in my mind was whether or not a person's experiences and education always affect their understanding of rhetoric.
Matthew Shields
ReplyDeleteENC 1102-0002
In Bitzer’s essay on rhetorical situations, I found his concept of an actual “situation” to be very thought provoking and ultimately true. He believes that a situation isn’t simply a series of events, but a combination of “natural contexts, persons, objects, events and relations.” Basically this means that all of the aspects involved make up the particular meaning and character of a situation. This is important because when writing it is vital that we look at the big picture and think critically about the several features that make up the certain situation. Bitzer’s essay does make me ask the question, “Although there are many aspects that essentially make up a situation, should any of these aspects be weighed more than others?”
Kristen Alazraki
ReplyDeleteENC 1102-0029
An idea I agree with in Bitzer's essay is the idea of rhetorical discourse as being a response to a situation, and that speech is given rhetorical significance by the situation. I agree because discourse in the literacy world occurs from a situation, such as responding to someone else's work. In addition, I think the idea of literacy being a conversation, that we learned last year, supports Britzer's claim because it gives a situation that allows for discourse. A question that arises though is if all discourse is caused by a situation? and if there could be a meaningful discourse without a situation?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of Bitzer’s article that I agree with is that rhetoric can sometimes be persuasive. This is because the rhetor alters reality by bringing discourse of such a character into existence that the audiences in thought and action, is so engaged that it becomes mediator of change. One question that I still have after reading this article is what exactly is an exigence?
ReplyDeleteAlex DeLoach
ReplyDeleteSection 2
I agreed that rhetoric is situational, however I am disagree that it is a mode of altering reality. How can "the creation of discourse" change reality? Just because you get somebody to think or do something differently does that really mean you have altered reality? Whats real is real, and whats fake is fake. You may change people's perception of reality, but not reality itself.
I agree with the idea that "Rhetorical situation may be 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, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence". This is explaining what a rhetorical situation is and all the different aspects of it. One question that was raised when reading this was the idea of exigence, after reading the article i do not fully understand all the aspects and situations regarding exigence.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Bromley
ReplyDeleteSection 2
I enjoyed the essay and thought that Blitzer did a great job analyzing how complex a situation can be. When Blitzer states that, "a rheotrical situation may be defined as a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations 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," he is trying to explain all the different factors and characteristics that make up ones decision as to how to act in a rhetorical situation. An example of this would be one worker doing his work to get done with his day and go home while the other worker is doing his work with great intensity and preparadeness because he is trying to get a promotion.
My question that pertains to this article is the issue of "is our perception reality?"
Katie Kardok
ReplyDeleteSection 29
A concept which I agree with and understand is exigence, which in a rhetorical situation is the need for something or an obstacle to overcome. I concur with the idea that there are many exigences, and that not all will be rhetorical. An exmample that Bitzer gave was death or a natural disaster. These exigences cannot be rhetorical because it would not make sense if they were.
A concept I disagree with Bitzer on is when he states "If it makes sense to say that situation invites a "fitting" response, then situation must somehow prescribe the response which fits". I disagree with this idea because a rhetorical response can fit a situation without meeting such specific requirements that it apparently needs to fit a correct response.
I agree with Blitzer's second characteristic of rhetorical situation which states that "it involves a fitting response". This is demonstrated by his example of the Gettysburg Address. One question his essay made me ask is, how can a poet not need an audience to create a poem? Poems are more often than not written for or to someone, i.e and audience.
ReplyDeleteKarissa Kasper
ENC 1102 - Sec. 29
Khemjai Harkissoon
ReplyDeleteSection 29
One aspect, or concept, of Bitzer’s article that I would have to agree with rhetoric being situation but the aspect of it that makes reality warp is still a little abroad for me. I really don't have any questions over the topics of exigence, constraints, or audience because I have covered the topic in my ENC 1101 class.
Patrice Williams
ReplyDeleteSection 29
Bitzer in his article, The Rhetorical situation,generates an ideal that conversation is eminently dependent on the situation in which created it, and with this i agree. Discourse would not be evident if a prior situation did not bring the subject to hand, which agrees to the statement of Bitzer's article when he said that with any rhetorical discourse a past rhetorical situation exist. I believe and agree with Bitzer when he stated that situations establishes differnt emotions in people which creates different reactions and different discourses leading to disagreements, and debates. One thing I do not understand, or agree with about the article is when he stated that situations are not always followed by discourse. I believe that every situation is followed by some sort of discourse because differnt things ignites emotions on differnt levels to everyone, so it is highly unbelievalbe that a sitution can go unspoken about.
Matthew Herrmann
ReplyDeleteENC1102 Section 29
I agree with Bitzer when he claims rhetoric alters reality not through "...direct application of energy to objects..." but by persuading the audience to change reality. If I create a discourse about climate change, my essay does nothing directly to lower carbon emissions. However, it may persuade others to lessen fossil fuels they use or make innovations in alternative energy.
A question the essay made me ask was... "Which component of a rhetorical situation is the most influential on a discourse?"
Samantha Hatch
ReplyDeleteENC 1102
I not only agree with Blitzer but I also think he did a great job of laying out a clear concise argument for what a rhetorical situation is. I liked how on page 4 of his essay he used the analogy, " A living tree must be rooted in soil. A tree does not obtain its character as a tree from the soil, but rhetorical discourse, obtains its character as rhetorical from the situation which generates it." This was an awesome analogy that made his point very clear. Also, I agree with how Blitzer said that the rhetor is able to "alter reality by bringing into existence a character that the audience is engaged by". I agree that a rhetor is able to alter ones reality by discourse by taking on a certain character.
A question I have would be when he said that rhetorical situations can't just warrant any response, but it must be a fitting response. Wouldn't any response to a situation be a fitting response since its a response and thats what a rhetorical situation warrants?
Pascal P.
ReplyDeleteSection 2
In Lloyd Bitzer's article, I agree with his claim that the use of rhetorical situation is not exactly persuasive. More specifically, he asserts "every audience at any moment is capable of being changed in some way by speech; persuasive situation is altogether general." So, the arguments of a speaker's rhetorical discourse may (or may not) enact persuasion of the audience. Also, Bitzer has contradicted himself in the article, leading me to question what was the basis of his argument. He states "it does not follow that a situation exists only when the discourse exists... nor should we assume that a rhetorical address gives existence to the situation.", and it seemed unclear whether he was unable to take a definite stance or wanted to consider the possibility of truth in both notions.
Russell Kupke
ReplyDeleteENC 1102
I agree with his definition of a Rhetorical Solution. On how it involves a complex weave of people, events and objects. With the idea of changing just one of these items can change the whole exigence.
My question is how small of a change must be done in order to bring about a big change, and how big of a change are we talking about. Is it change enough that the whole situation is manipulated or instead just viewed in a different light.
In The Rhetorical Situational essay I agreed with Bitzer when he was talking about how exigencies are only rhetorical when it can be positively changed due to or with the assistance of conversation. Knowing this I believe that a rhetorical situation is the conversation that is taken place in order for the positive result. One question I have is does the change have to positive for everybody in the situation?
ReplyDeleteRyane Aldred
sec 29
Alex Perez
ReplyDeleteENC 1102- 29
An idea that i agreed with in Bitzer's article, was that rhetorical dicourse is a response to a situation. Events are unpredictable, unexpected external factors, varying audiences, etc. create a situation. Therefore,teh response has to accomodate to the channges in to be effective. There is always a situation, there would be no need for a discourse without one.
Pecious S. Howze
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement in the article that rhetoric is situational and that no utternce is fully intelligle unless meaning-context and utterance is understood. It's not enough to understand what context something is said in but why a person has said that particular remark. I didn't fully understand the exigence part.
Section 2
ReplyDeleteI agree with his statement of not being able to give an exact answer to "what is a rhetorical situation." It is because we all have different opinions on just about everything so does that mean everything that is ever said in a day considered a rhetorical situation? I also do not really understand the exigence part.
Andrew Tran
ReplyDeletesection 2
After reading this article, i agree that rhetorical situation creates the rhetorical discourse. Also that there are three elements of rhetorical situation, exigence, audience, and constrains. The one part i do not understand is what is really the "fitting response"?
Victor Lai
ReplyDeleteENC 1102 Section 29
In his article The Rhetorical Situation, Bitzer presents a point in which I wholly agree with. He stated that verbal response imposed by a situation are as functional and necessary as physical responses. I might add onto his view that a situation provokes thoughts usually relevant to the situation. A question I had in mind was "does imagination come into situations as a factor?".
Deidre McGovern
ReplyDeleteENC 1102 Section 29
In Bitzer's article, The Rhetorical Situation, I agree with his statement that the verbal responses to the demands imposed by a situation are clearly as functional and necessary as physical responses. I did not understand what he meant about exigence.
One thing I definitely agreed with was stated at the beginning, “it is the situation that calls the discourse into existence”. It made sense to me with the example about missing the opportunity to speak on an urgent matter, then you play the speech you would have given in your head. The main question I still have is about the meaning of exigence, I just don’t really have a grasp on it.
ReplyDeleteNastasia Boutros
Olivia F Section .29
ReplyDeleteOne thing I agree with from Bitzer's piece is that theorists usually ignore rhetorical situation as a distinct subject. This is illustrated by the example of the way theorists commonly evaluate rhetorical situations. One thing I still have questions on is the part about primative languages and oration.
James Brooks
ReplyDeletesection 2
I agree with the concept of how situations are created and calls the discourse. Rhetorical situation arguments deprive form the response to a prior situation.I just dont understand the the part about exigence in the essay.
Irene Freire
ReplyDeleteENC 1102.0029
One of the ideas that I agreed with Bitzer's article on "Rhetorical Situations" was how He described the rhetorical situation, or gave it's meaning very detailed. In other words, how the "rhetorical situation" involves a range of people, object, etc. One question I did have about the article was, "what did Bitzer mean about exigence?"
In Bitzer's essay "Rhetorical Situations" I agreed that there was more than one component to a rhetorical situation. The people involved as well as the relationshops present is important. Also, the author and whom he or she is speaking to are involved. In addition to the location of the situation, the way that the author adresses the audience by expressing what happens or fails to happen, is key. I could have used a little more clarity on the meaning of exigence.
ReplyDeleteJosh Strausbaugh 1102.0029
Dylan Stafne
ReplyDeleteENC 1102.0029
Without having read a counterargument, I would tentatively agree that in many situations demand specific speech acts so reliably that they can be predicted.
My question:
What are the key differences between the very immediate rhetoric in the fishermen example, and the abstract concepts Lincoln utilized in the Gettysburg Address? Is it a matter of size of society--does convincing strangers to act require complex ideological justifications that aren't necessary in the close-knit society of fishermen
Brianna Howard
ReplyDeleteENC 1102
Section 2
I definitely agree with his theory on how we construct our sentences when trying to explain certain "situations". We, as humans, can identify the complexity of what comes next just by which word comes before it. Whenever someone tells me they are in a complicated situation, I always assume they're in a place where they have to make a decision which could have negative outcomes either way. Or perhaps, when they say they are in an uncomfortable situation, i usually take that to mean that they are being asked to say or do something (or not) that they don't necessarily want to. Syntax is an incredibly important part of human speech - without these defining characteristics of our words we would have much more trouble conveying what we feel.
Christopher Nicholas
ReplyDeleteENC 1102
Section 2
One idea in Bitzer's essay that I can agree with is that "with any rhetorical discourse, a prior rhetorical situation exists". The rhetorical situation sets the tone for how someone would respond verbally or physically. The situation is basically the "cause" and the rhetorical discourse would be considered the "effect". Being that cause comes before effect, it is clear that Bitzer's statement holds true. One question that I would ask Bitzer, is if he could explain better the idea of exigence, the language was quite complicated and I did not completely understand the concept.
Rafael fernandez
ReplyDeleteseccion 2
one thing i could deffinittly agree on its his view on situational responses. i could connect with this.
i would however question what triggers said situations??