**Remember, it's ok to be feel a little unsure of what this reading is saying. Just do your best. We will unpack it together on Tuesday.**
According to Bitzer, what is rhetoric? What is a rhetorical situation? Why are both important in the understanding of how to write? What do you believe comes first—the writing or the rhetorical situation? Do you believe all writing needs a rhetorical situation in order to write? Why or Why not?
What did you learn from reading this piece? Why might we start a course on argument with this reading?
Due: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 by class time. Don't forget to respond to at least one peer.
From just reading this article I wasn't 100% sure what the definition of rhetoric was, so I look it up and found that it has two similar definitions "effective or persuasive speaking or writing' as well as "language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content". But in this reading the authors focus was on the idea of rhetorical situations which are apparently unheard of in the rhetoric world. Bitzer was defining a rhetorical situation as being the context of the rhetoric taking place, or more specifically "the nature of those contexts in which speakers of writers create rhetorical discourse". So from that I took that it was the situations context that was being persuasively talked about, the time and place etc. I would have to say that the situation comes first in persuasive writing, you cant just argue about something that has no situation or context, something has to happen or be thought about in order to argue about it. So i think persuasive writing needs a rhetorical situation in order to write, and most writing has some kind of context, even if it is just imagination or dreams or random ideas, but I don't think all writing needs this specific of a situation in order to be done.
ReplyDeleteEmma, I too, was confused as to what he was actually saying about the overall message of what rhetoric meant. I had my own definition, but he didn't really make it clear (in my opinion) of what he was saying. I think that it would only make sense for the rhetorical situation to come first in persuasive writing because you pretty much need the foundation to be laid down first, before you do anything.
DeleteEmma (and Dimitrius)- I also looked up the dictionary definition of rhetoric because I had an idea of what he was talking about but I was a little of the mark. I find it interesting that we both stumbled across this issue, because one would think that in an article about rhetoric, the author would at least include a definition of the subject he is writing about.
DeleteAccording to my understanding, Bitzer defines rhetoric as a pertinent response to a rhetorical situation. Most of the article went through how he defined a rhetorical situation, which was pretty much any event that solicits a verbal response that will change or affect the situation at hand. Bitzer gives the example of a group going fishing with fairly undeveloped language skills, an example taken from Bronislaw Malinowski. In the example, the speech used was all expression some sort of action. When there is a fish in the net, someone will say “raise the net” to alter the situation to achieve the goal of catching fish. This is how Bitzer views rhetoric and rhetorical situations – as a pathway to achieve some action.
ReplyDeleteI think that it’s logical for a rhetorical situation to precede rhetoric, although I don’t think it’s fundamentally necessary like Bitzer implies. I could write a paper utilizing rhetoric about a book that I read, but the fact that I read a book is not a rhetorical situation by his definition. Writing doesn’t have to be limited by the scope of an author’s circumstances. We are impressively intelligent and creative beings, and are capable of creating our own situations to write about. I could argue that most works of fiction are not in response to a definable rhetorical situation because, while often given some inspiration from reality, are devised by the creativity of the author alone. I take away from this article a new appreciation for understanding the context of influential speeches and texts. It made me realize that pretty words aren’t as influential as a solid and appropriately timed response to some event. It’s similar to a theme in ‘underdog’ type situations, where having something to fight for often overcomes other factors. Having a reason to speak, or a rhetorical situation as Bitzer called it, gives weight to a piece. It follows then, that as a course on argument, we should have some greater purpose behind our writing so that it is effective as possible.
I was confused by certain statements that Bitzer stated in this piece. With you saying that you could write a paper on a book, without it being rhetorical, I am wondering to what extent would it then be considered a rhetorical situation?
DeleteSorry Dimitrius, I don't think I was clear. The point I was trying to make is that it isn't necessary to have a rhetorical situation to write :)
DeleteI am pretty sure that there was a recurring idea of what rhetoric was, according to Bitzer, but I wasn't sure. After looking the definition up, I realized that I had a general idea of what rhetoric meant to him. From the reading, I came to the conclusion that a rhetorical situation is any time you are put in a situation that pertains or influences the greater majority of the audience. Personally, I believe that the rhetorical situation comes first because of “rhetorical discourse.” According to Bitzer, a rhetorical situation includes people, events, objects, and relations that present an exigence that can be removed for rheotic. With that being said, I believe that that means obvious facts will always be presented first, and then the rest will be based off of research etc. I actually don’t think that every piece of writing needs a rhetorical situation in it, but I do believe that most papers will have a rhetorical situation in it by default. I don’t believe that every piece of writing has to have a rhetorical situation in it because the paper/writing could be based simply off of research; however, it is a persuasive piece, then it would only make sense to have a rhetorical situation in it.
ReplyDeleteFrom this reading piece, I learned that a rhetorical situation is anything that involves an audience, with factual pieces of evidence. I think that we might start a course argument on this reading because many people may have different views towards this piece. The argument of “do you actually need a rhetorical situation” is what many question, which is why it would make sense to have an argument in class.
We have really similar ideas on this piece of writing. I like how you said we don't need a rhetorical situation but some papers have one without even thinking about it. I think they are obviously present in some writings, but i wonder how important it actually is to think super hard about your rhetorical situation? I feel like it comes second nature when you are writing persuasively.
DeleteRhetoric, by definition, is the art of discourse, or effective and persuasive speaking or writing. Since I did not find a definition written by Bitzer in his article, I had to turn to the dictionary while reading, so that I could fully understand what he was talking about. In his article, while he did not define rhetoric, he did put a focus on rhetorical situation and context, and how “situation calls discourse into action”. As a result, Bitzer thoroughly discusses his ideas on how rhetorical situation is a building block for the production of rhetoric. If I interpreted his work correctly, I believe that Bitzer’s hypothesis roughly stated that rhetoric would not exist if not for a situation that allowed discourse to be naturally created. For instance, Bitzer states in his article that “rhetoric obtains its character from the situation that generates it” (3), implying that rhetoric needs some sort of driving force behind it in order to be created. Later in the article, he goes on to talk about how this driving force is often exigence, or a problem in the world that must be discussed. Understanding rhetoric and rhetorical situation is key in understanding the writing process because it puts forth a framework for approaching persuasive writing. Knowing that situation can influence rhetoric is the first step in beginning to write, because according to Bitzer, environment (such as audience, and issue-both mentioned by Bitzer) have an impact on what the author is reacting to, thinking about, and experiencing. As a result, I believe that situation comes first. Bitzer’s personal belief that “so controlling is situation that it should be considered the very ground of rhetorical activity” is compelling because it shows consideration towards exigence, or the driving force behind much discourse. Therefore, I agree with Bitzer’s statement because I see the context surrounding a rhetorical event as the framework for what is to be written or discussed, because every piece of rhetoric needs a driving force behind it. In terms of writing versus rhetoric, I do not believe that all writing needs a rhetorical situation because not all writing is rhetoric. Not all writing is persuasive or grounded in discourse-some is personal, or factual, or artistic. Thus, not all writing needs a rhetorical situation, per se- sometimes all one needs to write is a simple idea, not necessarily driven by exigence.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, this article took me a while to get through, but in the end I was able to think about something that possibly seemed so obvious that I had never given it much thought, but was actually salient to the writing process in several ways. I had never considered the context under which several documents (Bitzer’s examples include the Gettysburg Address, The Declaration of Independence, and John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Speech, to name a few) came to life, and thinking about how these pieces were conceived of gave me some perspective on what rhetoric was. This article provides a good introduction to argumentative writing because it discusses the importance of learning how to approach persuasive writing-by considering context and situation first, and as an indicator of what to write about.
Helen-- I like that you started your entry with the definition of rhetoric, as it would have been extremely difficult if at all possible to comprehend any of Bitzer's article without this prior knowledge. I liked your candor throughout your response as well, especially in the end when you spoke of different documents that use rhetoric that you hadn't given much thought to before.
DeleteHi Helen! I think the quotes you pulled was a great choice for your analysis of what Bitzer was saying. You maintained a consistent voice throughout your writing and kept it concise and relevant. I also thought that a rhetorical situation wasn't always necessary for writing, but it adds context and therefore persuasive ability. Nice job :)
DeleteWay to go on adding a clear and easy to understand definition as your opening line. Maybe the reading would have been easier if Bitzer had done that! Your ideas on all writing not needing a rhetorical situation was thought provoking. Good job!
DeleteHaving studied rhetoric the very first day of my Literature and Composition class last year, it was fairly fresh in my mind. Because of this, I got a little defensive when Bitzer when he spoke about wanting his essay to “revive the notion of rhetorical situation” (3), because in my mind I thought I was already appropriately aware and attentive to it. That being said, Bitzer’s approach to the subject as a whole was not familiar to me. I found his refreshing perspective of addressing rhetoric from different types of people—such as the theorist and the philosopher very interesting. I also really enjoyed his point that “Every audience at any moment is capable of being changed in some way by speech; persuasive situation is altogether general” (3). As much as I liked this point, and agree with it to some extent, I wonder how true it really is— are some people so easily persuaded that words will sway them from one perspective to the next? I understand the importance of words, the sheer power they can hold over people, yet I don’t know if this power can be yielded over every audience. Although I knew the general definition of rhetoric before delving into this text, this article was not necessarily an “easy read.” I was unsure of why he talked about some of the things he mentioned, especially when he said “In this sense rhetoric is always persuasive” (4). I had had the previous notion that the definition of rhetoric itself was using persuasive writing through various techniques, so it was puzzling to me which sense of rhetoric he was thinking of that was not persuasive… I found that the article got increasingly difficult to read, let alone get a grasp of an overall meaning. I found it slightly easier to comprehend when Bitzer essentially handed the reader a short synopsis of what he had been speaking about for the rest of the piece, when he spoke of the “three constituents— exigence, audience, constraints— comprise everything relevant in a rhetorical situation” (8). I think that lays the basis for his article, and seems like a more general thesis, and I actually liked that he placed this in the middle of the article. I think I enjoyed the end of the article the most; particularly the last paragraph, when he spoke of an ideal world in which there would be no rhetoric. I had never thought of this before, and found it to be a thought provoking idea.
ReplyDelete**I wrote my initial response without regard to the questions** According to Bitzer, rhetoric is the art of argument, while rhetorical situation is the context in which this argument is formed. Both are important to consider while writing, because in every writing, despite the genre or purpose, there should be some sort of rhetoric— without which, the piece may be rendered pointless. The context of an argument is not a subject to be dismissed either, because it is where the authority of the argument is based. I think that the rhetorical situation comes first, because you need an argument before beginning to write. Although I said it before, the more I think about it the more unsure I am whether or not a piece without a rhetorical situation is a valid one. I think certain poems and prose pieces wouldn’t need to be written with a rhetorical situation, but certainly could be, because not everything needs to be trying to prove a point. I learned the difference between rhetoric and the rhetorical situation, and I hadn’t really been aware of the rhetorical situation before reading this piece. I think that this article is an appropriate start to a course on argument because it is dealing with rhetoric and even names some texts that incorporate rhetoric that we may not have even been aware of.
DeleteI agree with you that this reading was hard to grasp. I kind of sort of got lost throughout the article but when Bitzer mentioned the three constituents: exigence, audience, and constraints, I felt as if a light bulb clicked in my head because it was more straight forward information that was easier to understand. Honestly, I still don't know what Mr.Bitzer is talking about, even after writing all my stuff. I also liked how you used a lot of quotes from the reading to show you actually know what you're talking about.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBitzer regards rhetoric and rhetorical analysis as two separate beasts. They can be removed from one another but together they form a more complete, significant picture. Rhetoric is the piece of writing that is produced, the “utterance” as Bitzer may want us to refer to it. Rhetorical situation is the context in which a piece of rhetoric is produced, giving meaning to the rhetoric (Also known as the “Exigence”, or demand). Well, that definition of rhetorical situation is a little light, since Bitzer had seven clearly-defined rules for what rhetorical situation is and how it interacts with rhetoric. Bitzer uses many analogies to define the relationship between rhetoric and rhetorical situation, such as saying that rhetorical Situation is to rhetoric as question is to answer, or problem is to solution. One big distinction between what rhetoric is and what general writing is lies in the fact that rhetoric has a goal to change some ideology or to encourage action in an audience.
ReplyDeleteI cannot say that I am sure why Bitzer believes that these are important to understanding writing, but I have some theories of my own. Understanding a rhetorical situation in its entirety can help a writer keep their audience in mind, which would help the writer create a more purposeful rhetorical discourse. The inverse relationship is also helpful to understand. Writing a piece of rhetoric can often have a more generic theme and it can be applied to multiple rhetorical situations, so understanding how an overarching theme may be applied to different rhetorical situations is helpful in adding meaning to a piece of writing.
I don’t think that either rhetoric or a rhetorical situation must come first to fit the mold of how to write, and I think there are benefits to both ways. While a rhetorical situation provides inspiration for rhetoric, rhetoric can often be used to fit a rhetorical situation that it was maybe not intended for. I don’t think that writing must have a rhetorical situation, since people occasionally just write for fun. Plus, as soon as a piece of writing is created it makes a rhetorical situation of its own, a world in which this new piece of writing exists. This piece taught me to think of writing on a new level in terms of the context in which the writing exists. This reading would be critical in a course on argument because it explores why an argument arises and how it can be capitalized on, also known as how an exigency lends itself to be taken care of.
I’d like to share this line with you all since it really stood out to me, I think this line is super summative of the whole piece of writing and is also super interesting.
“In the best of all possible worlds, there would be communication perhaps, but no rhetoric — since exigences would not arise. In our real world, however, rhetorical exigences abound; the world really invites change” - Lloyd F Bitzer
Tresdon-- I really liked how you started out your response to Bitzer's article. I found that his regarding rhetoric and rhetorical analysis and completely different things was the hardest concept for me to grasp. You broke it down into simpler terms, and helped me understand it better, so thank you!! :) I also enjoyed the last line you included, thanks for sharing
DeleteI agree with Katie! You really helped me understand a little more of what Bitzer was trying to get across in his article. It is very helpful to use the situation to have a more specific piece of writing, I think. I also loved that you said a piece of writing can create its own rhetorical situation, rather than the situation creating the writing. I didn’t think about that at all!
DeleteTresdon,
DeleteI really enjoy your view on context, particularly your idea that a piece of writing, through its own existence, can create its own context. This is ever present, particularly in fantastical works of fiction in which we typically base our interpretations of the book based off of the world that the story has built up. It is also like you said in which exigences create their own contexts, as well as the contexts in which they already exist. Thus, it as though the audience is given a slightly different context than they had directly before hearing the piece, due to the new information and ideas provided to them. In which case I'd wonder if you ever experience the same context twice?
Although the word “rhetoric” has one definition, people have their own thoughts and views about this word. According to Bitzer, he pretty much sums up this word as a “practical and persuasive response”. He believes that in order for there to be rhetorical work, there needs to be a certain situation in which the rhetor is responding to. Rhetoric serves for something greater than itself, rather, the character and voice in it are meant to change the thoughts and feelings of the audience in a way that helps them think in a more practical state. Rhetorical situation is basically the context of all the little pieces of information and details that add up to rhetorical reasoning. He mainly compares this to a question and answer. On page 6 he states, “Rhetorical situation must exist as a necessary condition of rhetorical discourse, just as a question must exist as a necessary condition of an answer. For example, he uses the fisherman in the Trobriand Islands as a way of explaining how the leader is forced to respond to his crew in certain ways depending on the different situations that they encounter. A situation has three parts to it: exigence, audience, and constraints. These three guidelines can help comfort the rhetor so he can join in on the situation with ease. Rhetorical discourse and situation play a big part in everyday writing and I believe that they basically make up the structure of writing where there is usually context on one side, and an argument on the other. To me, the rhetorical situation comes first, then the writing comes later. For the most part, people don’t have anything to say unless they feel a “need” to say it. I feel like that “need” comes directly from the situation. However, there definitely does not need to be a situation in order to write. Of course people who write to express their feelings don’t feel any need to try and persuade someone and change their feelings about something. They just want to write for fun and might want to babble about something that they enjoy to do.
ReplyDeleteThis reading helped me better grasp the concepts of rhetorical writing and made me realize how complex this process actually is. I appreciate how Bitzer specifically explained each step of the way in this writing process. I honestly have never went this deep about writing and it definitely gave me a new perspective about how people think about writing.
This reading can be a candidate for a new course on argument because although he thoroughly explained his thoughts about this writing process, not everyone is going to agree with him. The fact that Bitzer undermines the idea of writing from imagination not by situation can create an argument among many people.
I am glad we were told before reading that it would be tough to understand exactly what Bitzer’s main point is. He attempts to define rhetoric by asking questions about other rhetorical devices. Rhetoric is defined as writing that is persuasive or effective, but that is not explicitly said, instead it is shown through his explanation of rhetorical situations. A rhetorical situation is the combination of theory, audience, subject, and more, used to be argumentative. One of the most important or influential parts of this work was how he mentioned the difference between thinking about responding to a situation and actually creating some sort of response. Bitzer compares it to a scientist looking at characteristics of “situations which inspire scientific thought”. These are both important in writing because having a strong sense of what rhetoric is and how to use it is essential in influential works. I believe that the rhetorical situation comes before the writing because the situation is the structure as well as the elements used in the writing. Not all writing requires a rhetorical situation, but to prove a point to the reader it is very useful and important.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense to start a course on argument with a piece about rhetoric and rhetorical situation because it can be a very helpful strategy to get your point across. Along with that, even though the reading was difficult, it was an example of rhetorical situation in its own, which might be why Bitzer did not specifically define what exactly rhetoric is. The situations provided are able to help writing by thinking about more factors rather than just beginning to write.
Your definition of rhetoric is well put Sara! And overall I get the impression from your response that you were able to understand the text pretty well :) I also like that we start with this text for the course, because it will make choosing topics to research and write about a little easier if we're on the lookout for 'rhetorical situations.'
DeleteI really liked your response to this article! I particularly found how you took the idea of rhetoric out of Blitzer's article and applied it to trying to convince a total stranger of x,y, and z. Relation is indeed very important because if the topics do not relate, the attempts at rhetoric are indeed foolish. I would also like to point out that I particularly liked how you mentioned that like writing itself, the meaning of rhetoric is always subject to change because there are a universal number of ways in which rhetoric can be used.
ReplyDeleteRhetorical situation is a very confusing topic. In Bitzer’s writing he does try to provide a formal definition of a rhetorical situation, but it is hard to understand exactly what his definition of a rhetorical situation or rhetoric is. In my understanding, the word rhetoric means to say or ask something profound to evoke a reaction or bring about an idea. Bitzer uses the idea of rhetorical situation to mean “a work is rhetorical because it is a response to a situation of a certain kind”. Bitzer was writing about rhetoric being situational, and how it is used in response to situation just as an answer is used in response to a question Which is just one of the many the ways rhetoric is situational. In writing, I believe the rhetorical situation comes first, simply because it is a response to a thought, phrase, question, or prompt one may be writing about. Why would you write without something to say? The rhetoric is the idea in your writing, and the rhetorical situation is the response. I would like to think that all writing had a point, that it was all rhetorical, but not all writing requires a point. I learned a lot more than I was expecting too from this piece. The reading was tough to get through, but it can also be read differently by everyone who reads it. Because everyone picks up different ideas from Bitzer, it would be a good reading to start a course on argument.
ReplyDeleteShawn, I also had trouble with Bitzer's definition of constraint, so I'm glad to see that you're not fully on board either. This will probably be cleared up and discussed in class. I like to see your opposition toward Bitzer's premise as opposed to agreeing with it wholeheartedly. I think that saying that the definition of rhetoric is vague enough to fit multiple definitions was wise, I think it would have been interesting, however, to read how you would define it with the nuances that you might add or subtract.
ReplyDeleteBased on my understanding of Bitzer’s piece, rhetoric is a device used to influence change, in response to some sort of situation. More specifically 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.” (Bitzer, 4) However, the majority of the reading is focused on rhetorical situation which Bitzer defines as the context (i.e. time, place, historical, social) that elicits the rhetoric in question. Bitzer cites government and media response in the wake of Kennedy's assassination and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as examples of rhetoric that were created in response to a pressing historical context (Kennedy’s assassination and the Civil War.) While I believe the importance of these devices in writing is clear, I also believe that to try and evaluate them as two separate entities is a tad illogical, seeing as one always presents an immediate effect on the other. For example, in rhetoric, one is trying to use his/her words in order to influence change, however this would be a nearly impossible feat if the audience had no context in which to analyze what is being said. Similarly when one looks at a rhetorical situation there is a clear connection between said situation and the various pieces of rhetoric that emerge in response to it.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to which came first, the rhetorical situation or the rhetoric, I’d have to say that it is the rhetorical situation that comes first, seeing as rhetoric can only exist in response to some sort of context, thus implying that the context already exists. However, having said that I do not believe that all writing requires a rhetorical situation. While certain types of writing (i.e. activist or satirist) certainly require a context in order to be effective, it is not inconceivable that there are other types of writing that require no such context, existing instead entirely in their own form.