Fellow Class Members,
In my entry for last week, I basically made the case that every communicative situation has a rhetorical underlining—some thought or action that the rhetor hopes to convey: it might be a laugh from a story or joke, or it might be a rethinking of a controversial topic. But, if it is has purpose, then, I contended, perhaps erroneously, that it is rhetorical. For me, the two were synonymous.
The ideas asserted by Bitzer, as presented in Herrick (2005), seem to further qualify and focus my thinking from last week. One theme, which is described on pages 230 and 231, exigence and audience, is that “change” is a key to having a rhetorical situation. For a situational to be rhetorical, it must have embodied something that is willfully changeable through communication (exigence) and, secondly, the audience must at least be open to change/able to impart a reaction to the utterance that works either toward or against the desired change/goal (okay, so I borrowed a word from Bakhtin to make my Bitzer point…).
Indeed, a weatherperson cannot negotiate with a tornado over tea to please leave the trailer park—so there is no exigence, and, consequently, the situation is not rhetorical based on Bitzer’s view----unless you perhaps count the internal dialogue one has as he or she mediates the utterances leaving his or her mouth, tapping into ideas from Bakhtin and Vygotsky. And, likewise, speaking to classroom of 1st graders about social security would not be rhetorical because they have no interest in the program at their age nor are they capable of bringing about or hindering a change---they are listeners with no power or interest in the topic.
So, what I have learned this week is that I was perhaps a bit overzealous in my claim last week: when you talk to a tornado or to children, you can have a purpose (which was all I said was needed for rhetoric), but, in thinking about Bitzer’s work, I think you need a second piece: the ability to actually bring about a change in action or thought: the weatherperson asking the tornado to leave the trailer park does have purpose—but, because the tornado isn’t actually capable of responding, then, it is not a rhetorical situation (again, discounting any internal dialogic process the weatherperson might have had with his or herself).
Best,
Cris
Cris,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "So, what I have learned this week is that I was perhaps a bit overzealous in my claim last week: when you talk to a tornado or to children, you can have a purpose (which was all I said was needed for rhetoric), but, in thinking about Bitzer’s work, I think you need a second piece: the ability to actually bring about a change in action or thought: the weatherperson asking the tornado to leave the trailer park does have purpose—but, because the tornado isn’t actually capable of responding, then, it is not a rhetorical situation (again, discounting any internal dialogic process the weatherperson might have had with his or herself)."
I like this way of explaining it. It makes it clear and easily understandable. In a way, it is like trying to convince weeds not to grow in your garden or bees not to nest in your eaves. I could talk myself blue in the face a never get anywhere.
I think you are right in your analysis of purpose and rhetoric; This is what makes the rehtoric difficult. If it was an easy task to master then rpeople would not have spent years training in the discipline and we would not be continuing to develop and change the way that we approach the subject. I enjoyed your comparisons; they really make the subject easier to understand.
ReplyDelete