{"version":1,"type":"rich","provider_name":"Libsyn","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.libsyn.com","height":90,"width":600,"title":"Rhetorical Situation (NEW and IMPROVED!)","description":"Shout out to Daniel T Richards to wrote in to me asking for a podcast about Rhetorical Situations. Couldn\u2019t be more pleased to oblige a fan, if you have a request for an episode or a question or comment, feel free to email me at mererhetoricpodcast@gmail.com and I\u2019d love to see what I can do, but Daniel asked for rhetorical situations and there\u2019s no time but the present, eh? so let\u2019s get it started with a couple of clips, eh? Churchill, Henry V, and Aragon. Why are these such great speeches so good? Qtd Churchill There comes a precious moment in all of our lives when we are tapped on the shoulder and offered the opportunity to do something very special that is unique to us and our abilities, what a tragedy it would be if we are not ready or willing.\u201d This moment is part of what L B in 1968 calls the rhetorical situationation. More fully: 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.   OK, let\u2019s break this very dense quote apart. First there is exigence, which is a problem that exists in the world. It may be pressing, like an upcoming battle, or it may be gnawing, like an increase in teen violence or campus discrimination. It may even be potential: Henry V didn\u2019t have to go to France, but there was a potential there. The key thing for Bitzer is that this exigence can be affected by discourse. So you may not be able to talk the orcs away from being evil, but you can talk the men fighting them into being brave. A speech churchil makes to parlement won\u2019t make the Nazis retreat, but it may shore up patriotic interest.   So not every situation is a rhetorical situation, but only what Bitzer calls \u201cfinest hours\u201d (3) when discourse can DO anything about it. As he says, a \u201cmode-altering reality, not by the direct application of energy to objects, but by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action\u201d (4). Reality-changing discourse. That\u2019s a pretty awesome power for rhetoric to have. But that\u2019s not to say that Henry V or Churchill or Aragon can say whatever they want. In addition to the moment, to exigence, the rhetorical situation relies on an audience. When the men of the west or of England are standing at the start of a battle and can fight half-heartedly or lion-heartedly, they are able to be mediators of change. It wouldn\u2019t do much good for Aragon to be giving this speech to Frodo or Sam\u2014for one thing they aren\u2019t men\u2014but for another they aren\u2019t an army. The army can fight one way or another and that action can impact the way the battle goes. For Bitzer, the audience must be agents of change. Finally, there are constraints. These are kind of the downers of the rhetorical situation. Contraints include what Aristotle calls artistic and inartistic proofs\u2014things you can change and things you can do nothing about. So Henry V can\u2019t talk more English solders into suddenly appearing in his army, he can\u2019t talk the French into being weaker, and he can\u2019t talk swords into tennis balls, but he can change beliefs and attitudes about the slim chances of success. These three elements: the moment, the audience and constraints, all combine in a delicate balance for the rhetorical situations. Bitzer points out Rhetorical situations can be mature or decayed, dissipate audience, lose to completing forces, etc (12). The rhetorical situation is a helpful way to think about seizing your own \u201cprecious moment\u201d and a good way to analyze historical and fictional bits of rhetoric. But there are plenty of questions So does the rhetorical situation just alight on one? Would anyone have made the same speech at Henry V, or Churchil or Aragorn in the same situations? Maybe. John Patton says that there\u2019s a two-sidedness to the rhetorical situation. You have to see it and also respond to it. As he says, 'the meaning of rhetorical situations is a dual process, partly a matter of recognition, i.e., clarity and accuracy of perception, and partly a matter of intentional, artistic, human action.' Some folks like Scott Consigny feel like Bitzer is a little fatalistic, suggesting the stars just align and suddenly you\u2019re Churchill promising to fight in the streets. Richard Vatz also objects to the idea that exigence just sits out there, compelling a rhetor. Instead, Vatz suggests that the rhetor almost always creates the exigence. The rhetor is not pushed around by the rhetorical situation, but creates them. It might be hard to see this when you\u2019re looking at an army in front of you, but remember when Henry V started this war? Yeah, when he, searched for legal claim to France, sent demands, was rebuffed with tennis balls and then gave this answer?   Henry V started this war. He put together the army and by doing so made France put together its army too. He created the rhetorical situation that led to him having to give the St. Crispin\u2019s speech. It\u2019s easy to spin around like this in circles: speech creates the situation (and the contsraints) which create the speech, but the key thing to remember about Vatz\u2019s criticism is that elements of the rhetorical situation, exigence, audience, constraints, are always social constructions rather than objective realities. , So next time you\u2019re addressing an army, ask yourself this question: did I make this situation or did this situation make me?         ","author_name":"Mere Rhetoric","author_url":"http:\/\/mererhetoric.libsyn.com","html":"