The Rhetorical Situation

After reading the interlocking, overlapping and conflicting articles by Bitzer, Vatz and Consigny, I feel like we’ve heard a full spectrum of opinions on the rhetorical situation (which probably means it’s just the tip of the iceberg). I’m not sure I can fully articulate his explanation of the difference between topic as an instrument and a realm, but I do appreciate that Consigny gives us a middle ground between Bitzer and Vatz.

Although I probably learn more toward Bitzer in his understanding that a thing or event has an intrinsic meaning, I understand Vatz’s intent to elevate rhetoric “to the supreme discipline it deserves to be” (466) by concentrating on meaning as a creative act.

But I like the pro-active attitude of rhetoric being used to make a difference. “The rhetor discloses issues and brings them to resolution by interacting with the situation, revealing and working through the phenomena, selecting appropriate material and arranging it into a coherent form” (Consigny, 62). The rhetor must structure the disorder of the situation, which seems to be a pretty noble charge – and thus reinforces Vatz’s agenda to elevate the status of rhetoric.

It also seems to be appropriate that rhetoric helps us to cut to the heart of the matter. As Consigny states, “The art of rhetoric is thus a ‘heuristic’ art, allowing the rhetor to discover real issues in indeterminate situations” (63). As such, it could be a tool for explaining, raising awareness, even mediating and negotiating. This definition also is refreshing since so much modern, public communication has the opposite intention (to confuse, mislead) and it is frequently, incorrectly dismissed as “rhetoric.”

Consigny seems to put his own perspective of rhetoric to use in this article. “The real question for rhetorical theory will become not whether the rhetor or situation is dominant, but how in each case the rhetor can become engaged in the novel and indeterminate situation and yet have a means of making sense of it” (63). Here, he decides not to align his perspective either with Bitzer (the power of the situation) or with Vatz (the responsibility of the rhetor), but cuts through both of their arguments to focus the question on the role of the rhetor in the midst of all those exigencies.