Monday, August 29, 2011
Keywords in Rhetoric and Composition
What keywords do you see cropping up in our discussions of rhet/comp and the paradigms? In what ways do these ideas/terms manifest themselves in your daily lives? Use the readings from the week and our class discussions to support your answers. Don't feel compelled to use every keyword, however. Rather, in our own opinion, what are the most important or compelling terms for the field?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While learning about the rhetorical situation this week, words such as exigence, audience and constraints seemed to pop up frequently in our readings. Also, another ideas that kept popping up were things such as what an appropriate response is, and credibility of the speaker. The three constituents that Bitzer discusses made the idea of a rhetorical situation and why it needed to be discussed easier to understand. In class Leigh’s example of the teacher being fired made the idea that anaction must have a positive effect to be considered a rhetorical situation more clear. I was slightly confused by two author’s differing view point on what an audience should be. In my personal opinion, I think an audience should be anyone who reads and can relate in some way to the text. Not whether they can directly influence an outcome the rhetorical situation speaks of. In my opinion the most interesting term we learned about this week was audience. In my own life I often will read a piece of literature and attempt to apply it to my own life or relate it back to a situation I’ve been through. With Bitzer’s definition of audience, I am alienated out of being part of the audience because I do not always fall into the group of people that can change the outcome of what is going on or influence the situation. Rhetoric works, in my opinion, because readers are able to feel like they are part of the situation (through pathos).
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be that the main factor in successful rhetoric is by influencing, as Bitzer said "the auditors", or those who can make the change the rhetor supplies through their exigence. Without those who are influencing to a community or any group to take action then the exigence would not be a positive outcome. While some of Bitzer's ideas maybe flawed or completely thought through, Bitzer had a point that only those with the power or those able to achieve power there would be no positive action. Then to be able to influence the "true audience" that the exigence is directed towards the rhetor has to be respected and trusted in the community or the group of people. So the Ethos is probably the another key aspect to a successful rhetor. Without respect, trust and a good moral background many probably would not be influenced by such a person, but with a rhetors credibility then the exigence is most likely to come out positive. However, without an exigence to be provided then there would be no reason to speak or write about the given situation, therefore an exigence has to be established. Also to be able to follow the constraints put in front of the rhetor is another aspect to successful rhetoric. In everyday life people have to follow the rules and processes that have been placed in front of them by their institutions. So Logos is required if the rhetor wants to get past their constraints. The logic to consider what the numerous variables they (the rhetor) has to incorporate in their exigence to persuade the audience will most likely turn out positive.
ReplyDeleteOf all the keywords that were obnoxiously recycled by Bitzer within his essay, the most common and significant words, that also appeared in our lecture, were likely "exigence" and "discourse". To me these words are unnecessarily draconian and scientific, pointless grammar to boost the egos of educated. The true, simplified meaning of these words are "subject/issue" (for exigence) and "discourse" (conversation/argument). I find that these terms which we use in class and in our readings are extremely apparent in regards to the actions we take on our day-to-day lives. Every sort of discourse is caused by a simple exigence. Conversations have to be about something, and the way I see things, that's what an exigence is. Behind the flowerly language, behind the lengthy essays, behind all of Bitzer's rambling, the matter of a rhetorical situation (as far as I understand it) is extremely simple.
ReplyDeleteTopic of conversation this week had everything to do with rhetorical situations and the elements that make it up. As stated in "What is Rhetoric?" by Covino and Jolliffe, a rhetorical situation consists of three elements, an exigence, an audience, and rhetorical constraints. The exigence, I learned, is not an action, but a drive to the action. The audience are the ones who make the actual change communicated through the discourse. The rhetorical constraints prescribe the actions. Although Blizter states that rhetorical situations are only okay if it is followed by an appropriate response, the opposite is arguable. This meaning, if a rhetorical situation leads to a negative response purposely and succeeded, it can still be defined as a rhetorical situation. Another keyword learned this week was exigence, or being compelled to speak or act towards something or someone. A rhetorical situation just is an answer to a question whether verbal or nonverbal.
ReplyDeleteOne keyword that is used a lot is constraints. It is one of the key elements of a rhetorical situation. It also is manifested a lot in our daily lives. Covino and Jolliffe describe constraints as belief systems, frames of mind and ways of life. These are parts of our personality that are developed over our lives. We have constraints no matter what situation we are in. We are always moved to make decisions in our lives no matter how big or insignificant they may be. Another word is audience. Bitzer explains that the audience can be an actual audience or it can be our selves. Though we may not realize it, we address ourselves as the audience several times a day when we have to make decisions. We also address an actual audience when we speak in class or getting the message out for a certain organization. These two keywords our always present in our daily lives, even if we do not notice it.
ReplyDeleteRhetoric, in the form of "rhetorical" is a very commonplace word in our society-- and yet the contextual meaning differs wildly from how Bitzer or Coving and Jolliffe use the term.
ReplyDeleteSay, for example, at the dinner table one night your little sister drifts up from her meatloaf and carrots to say "I wonder how many different butterflies there are in the world!" Such a question was prompted by a lesson in her second grade class on butterflies and their metamorphic processes in conjunction with the appearance of the winged insects in the decorative motif of your family's dinner plates. Feeling full of knowledge and fresh from re-reading the 'B' section of your humble encyclopedia (because you're a nerd like that), you start reciting an alphabetical list of all the common names of the butterfly species of the world. However, before you can even get to your favorite, the Clouded Skipper, your mother interrupts testily with, "It was a rhetorical question!" and the rest of dinner continues without further mention of butterflies.
Using context clues, exchanges such as these often point to the meaning of 'rhetorical' to be along the lines of a question asked without the expectation of an answer. Such examples are rhetorical situation; the exigence is the lack of knowledge about butterflies, the audience is your two-year-old sister, the constraint is your mother's unwillingness to allow you to provide the answer for her, and the appropriate discourse would be for your sister to borrow your encyclopedia and read about butterflies herself. Taking this into account, though, rarely does your sister ever actually read your encyclopedia, creating a disconnect with the true definition of rhetoric and the societal understanding.
Covino and Joliffe say "... rhetoric is the art of knowledge-making." While many societal occasions in which the term rhetorical is used provide the opportunity for "knowledge-making," rarely, if ever, does the audience actually follow the discourse demanded by the rhetorical situation. In this way, rhetoric manifests itself, albeit falsely, in our daily lives.
Apart from the obviously interesting details of the term rhetoric, the most stimulating terms are constraints and situation. Understanding the difference and relationship between the two is captivating. The situation and constraints limit the discourse. Each individual example has a different combination of situation and constraint influence on the discourse, and dissecting that compound is one of the most intriguing aspects of the concept.
I feel aside from all the formalities of the readings this week, at the end of the day, the most important relationship of terms is between writer and reader; speaker and audience. Without this, it is empty words to deaf ears. Someone can think that their idea is the best thing ever, yet without convincing rhetoric to back them up, there is no way to get the support needed from others. There must be the balance between a successful use of rhetorical tools by the speaker and a receptive audience. Granted, I do agree with all of the formalities of the articles we have read, in that other factors play into successful rhetoric, but unless the relationship between speaker and audience is established, no amount of craft can help you. I am in no means trying to discredit the literature to support these factors of rhetorical situations, or types of rhetorical persuasion. I am just merely saying that unless the basics are there, the connection between speaker and audience, the other outlying elements become irrelevant. So Bitzer, Covino and Jolliffe are on to something in their theories, I just feel like the most compelling part of rhetoric often goes unnoticed, as in its most simple form, the lack of connection between persuasive writer and receptive reader, can be the difference between successful and unsuccessful rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of this week, I thought a rhetorical situation was nothing but trivial and secondhand knowledge. I had no idea that there was an actual science guiding the situation, and that there were multiple theories regarding this science.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Bitzer's article, however, I understand and completely agree with his argument. It seems that his facts and components are so basic, they're brilliant! Bitzer took a rhetorical situation and broke it down into a formula, with three components, those being the exigence, audience, and constraints. The constraints being the most difficult to comply with, and therefore, the most interesting.
I did enjoy the Covino and Jolliffe article, I specifically enjoyed their notion of the "never ending sentence." I really like the idea that every conversation is merely a continuation if a previous, unsolved thought process.
It reminded me of a time when I was sitting in my World Geography class and the professor told us how the Appalachian Mountains were once apart of the mountains in England. For some unexplainable reason, this fact hit me, like a slap in the face. It was the most insanely romantic thing I had heard. So when I got home, I told this tid-bit to my roommate, who needless to say found it far less interesting. Instead we continued a boring conversation about actual physical Geography. It was amazing to see how something that I found so fascinating, could spiral into a completely different conversation.
Clearly, there is much more to a rhetorical situation than meets the eye.
The term "audience" comes into play uncountable times throughout the article by Bitzer and the writing by Covino and Jolliffe. Lately, this term has manifested itself in my life as a vague description of my everyday activities. While the extent to which I fit the precise definitions of audience which our readings specify, I certainly could make an argument that I have played the role of "auditor"/"audience member" multiple times since the semester began.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bitzer, this means I am one of 3 necessary components for my professors' rhetorical situations--assuming I understand him correctly. According to Covino and Jolliffe, my position suggests that I am to be affected, influenced, or changed by my professors. I feel more confidently that at least this one is true of me.
Oliva writes:
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of this week, I thought a rhetorical situation was nothing but trivial and secondhand knowledge. I had no idea that there was an actual science guiding the situation, and that there were multiple theories regarding this science.
After reading Bitzer's article, however, I understand and completely agree with his argument. It seems that his facts and components are so basic, they're brilliant! Bitzer took a rhetorical situation and broke it down into a formula, with three components, those being the exigence, audience, and constraints. The constraints being the most difficult to comply with, and therefore, the most interesting.
I did enjoy the Covino and Jolliffe article, I specifically enjoyed their notion of the "never ending sentence." I really like the idea that every conversation is merely a continuation if a previous, unsolved thought process.
It reminded me of a time when I was sitting in my World Geography class and the professor told us how the Appalachian Mountains were once apart of the mountains in England. For some unexplainable reason, this fact hit me, like a slap in the face. It was the most insanely romantic thing I had heard. So when I got home, I told this tid-bit to my roommate, who needless to say found it far less interesting. Instead we continued a boring conversation about actual physical Geography. It was amazing to see how something that I found so fascinating, could spiral into a completely different conversation.
Clearly, there is much more to a rhetorical situation than meets the eye.
Candance writes:
ReplyDeleteComing into the English- Editing, Writing, and Media major I did not realize how much emphasis would be put on rhetoric. However, now I understand that in this class as well as my Freshman Topic Composition class rhetoric is important to understand. I am used to hearing rhetorical questions which I find rather irritating, seeing as to how they cannot really be answered. Sometimes when people ask rhetorical questions it lessens my opinion of the person because I think to myself "You already know that answer to that question."
I enjoyed comparing the two readings and particularly liked Bitzer's analysis on rhetorical discourse. I have often times found myself in the situation where I felt exigence to give my opinion on something or to tell a story but something has held me back from doing so. I agree with Bitzer when he says that "Every audience at any moment is capable of being persuaded..." Reading about the meaning of exigence, audience, and restraints helps give me a better understanding of rhetorical situations. If I were giving a persuasive speech I would rather be speaking to a rhetorical audience, those who are capable of changing their minds or opinions. While I don't agree with all of Bitzer's points I do think that he made some valid ones.
Covinno and Jolliffe decription of rhetoric was a little more simple for me and their explanation of egos, pathos, and logos was good. I think that all three play important roles in communication and interacting with people on a daily basis.
Olushola writes:
ReplyDeleteWhile comparing Bitzer’s “The Rhetorical Situation” and Covino and Jolliffe’s “What is Rhetoric?” I found similarities in both texts. Bitzer’s perception of a rhetorical situation is bias to a certain extent. He diagnoses situations rhetorical if they create exigencies which compel individuals to speak out. Also, Bitzer claims that rhetorical discourse comes about from rhetorical situations. There are three constituents a rhetoric situation must have; exigencies, an audience, constraints. The reason I say Bitzer’s perception of a rhetorical situation is bias is because there are certain situations that he would not consider rhetorical, a natural disaster. What I got from reading “The Rhetorical Situation” is as long as a situation has the three essential constituents and raises a question then it is a rhetorical situation, a natural disaster compels an audience to react therefore I feel it is a rhetorical situation. Bitzer also challenges the freedom of speech by writing one must respond appropriately. Who is to say how an individual should react or respond? I understand when Bitzer refers to an audience he is speaking on behalf of the individuals that can make a change and not those who are just listening.
Convino and Jolliffe’s “What is Rhetoric” is close in comparison to “The Rhetorical Situation” because they talk about the organization and timing of a rhetorical situation. “The rhetoric of a text is the selection and organization of language it uses to move potential readers and listeners to consider ideas and conclusions” (Convino 8). Constraints are the organizing factors that Bitzer mentions in his text. “The rhetoric of a text is the effect it actually has on people who listen to it or read it” (Convino 8). For Bitzer the exigencies in a situation affect an individual. Kairos refers to the appropriateness of a response. I feel as though Bitzer would agree with the effectiveness of kairos. I feel as though an appropriate response takes away the identity of a statement. Ethos, pathos, and logos are also essential in a rhetorical situation. Ethos is a creditable appeal; it convinces the audience by illustrating the character of the author. Pathos is an emotional appeal that is used to persuade an audience. Logos is the most important, it uses reasoning to persuade an audience.
In my eyes hurricane Katrina could be a rhetorical situation. The population that fled and stayed in New Orleans was the audience. There were many exigencies that compelled this audience to speak out before and after hurricane Katrina; many people that stayed for the hurricane complained because of the lack of relief post Katrina. A constraint of the situation was the creation of a discourse before and after the hurricane, officials warned people to evacuate and spoke about progress that would be made to relieve flooding after the storm. Another constraint was when Individuals responded accordingly when relief after the hurricane was not prompt. Last, New Orleans officials and U.S.A. government called in the military to help aid the people affected by the storm. These factors make hurricane Katrina a rhetorical situation. Politicians used ethos, pathos, and logos to appeal to an audience creditably, emotionally, logically during the aftermath of Katrina.
Anna writes:
ReplyDeleteThrough this week’s readings, I was introduced to the basic keywords and concerns of the rhetorical field. In his attempt to prove why successful rhetoric is situation-based, Lloyd F. Bitzer defines many of these important keywords. For, Bitzer, the “rhetorical situation” must be a real situation, and requires an “appropriate” response. The situation includes three elements. These elements are exigence, audience, and constraints. A rhetorical situation must prompt an exigency, or a problem, something that compels the rhetor to speak, act, or do. Interestingly, although a rhetorical situation must be real, the exigence can be imagined. In class, it was mentioned that advertisements are full of imaginary exigencies; a cosmetic company will convince a consumer to buy products to fix imperfections that they don’t actually have. The audience is a group of people capable of making the desired change. Constraints are the elements that prescribe the actions, including institutions and ideologies. Sometimes they help, and sometimes they hinder the rhetor. It includes the steps needed to make the change prescribed. Additionally, Covino and Jolliffe not only reference Bitzer and explain his conditions, but also delve into the three rhetorical appeals; ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos is the appeal based on the rhetor’s character; we are more likely to be persuaded if we have reason to respect the person speaking, and believe that they have good character. Pathos is the appeal to the audience’s emotions. Logos is the appeal to the audience’s logic, which may include statistics or factual information to convince them of something.
Because of the constant reiteration, the three elements of the rhetorical situation stuck out to me, as well as the three appeals. To me, they seem to be the most important concerns. Although at first I envisioned most rhetorical situations in the form of speeches, I realize now that we encounter them daily, through different mediums and with different levels of significance. I find many rhetorical keywords in advertisements, particularly advertisements for charities and nonprofit organization. Take, for example, the ASPCA television commercials, well-known for being unbearably sad. The exigence, usually delivered by a celebrity of some renown, is clear; animals are being abused, neglected and mistreated, and must be rescued, but the ASPCA needs money to do this. The audience is the general public watching the commercial, a population with enough resources to donate to the foundation every month. The desired result is a monetary donation. Constraints may be apathy, or perceived inability to fund the donations. The prescribed actions include calling a phone number, or going to a website to sign up, or find more information. The appeals also appear. By using a celebrity mouthpiece, the ASPCA is appealing to ethos; we have some level of respect for the person delivering the message, so we are more likely to care about the exigence. Regardless of whether or not this celebrity has demonstrated true character, we tend to view them as people worth listening to. There is a rather obvious pathos appeal as well. Shot after shot of sad, sick animals, combined with depressing music and grim statistics undoubtedly upsets the viewer, in the hopes of motivating them to action.
Alyssa writes:
ReplyDeleteAs the first week of classes comes to a close and I review all the information my brain has rather reluctantly retained, I find that the rhetorical situation and it’s three counterparts, exigence, audience, and constraints, are what have stayed with me the most. Rhetorical situations present themselves everyday and are often written about in some medium, whether it be over text, instant message, or a “journal.” Whether it is the tough internship I wrote about in discussion or the difficulties of starting new classes with new colleagues and instructors and having issues with the material, rhetorical situations present themselves daily and Wednesday’s discussion officially brought it to my attention. Protocol, methods, morals and beliefs clashing in the constraints to solving a “situation” and in the audience involved are now in the front rows of problem solving. I find that a situation is present before the exigence, though. Throughout the assignments, the key words around the situation have all relied on the “situation” being written. In Leigh’s example in class, the principal’s dismissal happened first, then the exigence was written and the audience reacted and there were formalities in either reinstating him or reinforcing the decision. Have I misunderstood?
Another term which stuck out was “message.” After taking Rhetoric, I identify “rhetoric” with the Sophists, who overall ended up seeming like a bunch of orators persuading the general public of whatever they wanted. “Message,” then, is a term which I trust very little. The “message” in any work is whatever the author or speaker wants to persuade the reader or audience, which is the point of reading and listening. Yet, persuasion was seen as a dirty deed back in the days of the Roman Empire (if I remember correctly…). On top of that, Covino and Joliffe referenced a work which focused on the rhetoric and “message” of Hitler’s Third Reich. Persuasion is a dirty deed, indeed. This term would affect everyday life when relating back to the college experience and the debate about the bias in professors. As a history major, most of my past professors have joked that they have been accused of creating a “liberal army.” (Strangely reminiscent of Dumbledore’s Army, but I digress…) So their “message” can be misinterpreted as something other than lecture based on the listener, which brings “us” back to the many meanings and uses of “audience.”
Annabelle writes:
ReplyDeleteI seem to see exigence a lot, as well as rhetoric, and composition...and I'll stop trying/failing to be funny now. I do see ethos, logos, and pathos recurring frequently, but honestly, from the flurry of classes this week, my brain barely wrapped around those three words, let alone any others. I'm in hopes that after the long weekend my brain will be ready to handle all this rhetorical mumbo jumbo.
As an aspiring actress, (Yes, I'm in the right classes, don't worry) I do see how the logos or logic, and the pathos or emotion work their ways into my own personal life, mainly for character work and believability, and then the ethos or credibility would come from my character portrayal and how real they seem.
That, and I just particularly love these characters in the movie The Spirit:
Lindsey writes:
ReplyDeleteBitzer's theory suggests that rhetorical discourse can only arise from a rhetorical situation. A rhetorical situation has three constituents: an exigence, an audience, and constraints. An exigence is something that can be changed in a positive manner. Positive does not necessarily mean "good" in this instance, but instead means "appropriate" or "relative." The audience specifically refers to the people that can make the change, not merely citizens listening to the speech or reading the text. Constraints are the processes that one must follow in order to create some type of change. In class we discussed how Bitzer seemed to say that every question has an appropriate response that should come at an appropriate time, which calls forth another term, kairos. The question becomes, Aren't there many different ways to respond to a question, or approaches to solving a problem? We discussed how he is not necessarily taking away any freedoms of choice but just expecting a certain response. Back in Jacksonville, the Duval County School Board decided to cut at least four sports programs throughout the county. This was a devastating blow to the community. I had been a member of one of the teams that was being threatened, and all the girls were extremely disappointed but decided to take action. The exigence was the threat to cut the sports. The audience included the girls, the coaches, and anyone else in the community that could make a change, like businesses that contributed donations. The constraints were the phone calls and letters that went to the school board and the steps the community had to take to get the sports back.
Kairos refers to the timeliness and suitability of a response. Some, like Bitzer, would agree that kairos is achievable while others, like Barthes, would strongly disagree, saying it is not possible. Kairos, in my opinion, is ambiguous. The timing may be right for some people and wrong for others. Trying to find that "perfect" timing and suitability is not realistic when trying to appeal to a large group of people with various cultures, ages, philosophies, etc.
The major elements that comprise rhetorical composition are the rhetorical situation, audience, and pisteis, or proofs. Since rhetorical situation and audience have been addressed, pisteis refers to the three ultimate truths which are exhibited through the use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos is the ethical appeal where the writer or speaker attempts to verify his words through good character and good will. Pathos is the emotional appeal that the writer or speaker has on the audience. Logos is the logical appeal, in which a writer or speaker will use facts, statistics, or reasoning to justify and persuade. The use of all three of these elements create style and an effective text or speech. In the sports cut example that I used earlier, there were instances of ethos, pathos, and logos. The coaches and girls had to establish their good character through their letters and show the importance of their cause. The cross country girls ran over the bridges downtown in 100 degree weather to appeal to the school board's emotions, and even made it on television, exemplifying their use of pathos. They used statistics and facts about funding to create an effective argument that ended up wining. Multiple sports were saved this year due to rhetorical composition.
Shannon writes:
ReplyDeleteThere is more to rhetorical discourse than just simply communicating effectively and efficiently. In Bitzer’s “The Rhetorical Situation” and Covino’s and Jolliffe’s “What is Rhetoric?” the importance and process of successful discourse is presented and explained. Both pieces go into detail about the importance of the exigent that is formed by a situation, the audience and the response that is affected by constraints. Through Bitzer, we learned that exigent is when one is compelled to act or speak due to a situation. For example, during a political campaign, the politician will see issues in which he or she disagree with in the present term and are therefore trying to change. Using ethos, pathos, and logos, which are important ways of persuasion in the field of communication, he or she will convince the audience of his or her beliefs. The rhetor (the one presenting to the audience), is acting upon the exigent, or need to change what is occurring in the present term. The rhetor will use logical reasoning to make a point (logos), and will also develop a presentable image that defines his or her character (ethos) to impress the audience. The rhetor may even trigger emotions through his or her speech or written work by discussing issues in which the audience will be able to relate (pathos). The rhetor, however, will have to take into consideration the constraints in which the audience possesses. Is there a certain demographic to the audience? What is the general age or generation? In return, the audience may or may not agree or be persuaded by the rhetor due to their emotional response on the issue presented, or the ethos of the rhetor. Without taking into consideration ethos, pathos, and logos, an argument will be weak, and may not have a successful or positive result, which is what Bitzer believed. Such instances are occurring now with the discussion and fight against education cuts in Florida. Such a situation is creating an exigent from teachers and students alike to make a positive change to save and improve education. To make a change, the rhetors have to use successful discourse through the use of persuasion to make an impact.
Brittany writes:
ReplyDeleteFrom reading Bitzer: The Rhetorical Situation, we learned that "some remarks implies certain situational characteristics", Bitzer also says that "situation calls disclosure into existence". The question is: Why did he feel like this topic was important to bring to light? That is simply because he feels like many people ignore it when rhetorical theory is used in our everyday lives. Some keywords in this discussion consist of Bitzers rule, the "3 constituents of any rhetorical situation" First is exigence which was described as feeling the need to speak about or act on something. A recent example of this for me was today in class when I misunderstood when the QQC was do I felt as if I was compelled to speak to Mrs. Graziano after class because she would be the only person that I felt could help me at the time, which explains the second keyword, audience. Mrs. Graziano was my audience because she was the person that could specifically make a difference. The last of the 3 is constraints, meaning the "process" that you have to follow. Basically the previous acts have to be done in order to receive the feedback to make you do things. Just like the reaction to a sneeze would be to say bless you (exigence), or if someone's shoe is untied u feel the need to tell that person (the audience), they will in return respond to you, stop what they are doing and tie their shoe (constraints). No matter how small the situation is and whether or not the outcome is positive or negative there is a possibility that the situation itself involves rhetorical activity.
Three days into Writing, Editing and Print Online and I have learned as much about rhetoric and rhetorical situations than I had all of high school. First of all, I have learned that rhetorical situations encompass many different aspects of life, but all contain the same elements. One of these elements, and something that is irreplaceable to the idea of the rhetorical situation, is something called the exigence. This is something that compels an audience to change their circumstances. This exigence can be real or fake, but this force that makes the audience want to change is what separates the rhetorical situation from other, non-effective situations. I also think it is interesting that exigence is not recognized as a true English word by my computer. This is possibly because it is such a new idea, or that perhaps the idea of exigence is so abstract that it’s hard to define by a dictionary. One thing is for certain, we experience exigence in our daily lives when we feel compelled to change something or we are bothered by a certain thing and want it to cease. Exigence is part of our humanly lives and thus we identify with it when read about.
ReplyDeletePathos is another term that seems to pop up a lot in conversation about what distinguished rhetoric. Ethos, pathos and logos encompass every rhetorical situation, but from the examples provided and examined in the classroom, pathos seems to be the most widely appealed to of the three points. In many instances, the logic posed by an argument is merely a fallacy created to make the argument appear more valid. And very rarely does the credibility of an argument succeed at swaying opinions. Humans are emotion human beings and when a person is passionate about a subject, it seems to override logic and credibility. The creators of these rhetorical situations seem to understand this and spend more time appealing to their audience’s pathos.
Some keywords I noticed that continued to present themselves during the assigned readings and class discussions were rhetor, audience, situation, and persuasion. I learned several concepts of what rhetoric means throughout this week from Bitzer's "Rhetorical Situations" and especially Covino and Jolliffe's "What is Rhetoric?"
ReplyDeleteIn "Rhetorical Situations," Bitzer provides how works are rhetorical because every situation requires a response, one in which is suitable and initially follows discourse. He also gives an explanatory article on what he feels rhetoric is and is not. From what I concluded in this article, Bitzer feels rhetoric is situational and is always persuasive.
In "What is Rhetoric," the article goes into detail about how rhetoric applies to rhetors and their audiences. It stated that there has to be some point of persuasion; texts would be potentially active because the rhetor's main purpose is to convince his audience to observe from a different perspective and change their mindsets.
These terms have a way of manifesting in my daily life by representing needed actions to be taken and thought processes. I apply rhetoric to a regular basis of reality by communicating my concerns in any type of situation where I want things to work out in my favor or getting things to go my way. Some matters just need my opinion and I like to ensure I give it.
In Bitzer, the keywords that continued to be used throughout his essay were the Rhetorical situation, exigence, audience and constraints. We are faced with rhetorical situations everyday of our lives. Something as simple as calling a friend and explaining to them that you need a ride to school and why and then the friend, being the audience, would respond appropriately. We discussed in class that the audience cant just be anyone who wants to listen. Your audience should be someone that has the ability to evoke change in the situation.The rhetorical situation is important because it offers a good example or structure for someone who needs to successfully communicate a message or idea. Bitzer does an okay job explaining the three different parts of the rhetorical situation. Plainly, he explains that the exigence is basically the reason for the rhetorical situation, the audience is the reciever of the message and the constraints are the boundaries or limits you must work within to accomplish your argument.
ReplyDeleteI feel like true composition is something that is defined more by its process rather than the end product itself; its value as a whole is only truly as valuable as its parts. I find the best comparison or parallel I can make is to compare the composition process to that of a recipe. You collect all the ingredients you know you will need; the cannons of rhetoric, the balance of ethos/ pathos/ logos, a relationship between message/ audience/ speaker, etc. Everything goes in the bowl looking one way and comes out in the end with the same ingredients, yet looking like something totally different. Each part serves its own individual purpose and brings its own significance to the table. The 5 cannons of rhetoric each serve their own purpose and add to the overall rhetoric effect. Invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery each enhance ones rhetorical argument to a certain degree but don’t truly “pack the punch” until they are combined together. You could invent and arrange the best argument available yet if you lack style and delivery, your argument remains lifeless as just your idea. You need the balanced combination of each one of the cannons for them to work cohesively as a unit of rhetoric. I also believe that the implementation of the rhetorical triangle of ethos, logos and pathos are equally as vital to the “theory of composition”; at least to good composition. All of these elements must also be in sync with each other in order to maximize the effectiveness of your standpoint. An even balance between the logos of the message, the pathos of the audience and the ethos of the speaker is a keystone, I feel, to any decent rhetoric situation. It is all of these small parts that can add up to truly form a composition. It is all in the message, how it is delivered, and the circumstances surrounding it and how it is received by the intended audience. This I feel is rhetoric at its most basic form and as a result, the foundation in which the “theory of composition” can be developed as a true craft.
ReplyDeleteWhen you consider all of the aspects that go into composing a reputable argument, it allows for you to appreciate a great rhetoric statement. Many things go into the composing, you must consider your audience, overcome your restraints, create a style that wil reach your people and convey your message, and most importantly, deliver this argument in a manner that will persuade the audience.
ReplyDeleteWhat I liked most about this weeks' reading, was the way in which rhetoric was outlined throughout history. To see the ways cultural and geographical changes have shaped the art of an argument was a rare and fascinating study that I would have never thought to explore.
Before reading last nights' article, I must admit I was a bit ignorant to the idea that immigration could reshape an argument.
The rhetor must now appeal to this new, foreign population, while still appealing to their specific ethos, logos, and pathos.
The power that the rhetorical statement gave women and the entire feminist movement is awe-inspiring. So many brave women utilized the art and made it their own, tackling social justice and equality. Giving words the ultimate power, is a beautiful fact. Words are accessible to all of us, which means that no one can deny us our rights to fight for ourselves.
When we talk about rhetoric, we see a pattern of the same keywords come up in our discussions. I see the keywords audience, exigence, and constraints, as from Bitzer’s 3 components to a rhetorical situation. We learn an exgence is an imperfection marked by urgency, a defect. This causes someone to speak about what they need to write about. We see this daily in our normal lives. The news features many examples of exigence. The audience is the people that are influenced by the rhetorical situation. Constraints are belief systems. They are all around us and exist in every situation. I feel these are the most important keywords for rhetoric.
ReplyDelete