The last few readings have left me pondering just how the “Rhetorical Situation” interacts with our day to day lives. What I mean by that is not whether or not it effects us as we go about our daily business, I don't think that can even be questioned at this point. Instead the question I thought most about was how everything around us is shaped by or shapes the rhetorical situations in which we discover ourselves. Bitzer's reading of the rhetorical situation has rhetoricians “answer an invitation to solve a problem” presented by “autonomous” exigencies (Edbauer, 6). They are located as “external conditions of material and social circumstances (Edbauer, 6).” Vatz's critique places exigencies as “created for audiences through the rhetor's work(Edbauer, 6).” These conceptions of the rhetorical situation are points, established by the circumstances or the rhetors. They are finite in the sense that they are created and have some type of limit in their scope of altering factors, even if that number is vast. They are, to take a cheap potshot at the title of the article, framed.
Craig Smith and Scott Lybarger expand the concept of situation by arguing that it “involves a plurality of exigencies and complex relations between the audience and a rhetorician's interest (Edbauer, 6),” but this is still a framed conception. While the previous theories may be points, this conception is a small network of points tied together into a situation. It is broader in scope, but still “framed.”
According to Edbauer, while those models of the rhetorical situation are informative, they “can also mask the fluidity of rhetoric(Edbauer, 20).” Instead we see the idea of “life as network(Edbauer, 10),” that is- life as an interconnected system with no finite limits. Rhetoric changes. It evolves, it amalgamates, it transforms and alters itself, spreading outwards. What Edbauer present us with is the rhetorical situation not as a point or a finite network, but as a drop falling into a pool of water.
The effects of a rhetoric “do not only exist in the elements of their situations, but also in the radius of their neighboring events (Edbauer, 20).” Through this they ripple outwards as a kind of butterfly effect. Situations alter situations, changing each other. In such a way everything is changed, and our daily lives and the rhetorical situations we encounter transform according to elements beyond our conception that we could never hope to understand the full extent of. But then the question I have to ask is, if there are no borders to a situation and you can never truly “understand” it because it extends so far in so many directions, how does this change the way we approach a discourse?
I like your metaphor for Edbauer's characterization of rhetoric--the waterdrop. Each event/utterance in a rhetorical discourse "ripples" outward effecting the surrounding discourses. The a completely still body of water, the ripple never terminates. Hence, you can't frame its effects because they extend beyond the boundaries of any frame.
ReplyDeleteEdbauer's model of rhetoric as an ecology is indeed so complex and dynamic that it posits effects "beyond our conception that we could never hope to understand the full extent of."
How does this change the way we approach a discourse? That's a tricky question. I think one important thing to take away from this discussion is that you have to be aware that any model (such as Bitzer's relatively static/discrete model) that you use to understand a situation is indeed a reduction, an oversimplification. Insofar as the situation contains "elements" or constituents that are relatively stable, Bitzer's model may be of use. But there are no absolutely stable/discrete elements, so eventually the model will reach it's ceiling, its upper limit of usefulness. I think this is probably most true for the more complex rhetorical situations, where there is constant activity, contagion, etc between and within the elements (speaker, audience, message, constraints).
So, for example, a relatively small city-council meeting, focused on a single topic, with a limited number of attendees who already have cemented their viewpoints might be more discernible through Bitzer's model. But something like a Presidential election, that goes on for months, involves a cornucopia of issues, ebbs, flows, experiences game-changing outside events, etc isn't going to behave according to Bitzer's model at all.
So perhaps we should recognize the use of the models, but also their limitations, and seek to apply them only in situations that play on their strengths rather than their weaknesses.
I love how you compare a rhetorical situation to a drop falling into a pool of water. Rhetorical situations definitely have a ripple affect as well as a butterfly effect as you have mentioned. What we put out there on the internet as well as what we say reaches and affects so many more people than we know. Who knows what it has evolved into. You might be interested in reading Kim’s blog post since you both have touched on the butterfly effect.
ReplyDeletebrilliant...
ReplyDelete