When examining a situation that I feel would align with
Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation, it is noteworthy that just about anything can
align with Bitzer’s version of a rhetorical situation. He states in his
text that he believes anything is a rhetorical situation, but to have
“anything” as a definition isn’t practical so he breaks it down into three
limitations: audience, exigency, and constraints. The example I will use is a
politician talking about enforcing gun laws in Florida. The audience is Florida
residents, who have just been effected by two big shootings. The exigence comes
from the public feeling that gun laws need to be enforced, as two big shootings
just occurred. The constraints would include but are not limited to the
population the politician is addressing, diction of the politician, the place
the politician is giving the speech, how the speech is being shared (local TV,
newspapers, etc.) and time frame.
Edbauer’s rhetorical ecology does not view “rhetoric” as a
noun, but rather as a verb. In the beginning of her essay, Edbauer paints a
picture. Being typical human beings, we probably cannot tell you where the city
lines of Tallahassee lie. However, we can tell you the “good and bad” parts of
town, and maybe even where their boarders lie. In this same way, Edbauer
believes that rhetoric cannot be pinned down and outlined so easily. It is
ecological, and therefore constantly in flux. As Edbauer insinuates, because
rhetoric is constantly in flux it is difficult to clearly distinguish any
aspect of it: the composer, audience, text or the exigency. An example for this
is the Constitution. Because the Constitution of the United States affected
audiences in the past and continues to evolve and affect us today, the
Constitution is a perfect example of what constitutes a rhetorical ecology.
Edbauer and Bitzer would both agree that exigence in some
form is vital to a rhetorical situation. They may disagree on where exigence
comes from, but I believe that they would both agree that rhetoric is
responsive to something. At this point in the course, most of my agreements lie
with Bitzer. I agree with his rhetorical triangle, and I also agree that
rhetoric can be just about anything, but that is not a practical use of it. However,
I do appreciate Edbauer’s emphasis on emotions.
Your explanation of Edbauer's view of rhetoric as a verb is really interesting. The example you provided was quite helpful because we can all relate to it, since we all live in Tallahassee at the moment. I never thought of Rhetorical Ecology like that- something that can't be "pinned down" easily and your example provided me with new insight on the topic. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI like your approach on acknowledging the verb quality of Rice's rhetorical ecology and the example of relating it to how in Tallahassee we may not know the lines but that we definitely can tell the good or bad parts. I think that really gives a new approach of it for me but also emphasizes on it more to further explain it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the example for Bitzer's rhetorical situation, I think that is a relatable example that expresses current issues we are facing and is a perfect example that helped further explain what the rhetorical situation is. Not to mention, breaking it down to express each part also further explained what each individual term means.