Reading Response: Bitzer

Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 1, pp. 1-14.

In his 1968 piece, “The Rhetorical Situation,” Lloyd Bitzer presents his theory of a rhetorical situation as a way to expand upon means of analysis. His overarching argument is that rhetorical discourse is necessarily produced as a response to a rhetorical situation, which in itself meets particular characteristics that define the situation as rhetorical. For Bitzer, rhetoric is a pragmatic discourse in that it seeks to accomplish an action or change in the world. Rhetoric alters reality through discourse that responds appropriately to a particular rhetorical situation.

Bitzer suggests that a rhetorical situation must be constituted of three characteristics (exigency, audience, and constraints) to meet the rhetorical threshold prior to any rhetorical discourse taking place. It is the situation itself that invites—even demands—a rhetorical response. Rhetorical discourse “is called into existence by situation, the situation which the rhetor perceives amounts to an invitation to create and present discourse.” (9) Further, the situation prescribes the types of rhetorical responses that are appropriate. Bitzer cites the example of the Kennedy assassination and the resulting rhetorical moments that followed in the wake: the need for immediate reporting in the days immediately following the murder, to the eulogies, the swearing in of President Johnson, all holding a certain level of dignity and gravitas appropriate to the needs growing out of the situation as it developed over the weeks following.

I think Bitzer’s primary goal in writing this piece as to do with expanding not only the units of rhetorical analysis, but also to expand rhetoric’s classical definition of a craft of persuasion to one that is more fluid and responsive and has potential to change the world. I do worry about Bitzer’s reliance on of prescription in rhetoric and discourse, as well as what discourse counts as an appropriate response. From the simple question of, who decides if a response is appropriate? to how fictive pieces like satire might be analysed. As Bitzer points out, fictive pieces don’t count as rhetoric even while they perform the roles and speak the lines that perform as rhetoric in its artistic piece. Looking at Bitzer’s particular rhetorical situation: it’s 1968, there is deep unrest amongst young people about the war in Vietnam, there are social justice groups marching and protesting to demand civil rights, women’s rights, protests happen frequently and Bitzer was likely watching all of this unfold politically. Did he draw this theory of rhetorical sitution from the social situation surrounding social and political lives in the late 1960s? It seems clear to me that the rhetorical situation he found himself in created the exigency that demanded he look to expanding how we “do rhetoric.”