Reality -- what a concept.

[cj]

I like Margaret FalerSweany's bibliography (and dissertation topic! -- keep us
posted on the project and any publications).

Concerning Rhetorical Situation, and the Bitzer-Vatz-Consigny triad, I think
Seth and Margaret both touch on important points. I especially like Seth's
comment that Bitzer may simply be operating without the terminology of
postmodernism.

Still, I can't agree totally with either. Bitzer *does* seem
self-contradictory. And I regret that my earlier, rather flippant treatment of
his essay did not point out strongly enough one thing: "The Rhetorical
Situation" is an important, seminal article for rhetoricians and students of
rhetoric.

However,  Bitzer's essay operates from a classical base, and to move past his
references to Aristotle's discussion of artistic and inartistic proofs, and his
scathing rejection of "sophistic rhetoric" with little more than a nod to the
ancients, is to credit him with a more postmodern perspective than may be
called for.

When Bitzer writes that rhetoric alters reality, he is primarily (and by no
means simplistically) referring to the ability of rhetoric to alter a) the
auditor's perception of reality, and b) the real situation itself, by means of
actions taken as a result of the discourse itself.

When Vatz takes exception to Bitzer's claim that "Any exigence is an
imperfection marked by urgency (GREAT memory, Ava!!!)," he tries to highlight
his conviction that it is a serious mistake to operate from the assumption that
situations have meaning. His comments focus on issues of rhetorical invention:

"As soon as one communicates an event or situation he is using evocative
language. As Richard Weaver and others have pointed out, language is always
value-laden.  Clearly the adjectives into which a "situation" are communicated
cannot be the "real situation"; they must be a translation."

Vatz seems mostly concerned that Bitzer's view of "exigence" strips or masks
the responsibility of the rhetor in shaping that meaning:

"If one accepts Bitzer's position that "the presence of rhetorical discourse
obviously indicates the presence of a rhetorical situation," then we ascribe
little responsibility to the rhetor with respect to what he has chosen to give
salience. On the other hand, if we view the communication of an event as a
choice, interpretation, and translation, the rhetor's responsibility is of
supreme concern."

Consigny, of course, weenies out altogether by falling back on the valence of
"Art" to explain and tentatively resolve the tensions between the Bitzer / Vatz
perspectives.

Which isn't an altogether bad way to go.

Yours pedantically (and rather lamely, as always)

CJ Jeney


_____________________________
CJ Jeney
Arizona State University

http://www.public.asu.edu/~starbuck/
azcacti at asu.edu
_____________________________
Mork: "Fly, little egg! You're free!"
Egg:   *splatt*