Guidelines:
Blog posts are free and open; their language is casual. I expect to see four things in your posts: (1) that you read the piece; (2) that you can make connections to yourself as a writer and the class; (3) that you understand the genre conventions of a blog; and (4) that I can begin to see who you are as a writer—through your voice, style and language choices.
**Comment back to this post--do NOT create a new post!
**Make sure you comment back to at least one other person either in your own post or comment to their post.
After reading the Vatz article and watching the youtube video, please respond to the following prompt in about 250-400 words:
According to Vatz, what is rhetoric? What is a rhetorical situation? Why are both important in the understanding of how to write? Why are both important for research? Do you believe all writing needs a rhetorical situation in order to write? What is Vatz's issue with how Bitzer defines rhetorical situation?
How rhetorical situation connect to your own writing process(es)?
Due: Monday, April 1, 2013 by class time.
According to Vatz, rhetoric is a mean of persuading others into action. Vatz describes the rhetorical situation as the rhetoric controlling the situation or character, instead of Bitzer’s view of the reverse affecting each other. Just as Bitzer states, “’Rhetorical discourse is called into existence by situation’ and ‘It seems clear that rhetoric is situational.’” While Bitzer believes the situation or the context to be the overlying factor, Vatz believes that “rhetorical basis of meaning requires a disciplinary hierarchy with rhetoric at the top,” instead of context surrounding the hierarchy. Rhetoric is important for research, for the main goal in writing a research paper and gathering credible sources, is to convince your audience that the claims you are making are true. And without rhetoric, one would not be able to do so. As for rhetorical situation is also important, for in order to produce an effective research paper one needs to provide the situation, and convince the audience. Both rhetoric and rhetorical situation are important in understanding how to write, because both the situation and rhetoric are related, and in order to be convincing, despite which one causes the other, both are important and will lead to convincing the audience.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that all writing needs to be a rhetorical situation, however I do believe that in order to engage your audience deeply, and hook them it is necessary. For example even when writing a fictional book, such as Alice in Wonderland, throughout the book by the use of rhetoric the writer is convincing you of a made up story. And through detail and description as a reader you can convince your mind to picture this story because of the rhetorical situation that is used. Another example is poetry, in poetry even though it is abstract it is also trying to convince you through, rhythm, style, and flow and bestow a certain feeling upon its audience. These to examples both show how no matter what style of writing rhetorical situation is used to draw in the audience and convince the audience.
Throughout my years as a student I have been able to increase my connections to Rhetorical situations, which in turn strengthens my writing. As I am able to use different means of evidence and at a higher quantity and multitude my writing has become more effective and convincing. As I have been improving in my writing skills I have began to use more scholarly articles, databases, and more, in order to prove the validity of my evidence and ultimately my claims. By doing so, my research has become strong, and my papers more effective in convincing the intended audience.
I like how you used many quotes from the reading in many appropriate positions and that shows the audience (me) that you understood the rhetorical situation of Vatz really well.
DeleteBut, do you think that anyone can write just out of the blue? because i believe that if anyone thinks about writing something,the reason for that is to change an urgency or a situation, whatever that situation may be, a feeling, a problem or anything that needs to be changed.
I liked how you explained the differences between Vatz and Bitzers point of views, it was really clear to understand. I found it interesting that you believe that all writing does not need to have a rhetorical situation. I was trying to think of some examples of this and I could not come up with any. What type of writing do you think does not have a rhetorical situation?
DeleteIs it possible that rhetorical situations aren't to be required or irrelevant, but rather that they are inherent? I explain it more fully in my post, but I feel that your examples basically support this idea as well. In both Alice and Wonderland and general poetry, the author is using rhetoric to create a situation, a reality for his/her audience.
DeleteIn Vatz piece, he basically opposes many if not all of Bitzer’s definitions of rhetoric and rhetorical situations. According to Vatz, rhetoric is still the art of persuading but in a different way than how bitzer defined it. In Vatz’s opinion, he views rhetoric as the creation of reality from the situation by the choice of what the rhetor includes in his discourse, which is different than Bitzer’s view because Bitzer believes that the situation defines the rhetoric and the discourse. According to Vatz, the rhetorical situation as not just a public event but as a situation that is different as to how a rhetor controls and uses it and further, communicates it to his audience using rhetoric and discourse choosing what to include in them, while Bitzer’s rhetorical situation is the same despite how people might view it in a different way or how rhetors would use it. Therefore, Vatz’s definition puts more responsibility on the rhetor himself and what he chooses to make salient.
ReplyDeleteThese two definitions that Vatz made connect deeply with writing and research because it’s true that a rhetor could metaphorically create a different situation than the original one by what he choose to focus on and what he brings up to the surface and that’s the deal with writing, a writer could persuade and convince his audience by how he uses the information included in his piece, how he organizes it and how he uses his style and language along with the rhetorical appeals. Research on the other hand is a more narrow type of writing in general but it also connects with what Vatz wrote, a researcher sheds light on a specific topic and focuses on it ultimately convincing his audience by what he wants them to believe, although, a researcher usually writes about facts and proof, therefore, not being able to fully alter the aspects of the original situation and facts into his own advantage.
Vatz had two strong opposing ideas with Bitzer’s definitions. First, he believed that the rhetorical situation isn’t a public event that everyone sees in the same way but it was more of how a person sees it and more importantly, how a rhetor chooses what to make salient in a specific situation. Second, he states clearly the difference between his idea of rhetoric and Bitzer’s idea, “To view rhetoric as a creation of reality or salience rather than a refiector of reality clearly increases the rhetor's moral responsibility”, thus, Vatz depends more on the responsibility of the rhetoric in a rhetorical situation rather than the situation itself.
I still believe that all writing needs a situation to exist, not necessarily a rhetorical situation according to Bitzer’s definition, and this also agrees with Vatz definition, because he didn’t say that writing or rhetoric could exist without a situation, he just said that the situation could be viewed and used differently by different people.
Rhetorical situations are important to my writing process because as I said, I need a situation or a reason to write and I strongly believe that what Vatz defined as rhetoric and rhetorical situation is what many writers use even if they didn’t realize it and that’s how I feel myself, when I write, I always try to convince my audience by the use of the knowledge I have or the knowledge I gained from doing research with support to make it look more credible.
ReplyDeleteVatz takes an interesting and credible approach when defining rhetoric and rhetorical situation. He describes rhetoric as a sort of phenomenon that causes meaning. In other words, rhetoric allows an audience to craft an opinion of a particular situation. The way we perceive facts or events that occur in and around us stem from how others communicate them to us. Vatz refers to the people who communicate these occurrences to us as the “rhetors.” Rhetors shape the meaning of a situation by the information they chose to report and by the specific diction used to report the information. A rhetorical situation simply refers to the rhetoric shaping the way an audience perceives an event or situation. A rhetorical situation shows how the rhetor, the audience, and the text interact with each other. Blitzer takes an opposite approach to define the rhetorical situation and argues that the context of a situation shapes the rhetoric that follows. He believes, “the situation dictates the sorts of observations to be made,” while Vatz concludes the rhetoric dictates the situation.
Rhetoric and the rhetorical situation are needed for effective writing because understanding both concepts allows a writer to gain greater insight into the purpose of their text. Knowing that the choice of information you communicate and the choice of vocabulary you use to communicate this information impacts the outcome a situation should influence your writing. In effect, I, as the author, control the perceived situation based on the rhetoric I use. I can therefore choose, to an extent, the outcome of my writing based on my selection of rhetoric. Understanding rhetoric and the rhetorical situation also affects the research process because the researcher is aware of the rhetoric used by other authors. For example, when I research about the Affordable Care Act I know that Department of Health and Human Services will report factual information of the law, while a research-based organization may report on the studies they conducted regarding the impacts of the law on middle-aged working women. I choose my sources accordingly.
I would disagree with Andreis and claim that a rhetorical situation is evident in all writing. Every piece of literature needs an author, and the author has the freedom to craft the text using whatever information and vocabulary they desire. This is then related to an audience who interpret the text based on the author’s rhetoric. I agree with Andreis when he states that rhetorical situations help “engage your audiences deeply.” I particularly liked his poetry example. A good poet has the ability to sweep his audience away into an imaginary world when using rhetoric successfully.
As a writer I use the rhetorical situation to craft papers. It begins with the research process, in which I must pick and choose information to use. As I write, my concern for diction allows me to portray an event in the manner I choose. The rhetorical situation exists even though I may not explicitly think about it when writing.
I really like what you said about the ability of a poet (last line in your third paragraph) I actually quoted you in my post. I agree with you that rhetorical situation appears in all writing. I think you did a really good job using examples and supporting details, for example when you talk about the Affordable Care Act. These made your writing clear and easy to follow.
Delete
ReplyDeleteIn the article, it is very clear that Vatz and Bitzer have polar opposite viewpoints of what rhetoric. According to Vatz, rhetoric is used in writing in order to convey a particular message or opinion. The specific words and phrases that the author uses to create his writing has great effect on the overall meaning of the piece and it influences what the audience perceives about the situation. Vatz states that the situation is brought about by the author’s use of rhetoric. Vatz says “situations are rhetorical” and that “rhetoric controls the situational response”. These ideas place a great responsibility on the part of the author. The author has total control over what the audience reads and can thereby alter what is perceived about the situation. Vatz states, “By the very fact of selecting certain elements and presenting them to the audience, their importance and pertinence to the discussion are implied”.
Rhetoric and the rhetorical situation are extremely important in order to produce good writing. The author can completely alter the situation by how they choose to present the facts. The specific words that they use in their writing can have negative or positive connotations that affect how the audience views the situation. An example of this is an article that was in my local newspaper. It was an article about a local homeless man who was killed by a police officer. The author caused a terrible situation because he did not include the entire story. He wanted the police officer to seem brutal, harsh, and power hungry so he left out key details. In reality the police officer was acting in self defense but this was not realized until many months later when the true story came out. It is evident here how the rhetorical situation created fear, outrage, and disgust not the other way around.
Rhetoric and rhetorical situations are important in research as well. This is because the author can choose what topic and facts he wants to research about. Just by selecting those specific key words he is already creating a sense of bias and opinion. He can use specific facts and wording to display his opinions.
I believe that all writing has a rhetorical situation. Just like Hannah stated, all pieces of writing had to be produced by someone. That author has the liberty to include or not include whatever they like.
Bitzer, unlike Vatz, believes that the situation controls the rhetorical response. However, Vatz states that communication cannot be done without the original author using his own liberty to pick and choose what is included.
In my own writing process I use rhetoric and a rhetorical situation in everything I do. As I begin with my research I choose what I want to search for and what information I want to include in my writing. I consciously or subconsciously take a stance on the information I am presented with. The specific words that I use in my writing also convey a message to my audience. I may not be explicitly thinking about a rhetorical situation, but it is there nonetheless.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhile I don't agree that all writing has rhetorical situation, I think it is important for writing. It was nice to see that you used a personal example to support Vat's viewpoints. I also liked that you quoted Vatz more than once.
DeleteDanielle-I love the example that you used about the article from your home town. Sadly, I feel as though rhetors often take advantage of the choices they can make, especially in the media world. My FSEM talked all about situations in the news such as this one and how it makes people overreact to dangers such as police brutality that might not necessarily be present. It's really interesting to see the connection now between my FSEM and the rhetorical situation.
DeleteAccording to Vatz, rhetoric is the art of creating meaning. Therefore, a rhetorical situation is a sum of choices made by the rhetor in order to produce a certain significance or implication-- both things which are not innate to an event. This is best described by his note that “...situations obtain their character from the rhetoric which surrounds or creates them.” Basically, “meaning is not discovered is situations, but created by rhetors.”
ReplyDeleteThis leads to Vatz’s issue with Bitzer’s definition of the rhetorical situation: meaning is not intrinsic. Objective, inherent meaning is utterly nonexistent. Instead, it is the rhetor’s choices which control meaning in their control over the unlimited whirlwind of reality’s “facts” and contexts which Bitzer emphasizes so wholeheartedly.
Rhetoric and its situation are both important in understanding how to write because they empower the individual(s) in control of the written work-- namely, us! Vatz carefully notes that the power which we have over meaning and reality isn’t something to be taken lightly. The old adage “With great power comes great responsibility,” comes to mind here. In terms of research, this is even more important. The resources available to us today are infinite; there’s much more information out there than we could ever use or consider. Therefore, we must be cognizant of our responsibilities as rhetors (producers of meaning) and really consider the implications of our work.
This brings us to a big question: Does all writing need a rhetorical situation? I don’t think it’s a matter of necessity, but rather one of inherence. Whether we agree with Bitzer and decide that these situations are unavoidable, or we agree with Vatz and decide that we create them, they’re ultimately unavoidable either way.
In my own writing processes, I try to blend these two ideologies. I believe that we are bound by preexisting contexts and circumstances, but also that we create meaning as we go. This translates into my own writing in the emphasis I put on possibility, specifically the possibilities which surround various interpretations of my work. By considering these, I’m much more likely to use critical, directional rhetoric to effectively control the way an audience will perceive my ideas.
Emily- I couldn't decide with whom I agree more: Vatz or Bitzer. After reading your post and pondering about it for a while, I think I completely agree with you when you say, "I believe that we are bound by preexisting contexts and circumstances, but also that we create meaning as we go" Rhetorical situations are unavoidable regardless of if Vatz is correct or if Bitzer is correct. Thank you for your insight.
DeleteAccording to Vatz, rhetoric is some writing that describes a situation and evokes thoughts from the audience. I base this theory off of Vatz’ response to the rhetorical situation. From the reading, Vatz’ distaste towards the Rhetorical Situation stems from the bias which goes into the rhetorical situation. This is first seen when Vatz writes, “The statements may ostensibly describe situations, but they actually only inform us as to the phenomenological perspective of the speaker”. When I read this I saw it as a Vatz basically challenging the conventions of rhetoric post 1968. Bitzer defined the rhetorical situation as a rhetor attempting to convey a situation to the audience. Vatz counters by saying that Bitzer’s idea of the rhetorical situation can only successfully convey the writer’s perception of the situation and what is being written.
ReplyDeleteBoth rhetoric and the rhetorical situation are important when it comes to writing because without both of these, there will be no need to write and the audience will have no idea what’s going on. The rhetorical situation provides the situation for writing and the importance of writing the actual document whereas rhetoric is the path used to convey the idea with as little bias as possible. These are both also important for research (especially an inquiry essay) because the rhetorical situation explains why the topic and why it should be researched while the rhetoric is the actual research used to express the ideas with as little of the writer as possible while still informing the audience on the basic information necessary to know to fully flesh out the issue. All writing doesn’t need a rhetorical situation but every thing ever written serves a purpose regardless of rhetorical situation.
In this article, we can see the differences between the viewpoints of Vatz and Bitzer on rhetorical situation and rhetoric. Bitzer states that “rhetoric is situational”, meaning "the situation controls the rhetorical response”. According to Vatz, rhetoric is a cause of meaning and also controls the rhetorical situation. Rhetors, or the people who create the rhetoric, choose whether or not to make the situation. Vatz references the Vietnam war when George Aiken suggested that the United states should say they had won the war and get out. The reason or meaning for the war was whatever they chose it to be, in this situation the government was in the role of the rhetor and had the ability to change the situation.
ReplyDeleteRhetoric and rhetorical situation are both important when understanding how to write because they are both essential in conveying a message to the audience. The rhetorical situation is what the writing is about, while the rhetoric is the underlying message that is intended for the audience. Without these, the audience will not understand what the author is trying to say. In research, rhetoric and rhetorical situation are also important. The topic of the research is the rhetorical situation and the rhetoric is the information found out about the topic.
I do not believe that all writing needs rhetorical situation, but in order for writing to have significant meaning it must have rhetorical situation. In my own writing process, I use rhetorical situation in order to try and get my message across to the audience. I think it is important to make sure the rhetoric and rhetorical situation both work together and effectively reach the audience.
In Vatz’s article a very different approach is taken to the rhetorical situation and the rhetoric then how first defined with Bitzer. In essence, Bitzer saw the rhetorical situation as something that is created by the hands of fate and the events that occur, Vatz see a rhetorical situation as something that is created rather by the hands and voices of the rhetor, the creator. It is this rhetor that chooses not only how the rhetorical situation is created, but if it is even created at all. Rhetoric is the result of a culmination of the rhetor’s knowledge on the certain context. It is then the job of the rhetor to spin the story or the situation as they see fit and then to work it into the rest of society. Bitzer rather saw the rhetorical situation as defined by the context and the exigence that called it into existence. Vatz repeatedly insulted this way of thinking and preferred the term salience as the way a presenter can give life to rhetorical situation based off how they perceived the context. Both rhetoric and rhetorical situation are important when it comes to writing because they give a “why” and a “what” to the writing. They are what provides substance to an argument. In research, Vatz’s definition is rather interesting because if research is based off taking in only what one chooses and then interpreting to their own artistic liberty then two presenters on one topic of research can have extremely varying results. Research is meant to present and bring to light a specific topic, but if the rhetorical situation is open to interpretation and formation of the rhetor, then how can a research paper be non-bias? All writing requires some kind of why, or rhetorical situation, when writing because it is what gives life to the writing as a whole. I believe I have already sufficiently spoken plenty on how Vatz views Bitzer’s interpretations, altogether as inaccurate and wrong. I have always worked under the premonitions of Bitzer’s definition of rhetorical situation, because if one puts too much importance on the rhetor rather than the situation at hand, it becomes more of a psychological debate off how to perceive the rhetor rather than how to perceive the situation at hand. In my own writing I prefer seeing the rhetorical situation as something that gives me a how, why, and a who of writing as I can take all of this information and create a format that truly emphasizes the problem at hand and persuades the audience.
ReplyDeleteVatz and Bitzer have completely opposite views on how to define rhetoric. According to Vatz, rhetoric is the creation of meaning. Vatz believes that rhetorical situation is comprised of the choices the rhetor, or the people involved in creating rhetoric, make. Therefore the rhetor is responsible for deciding what he/she is giving salience. This is where Vatz and Bitzer differ. Bitzer believes “rhetoric is situational” meaning that is situation defines the rhetoric and the rhetor does not play an important role in the rhetorical process. In Vatz’ article the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is discussed not because of the event itself but because the president, the rhetor in this case, created a rhetorical situation by choosing what to make salient. The rhetor’s choices affect the message they are portraying to their audience.
ReplyDeleteBoth rhetoric and rhetorical situation are important for research because when writing a research paper your goals are to learn more about what you are researching and mainly to ethically gather credible sources and citations in an attempt to persuade your audience to believe the claims you are making. Both of these are also important for writing purposes because the rhetor makes choices on what to include in his writing. These choices will change the perspective the audience has on the piece of writing.
I do believe that rhetorical situation is necessary in all writing because the author has the ability to choose how to portray writing to his or her audience. I really like what Hannah said about poetry, “A good poet has the ability to sweep his audience away into an imaginary world when using rhetoric successfully.” I completely agree that authors have the ability to transform the audience into any “world” when writing based on the words and descriptors used.
In my writing I use rhetorical situation because I need a reason or a situation in which to write about. I make the choices at the rhetor to include what information I deem important and use words which strengthen my own writing. I aim to have my audience understand my claims through these choices I make because the audience will craft their own views on this situation after reading the piece of writing.
Will- I think you do a really good job at summarizing Vatz's main views on the rhetorical situation. Using the Cuban Missle Crisis as an example was also a smart choice because it makes rhetor very easy to understand. You say that you make the choices at the rhetor to include what information you deem important as do most people. I am curious if you or anyone else that does this feels that if our choices make such an impact on how the reader perceives the information, then should we feel a certain responsibility to be conscious of this power? For example, should a newspaper editor take more responsibility for the rhetor that they chose and how it affects the audience?
DeleteI agree with Emily. Using a specific example from the text that was clearly emphasized makes your blog post strong and also shows your comprehension for the ideas expressed.
DeleteAccording to Vatz, rhetoric is what produces a rhetorical situation. Rhetoric is how writing affects the environment and audience of the piece. According to Vatz, a rhetorical situation is what the rhetoric creates. The rhetorical situation is the reaction from the audience of the writing. The rhetorical situation is dependent on the rhetoric to be what it is. If you use this definition of rhetorical situations, it is easy to use this to consider what you want your audience to take away from it. When you are writing, you are creating the rhetorical situation, and knowing what kind of situation you want to make is crucial to effective rhetoric. While not all rhetoric involves research, and not all research leads to rhetoric, there is a strong importance to rhetorical research. Researching for the purpose of rhetoric allows you to strengthen your writing and create a stronger rhetorical situation. I do not think all writing needs rhetoric. Whether or not GOOD writing needs rhetoric is a different question. A rhetorical situation emphasizes the writing and propels it as a piece of writing. While I do not believe any writing requires a rhetorical situation, I believe it helps strengthen it.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between Vatz’s and Bitzer’s arguments is what affects what. Bitzer believes the situation affects the rhetoric, while Vatz believes the rhetoric affects the situation. After thinking about this, I would have to say I mostly believe Vatz’s viewpoint, however disagree with how he comes to the conclusion. Audience, one of the core components of rhetoric, does not exist until after the writing is finished and someone is able to read it. That means that during the writing process, there is no audience to affect the rhetoric being written. At the same time, I have to disagree with Vatz’s argument about there not being intrinsic value in things. I believe that any meaning is intrinsic to the thing it’s about. That means that the value of the rhetoric comes from the writing itself. If you are writing a research paper on a topic where you are trying to convince readers of a viewpoint, you are not trying to add value to the work that you cite, you are using the work that you cite to add value to your writing. In the end, it’s the writing, not the context or the situation, that holds the significance.
In Vatz’s article, he takes a very different approach than Bitzer does to rhetoric and the rhetorical situation by giving more responsibility to the rhetor. While Bitzer believes that the rhetoric and the discourse are defined by the situation, Vatz believes that “the rhetor is responsible for what he chooses to make salient.” He views rhetoric as the choices that are made by the rhetor in the creation of reality. This assumes the rhetor has a lot more power over the rhetorical situation than what Bitzer believes, and with this power comes a moral responsibility as well. In Vatzs opinion, statements can’t imply situational characteristics independent of the rhetors point of view or chosen rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteBoth rhetoric and the rhetorical situation are essential to writing and research. Whether the writing is poetry, a fictional story or a research paper, the rhetoric that is chosen plays a key role in persuading the audience. In a research paper, specific articles and facts are presented in order to create a more credible point of view. The rhetorical situation is created by the rhetor when they make decisions as to what is said and more importantly what isn’t. The rhetor could decide not to mention an important opposing article to their research or certain plot points in a story to change the perception.
I believe that all writing does not need to be written with a rhetorical situation in mind, but that all writing ultimately has one. I agree with what Emily Krebs says about being “bound by preexisting contexts and circumstances, but also that we create meaning as we go.” The rhetoric that we choose dictates the situation based on previous assumption, but every step of rhetoric requires the rhetor to make a choice and subsequently create a rhetorical situation, intentional or not.
In my own writing process, especially when writing about a personal experience, I make choices of which plot points to include based on the impact that story will tell rather than the chronological events of what actually happened. In research, I create a rhetorical situation by choosing what articles or facts are most important to the perception I’d like to portray. In my FSEM class we talked a great deal about how the media creates a rhetorical situation every day by what they choose to tell the public and I believe each piece of writing is no different.
Emily- I thought that your perception of Vatz’s article was very insightful. I liked your analysis of Vatz’s point that in his opinion the rhetor holds the power over the rhetorical situation. Your analysis was thoughtful and easy to understand. You presented the information in a way that could relate to multiple people. Also, I thought the section about using articles and credible sources was important. I too try to use the best forms of research I can in my writing. The part of your blog that resonated most with my ideals was when you explained how “all writing does not need to be written with a rhetorical situation in mind, but that all writing ultimately has one” (Emily B). This is a creative and thoughtful way to view the rhetorical situation. I agree that when I am writing I do not always take the time to create a formal outline of the rhetorical situation I will create, but ultimately, my writing will provide a format for a rhetorical situation. Bringing in information from your FSEM was helpful to connect to what your writing style is based off of.
DeleteAccording to Vatz, rhetoric should be placed at the top of the hierarchy. Vatz explains how rhetoric dictates the situation. There can be no situation without rhetoric. He states “I would not say "rhetoric is situational,"…but situations are rhetorical; not ". .. exigence strongly invites utterance,"… but utterance strongly invites exigence; not "the situation controls the rhetorical response . . ." but the rhetoric controls the situational response (Vatz 159). He opposes Bitzer in nearly every point. He illustrates that the situation does not control the rhetoric, but the rhetor decides what to make salient, which in turn defines “rhetoric as a creation of reality and salience” (Vatz 158). Vatz describes the rhetorical situation as being indicative of what the rhetor decides to make salient. The rhetor has a “moral responsibility” to make salient a certain issue or event, which creates the rhetorical situation. The rhetor utilizes the appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos, in order to convince an audience that they should pay more attention to a certain event than another. He explains that a situations is not made important or until a rhetor who has credibility makes it well known to the public. Both the rhetorical situation and rhetoric are instrumental in writing because without them, it would be impossible to create work that is appealing and convincing. Rhetoric allows for a rhetor to establish a connection with the audience. If there is a lack of claim, constituent, and constraint then the writing will fail to create a rhetorical situation. If the situation is not established then the audience will fail to grasp the purpose of the text and develop a lack of interest. Both elements, rhetoric and a rhetorical situation are important for research in that they rely on credibility in order to prosper. Research has the ability to increase the validity of one’s writing. Therefore, it adds to the ethical aspect of the rhetorical situation. Without these two elements of writing, research would not be held with so much value and stock as it is in modern writing.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that it is imperative that all writing possesses a rhetorical situation. Without this fundamental element, a rhetor would find it impossible to relay their message to an audience in an enthralling and effective way. The rhetorical situation makes it possible for the rhetor to display his/her ideas in a logical, ethical, and emotional way in order to convey a certain issue. Through rhetoric they are able to make this issue salient and successfully make a topic salient and relatable to multiple perspectives.
Vatz’s issue with Bitzer’s ideal on the rhetorical situation stems from the two upholding two opposite principles on the subject matter. Vatz believes that rhetoric instigates the situation. While Bitzer proposes the idea that “rhetorical discourse is called into existence by situation” (Vatz 154). Vatz problem with this ideal is exemplified in his belief that “meaning is not intrinsic in events” (Vatz 156).
The rhetorical situation is involved in my writing process as I attempt to relate to multiple perspectives in my writing while including all of the rhetorical appeals. When I research for my project, I am sure that my sources are credible or I collect my own data. In this way I establish my reliability and trustworthiness. I realize that in order for my audience to believe me and realize the sincerity of my work, I must evoke a sense of knowledge. In this way the rhetorical situation plays a major role in the way a choose to write.
According to Vatz, rhetoric is a means of communication and persuasion about some topic, which creates meaning for a situation. Rhetoric is what allows the author to imbue meaning into a situation, which is a point of contention between Vatz and Bitzer. Bitzer believes that meaning is inherent in the situation, and that rhetoric is a reaction to the exigence and meaning of a situation. On the other hand, Vatz argues that the author creates the meaning and exigence of a situation, assigning a salience to a particular event on which he will discuss.
ReplyDeleteRhetorical situation, according to Vatz, is the understanding of the meaning created by the rhetor through his rhetoric. To Vatz, “situations are rhetorical,” meaning that the understanding of a particular situation is achieved through the rhetoric with which is is described. This differs from Bitzer’s claim that “rhetoric is situational,” the exact opposite of Vatz’s argument – such stark discrepancies essentially define Vatz’s article and argument.
Both rhetoric and rhetorical situation are important in the understanding of how to write because it allows the observer to understand the way in which an author presents some situation, through the rhetoric he employs. And in seeing the entire argument, the rhetorical situation allows one to see the meaning that the author has created. The importance of rhetoric and rhetorical situation as I have presented certainly aligns more with Vatz’s argument as I agree more with his interpretation than Bitzer’s. Bitzer claims that meaning is inherent in a situation and rhetoric is a result of the meaning of a situation. As Vatz points out, this relieves the rhetor of nearly all responsibility in discerning the salience of a situation and the manner in which it is presented. It removes the personality of an author and almost argues that rhetoric is predetermined by the situation.
Connecting to my own writing process, I tend to align with Vatz once again. I see a situation about which I want to write and create my own interpretation of that topic, thus creating a new meaning about it that is an effect of my rhetoric. I am not bound by some meaning that is inherent in a situation, but rather I create my own understanding rhetorical situation as a result of the way in which I argue the topic.
I do not believe that "Rhetoric is predetermined by a situation" however that is a very good point. I believe that rhetoric evolves from the situation. As for your connection to the writing process, I also share the same idea.
ReplyDeleteIn the article written by Vatz, he takes a position that is opposite of the writer Bitzer. He critiques Bitzer and has a different idea for each of the points that the first man had made. One of the main points Vatz makes that differs from Bitzer is that rhetoric is not intrinsic to a thing but is rather determined by whomever is describing a particular thing, issue, or event. He says, “Rhetoric is a cause not an effect of meaning.” Rhetoric is a means of persuading about something and not just a part of what something is. When talking about a rhetorical situation, Bitzer states, “I want to know the nature of those contexts in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse…what are their characteristics and why and how do the result in the creation of rhetoric.” Vatz later argues that “one never runs out of context” and you could write about a particular situation from all sorts of rhetorical approaches. Vatz believes that the rhetor in a rhetorical situation is as much a part of the responsibility as the situation or item being described. This person has the power to pick what is salient and shed light on those things. These two things are important in research because in order to have a rhetorical situation, one must use rhetoric. They go hand and hand with one another and thus it is important to have a strong foundation with both. I need a reason in order to express something rhetorically, that reason being a situation.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe all writing needs a rhetorical situation, however it does all the give the writing an opportunity to either be something used to express an opinion or otherwise make the piece overall more interesting.
Rhetorical situation connects to make own writing because as I’ve grown as a writer, I’ve learned how to go about using rhetoric and the situation I’m describing in order to make my arguments much more concise as well as strongly supported. I can find evidence from acclaimed sources and formulate them into a well-written piece. Rather than simply describing an idea, I can use rhetoric to choose what I want to say about that item, allowing the piece to become more interesting for viewers and delve into deeper ideas.
Vatz believes rhetoric is the art of persuasion. He sees rhetorical situation as something that is chosen by the rhetor. Vatz makes the argument that in any situation there is an infinite amount of context. Because of this, it is up to the rhetor to choose what information he or she wants to use when writing. By selecting the information that they deem important, rhetors create the rhetorical situation.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these are important in the understanding of how to write. Writers usually have a purpose for writing. Sometimes the purpose for writing is to send a message, sometimes it is to prove a point, and sometimes the only purpose is to get a good grade. There are infinitely many purposes for writing, and there is almost always a purpose. Good writers recognize this, and realize that in order to fulfill their purpose, they need to appeal to their audience. They utilize rhetoric, or the art of persuasion, to make people see things their way. Good writers select information that they know will help readers see things their way, and use that to support their writing. An implication of this is that the writer has a considerable amount of power. They are able to manipulate information and alter people’s viewpoints on things. When I am writing, I always select the information that I know will help my audience to see things my way. I sometimes leave out information that would have the opposite effect, even if it is relevant. However, I try to avoid misleading my audience, which Is likely to happen if the rhetor doesn’t include context from multiple sides of a situation.
These concepts are important to researching too. Good researchers know where to find information that can support their point of view. If they are making a liberal argument about some political topic, a good researcher doesn’t browse fox news articles. Instead, they look for information in places that are likely to support their argument. That being said, it is dangerous to get all biased information. Good researchers also make sure to understand all sides of their topic before publishing anything so that they don’t give their audience a biased and single sided opinion. I am guilty of only looking for information in places that I know will support my argument, but I try to provide counterarguments to balance this out.
Vatz hates on Blitzer because Vatz sees the rhetorical situation as something that is an after product of rhetoric. He believes that the rhetor determines the situational response by filling events with the meanings that they see. That meaning can be arbitrary to what is actually important, but still be taken very seriously by the public due to a lack of knowledge.