Response to Bitzer, The Rhetorical Situation

Bitzer defines the rhetorical situation as “the context in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse” (2).  Bitzer positions situation as a central rhetorical concern that has often been surpassed by discussions of audience, speaker, occasion, and so on.  Bitzer claims he is the first to champion the rhetorical situation in this way; Aristotle handles the topic only “indirectly” (2).  After positioning himself as a trailblazer and articulating his goal to “revive” the notion of the rhetorical situation, Bitzer delineates the boundaries of the rhetorical situation (3).  Rhetorical situations do not arise from everyday communication or acts of persuasion. Rather, rhetorical situations are created by the need to alter reality. For Bitzer, situation creates rhetoric. Rhetoric serves as a necessary response, or an obligation, in certain situations. A rhetorical situation must have three essential components: exigence, audience, and constraints. A rhetorical situation also invites a fitting response.

It is this idea, Bitzer’s “fitting response,” that I most take issue with. Fitting for whom? Vatz and Consigny rightly point out that Bitzer’s schema is far too narrow. Different people perceive situations, and the rhetoric they inspire, differently. As I don’t believe that meaning is produced, as Bitzer claims it is, via rhetorical situations, I am unlikely to use this piece in my teaching. However, when read with Vatz and Consigny, the articles provide a great example of a lively scholarly debate.