Vatz, The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation
Key Ideas: Rhetoric is not situational, situations are rhetorical; Agency lies with the rhetor, not the situation; Rhetors create salience by selecting and presenting topics or situations to an audience.
In this response to Bitzer, Vatz claims that rhetoric is not situational, but that situations are rhetorical. Vatz accuses Bitzer of a platonic view of truth in which situations have inherent meaning that rhetors can draw out at the appropriate time. Conversely, Vatz argues that situations are always already rhetorical and that “No situation can have a nature independent of the perception of its interpreter or independent of the rhetoric with which he chooses to characterize it.” Vatz argues that this understanding of rhetoric gives the field much more prestige and places more responsibility on the rhetor, who does not create a situation, but chooses what situations or topics deserve salience. Salience, per Vatz, is a kind of presence. When certain elements are selected and presented to an audience, their importance and relevance to the current discussion are implied. Salience, in other words, does not occur naturally but instead is a process of selection and presentation.
In positioning rhetoric as situational, Vatz outlines the process of choosing salient topics or situations. First, a rhetor must first choose what events to communicate. Next, the rhetor must translate the chosen information into meaning for an audience. Vatz indicates that many of Bitzer’s examples, especially political events, were always created by rhetoric and did not “naturally” arise. In viewing situations as rhetorical, we draw attention to the symbols used to create reality and rhetoricians can account for the choices of situations, symbols, forms, and media used to translate meaning. Moreover, the rhetor in this view has to take responsibility for the situations or topics they give salience to.
For Vatz, then, rhetoric is the art of linguistically or symbolically creating salience. After salience is created, the situation must be translated into meaning. When political commentators talk about issues they are talking about situations made salient, not something that became important because of its “intrinsic predominance” (160).” In this way, Vatz positions rhetoric as persuasive and epistemic.
In this response to Bitzer, Vatz claims that rhetoric is not situational, but that situations are rhetorical. Vatz accuses Bitzer of a platonic view of truth in which situations have inherent meaning that rhetors can draw out at the appropriate time. Conversely, Vatz argues that situations are always already rhetorical and that “No situation can have a nature independent of the perception of its interpreter or independent of the rhetoric with which he chooses to characterize it.” Vatz argues that this understanding of rhetoric gives the field much more prestige and places more responsibility on the rhetor, who does not create a situation, but chooses what situations or topics deserve salience. Salience, per Vatz, is a kind of presence. When certain elements are selected and presented to an audience, their importance and relevance to the current discussion are implied. Salience, in other words, does not occur naturally but instead is a process of selection and presentation.
In positioning rhetoric as situational, Vatz outlines the process of choosing salient topics or situations. First, a rhetor must first choose what events to communicate. Next, the rhetor must translate the chosen information into meaning for an audience. Vatz indicates that many of Bitzer’s examples, especially political events, were always created by rhetoric and did not “naturally” arise. In viewing situations as rhetorical, we draw attention to the symbols used to create reality and rhetoricians can account for the choices of situations, symbols, forms, and media used to translate meaning. Moreover, the rhetor in this view has to take responsibility for the situations or topics they give salience to.
For Vatz, then, rhetoric is the art of linguistically or symbolically creating salience. After salience is created, the situation must be translated into meaning. When political commentators talk about issues they are talking about situations made salient, not something that became important because of its “intrinsic predominance” (160).” In this way, Vatz positions rhetoric as persuasive and epistemic.
Comments
Post a Comment