Bitzer and The Rhetorical Situation

What is a Rhetorical Situation?

Under what conditions does persuasion take place?

The same question can be asked of rhetoric: In what contexts does rhetorical discourse become possible? This question was the basis for Bitzer’s (2009) article “The Rhetorical Situation.” In this article, Bitzer (2009) (Note: Bitzer’s article was originally published in the inaugural issue of Philosophy and Rhetoric in 1969. We use the 2009 publication date because you will read an abridged version of Bitzer’s article in the Canvas module.) defines three elements required for rhetorical discourse to exist. These elements are:

1. The rhetorical exigence
2. The rhetorical audience
3. The rhetorical constraints

Combined, these three elements bring what Bitzer (2009) calls the rhetorical situation into existence. More broadly, Bitzer (2009) defines a rhetorical situation as “a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence” (pp. 19-20).

That’s a very complex quote so that we will break it down. If it helps, we can use the term “communication context” instead of “rhetorical situation,“ as both mean the same thing. At its core, Bitzer’s article describes the context of persuasion: what are its parts, and how do they function to encourage persuasive communication?

What is Rhetoric?

To understand how we may apply Bitzer’s theory to professional communication, we need to understand his use of the term rhetoric; he writes, “A work of rhetoric is pragmatic; it comes into existence for the sake of something beyond itself; it functions ultimately to produce change or action in the world; it performs some task” (2009, p. 19).

In other words, rhetoric is practical, purposeful communication that attempts to create change in the world by enabling a rhetor to persuade people to change their beliefs or solve problems.

How does rhetoric change the world? Bitzer (2009) writes, “Rhetoric is a mode of altering reality, not by the direct application of energy to objects, but by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action” (p. 19). This means that rhetors do not act directly in their role as rhetors. Suppose they see a problem they are unable to solve by themselves. In that case, they create change by communicating messages that bring together the thoughts and actions of an audience they intend to persuade to help solve the problem.

This is the core of rhetorical discourse. Rhetors use their words to convince others to effect change. Thus, they use communication to help an audience think in a certain way and inspire them to act according to the ideas they’ve been convinced to accept. Thus, Bitzer (2009) asserts that “the rhetor alters reality by bringing into existence a discourse of such a character that the audience, in thought and action, is so engaged that [they] become the mediator of change” (p. 19).

We now know that rhetoric is communication that persuades an audience to think in a certain way or do certain things. Will such persuasion be required during your professional career after leaving university? Most definitely! Your coworkers and clients will have problems they need solved, and you will want to convince them that your plans, ideas, or solutions will solve them. If you fail to do so, you may not get that critical contract for your company, or you may be passed over for future projects. Thus, rhetorical techniques will help you be more successful.

Rhetorical Exigence

Whenever we wish to persuade an audience to take action or change their beliefs, we must clearly define the problem that action or change would address. This problem is known as an exigence. A precise understanding of a problem better equips us to find a solution and enables the audience to understand better how their behavior or beliefs could improve the situation.

However, remember that even though we use the word “problem” here, that doesn’t mean an exigence is always negative. The exigence could be something that needs to be said or done, which does not always have a negative connotation.

Additionally, it’s essential to understand that not all problems are rhetorical. As Bitzer (2009) indicates, for an exigence to be rhetorical, it must be able to be affected by human activity.

Many uncomfortable situations do not present a rhetorical exigence because they involve factors beyond our control: natural disasters, diseases, and death are all phenomena that continue to exist regardless of human behavior. However, even in non-rhetorical exigences, one can find many potentially rhetorical exigences since people can be persuaded to behave in ways that minimize the harm done by such phenomena.

Another crucial distinguishing feature of a rhetorical exigence is that it requires communication (or what Bitzer calls “discourse”) to resolve or mitigate the issue it addresses. If you can solve the problem by means other than communication, it is not considered a rhetorical exigence.

Let’s look at a few examples showing the difference between exigence and rhetorical exigence. We will lay out some scenarios and explain why they have rhetorical exigence or not. If you can, try to predict a rhetorical exigence for the scenario before you read further.

The winter storm presents a non-rhetorical exigence since no human intervention could stop it. It will happen regardless of what actions humans do or do not take. However, the potential loss of power and access to grocery stores could be examples of rhetorical exigences. People could be persuaded to prepare for power outages by buying a generator or lots of warm blankets. Alternatively, people could be convinced to stock up on supplies ahead of time, like water and non-perishable foods.

After reading the explanation above, it may come as no surprise that debates often occur about whether an exigence is rhetorical.

Take the following example:

It is widely and generally accepted that human activity contributes to climate change. Yet, detractors attempt to argue that climate change is a natural, unresponsive process to human behavior. As a result, they regard attempts to mitigate or remediate its effects as potentially misguided. Potential debates like these show that while you may feel your problem has a clear rhetorical exigence, others may disagree.

While telling an audience that humans need to step in to stop climate change may respond to a rhetorical exigence, such a broad definition of the exigence may be ineffective in persuading an audience to effect change. Even if your audience agrees with the exigence you identify, they may not know what to do or feel they can make a meaningful impact on such a global issue.

However, according to most researchers, specific human activities contribute significantly to climate change. Thus, such activities can present rhetorical exigences because populations can be persuaded to change their behavior. They can, for instance, use fewer disposable products or invest in renewable energy, thereby mitigating the potential damage caused by an increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

Consider the difference between these two statements in terms of the exigence they identify:

Although we understand the implied argument of the first example due to our familiarity with this particular exigence, the second example better establishes the rhetor’s credibility because of its clarity of thought. It carefully draws the connection between human behavior and its undesirable effects. It presents the exigence as a condition we can improve through our collective effort, as opposed to an abstract quality of nature that is only implicitly connected to our activity.

This distinction between exigence and rhetorical exigence can present difficulties. If you are still unsure of the difference, contact your instructor for help.

Rhetorical Audience

Rhetorical discourse aims to “produce change by influencing the decision and action of persons who function as mediators of change” (Bitzer, 2009, p. 20). We can’t do that without an audience.

As with exigence, it is essential to distinguish between an audience and a rhetorical audience because they are different. For example, you have probably walked by the dozens of bulletin boards on campus that advertise different presentations that you can attend for free. In many cases, the presenter talks about their research or industry. You could be in the audience for those presentations and learn something new and valuable about a topic, but would they push you to make a change?

Probably not. In those circumstances, you are part of an audience, not a rhetorical one. 

According to Bitzer (2009), a rhetorical audience has two criteria:

1. The audience must be able to take action that can either solve the problem or at least improve the situation.
   • This criterion might seem obvious, but it reminds us of the importance of finding a way for our audience to solve, or at least mitigate, the problem we’ve identified or of finding an audience with the power to do so.
2. The author or speaker must find a way to persuade the audience to change their opinion or take action.
   • If the audience is unwilling or unable to consider the rhetor’s message, there is no rhetorical situation, since no change can happen through persuasive communication.

In summary, a rhetorical audience can take action to solve a problem and be persuaded by the rhetor to do so.

Constraints

All this talk about convincing others to take action has some limits. These limits are what Bitzer (2009) calls constraints. A constraint can make it difficult for your message to be received.

Some sources of constraints include: 

These constraints limit a rhetor’s effectiveness in persuading their rhetorical audience. However, it’s important to note that these constraints come from both sides. Specifically, a rhetor’s beliefs may affect how they design a message, and similarly, an audience’s beliefs will determine how they receive that message.

As a result, constraints cannot be acknowledged by the rhetor and then subsequently ignored. Constraints must be used as tools to help design the message itself.

For example, let’s say you want to convince your rhetorical audience to vote for a project that will create a waste-to-energy plant to generate new energy for your city. You may personally know that the process is safe for the environment, but your rhetorical audience does not know that. Some, maybe all, will be concerned about smoke from burned trash getting into the atmosphere. Therefore, your presentation must address this constraint by discussing how filtering works.

Here’s another example. One of the best ways to understand Bitzer’s point about constraints is to imagine a situation in which you wish to persuade an audience to solve an exigence.

Let’s return to the exigence we considered earlier in the chapter: idling vehicles contribute significantly to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is responsible for climate change. Some constraints in this rhetorical situation could include:

1. disagreement about the degree to which climate change is a threat to our ecosystem
2. an inclination to value our comfort and convenience above the well-being of future generations
3. The difficulty of changing one’s habits despite one’s belief in the importance of doing so
4. doubts concerning the likelihood that changing one’s idling habits will mitigate the problem

Other constraints naturally arise from the medium you use to communicate your message. For instance, are you delivering a speech, posting on social media, writing an editorial, or speaking with your colleagues or family? Constraints also arise due to your personality. What communicative risks are you willing to take, and are they likely to yield a positive response?

Example

Let’s pretend you are particularly interested in dental hygiene. You found some evidence that specific demographics have dental hygiene habits that could be improved. To solve this exigence, you decide to persuade people to brush their teeth at least twice daily and floss at least once daily.

As you consider whether to use this exigence and action for your speech, you would first need to consider whether your audience, that is, your classmates, actually falls into this demographic; otherwise, you may end up simply attempting to persuade them to commit to an action they already engage in regularly.

If they already have good dental hygiene, the rhetorical exigence you’ve identified would not exist in this context, and thus, you would not have a rhetorical situation. Nevertheless, the exigence might exist among a more significant demographic outside of the classroom, in which case, to address the exigence, you would need to identify an action that enables your audience to promote good dental hygiene.

Chapter Quiz