Grr. Argh.

I know Bitzer is the BSD of rhetoric, but he makes me a little nuts. He strives for an objective definition of rhetorical situation and then he throws in a loaded word like “positive:”

A rhetorical situation may be defined as a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations which presents an exigence that can be completely or partially removed if discourse — introduced into the situation — can influence audience thought or action so as to bring about positive modification of the exigence. [Bitzer, Lloyd F. "Functional Communication: A Situational Perspective," The Nature of Rhetoric, ed. Eugene E. White. (University Park and London: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980) 24. Emphasis mine.]

He had me right up until he used “positive,” because at that point, I had to ask, “Positive by whose definition?” The word is entirely subjective and entirely dependent on one’s point of view. Rush Limbaugh regards as a positive modification of his exigence the failure of President Obama. I regard that as a negative modification, and my father disagrees with me.

Rhetoric is rhetoric is rhetoric. If done well, it fulfills the rhetor’s purpose of persuasion, whether or not that persuasion is seen as good or bad. People give meaning to exigence and situation based on what various rhetors say, not based on some inherent “good” or “evil.” And really, Plato put paid to that notion 2,500 years ago in Gorgias when he described the pilot of the ship getting people safely to shore. Sure, on the face of it, he did a good thing, but what if one of the passengers was suffering a wasting illness and would have been better off dead? Or how about if one of the passengers was traveling specifically to commit an act of violence against someone else? It’s impossible to assign a value of “good” under those circumstances, so best not to assign any subjective description. Instead, just say the pilot got all of his passengers safely to shore. That way, the individual can determine if it’s a good thing or not.

Anyway, I thought I might be able to use the essay quoted above, but now, I’m thinking not so much. I’m better off looking at Edbauer-Rice and rhetorical ecology for my paper, with perhaps a word or two from Robert L. Scott’s essay, “Intentionality in the Rhetorical Process” (same book as above).