Exisitential Exigence

     Ever spend time thinking about those major life challenges that question your existence? Why are we here? Is there really a God? What is our purpose in life? No? Well good for you lucky few. These issues may seem lofty and impossible but they do provide an obstacle that you want to overcome or a problem you want to solve.

     In Bitzer's "The Rhetorical Situation," the concept of thinking in 3's continues with a new concept of rhetoric. The article breaks it down into three parts: exigence, audience and constraints. Exigence refers to an observable issue that needs resolution, providing a subject matter for the rhetorical situation. It is also closely related to how I view a part of the idea of existentialism, but more on that in a minute. The second part of the rhetorical situation is audience, meaning the rhetorical discourse needs to be directed toward someone in a convincing manner. Also I think it is important to note that this audience should be capable of either making the change or at least passing along the message to others. This gives the rhetoric direction and action. The third part are constraints because without something or someone standing in the way, rhetoric would probably fall flat and become meaning less. If everyone agreed on every issue there may well be an audience but who cares? There is nothing to argue.

     Existentialism takes into account a lot of different ideas and beliefs about the world but what I am interested in is the resolution of issues that rhetoric takes on. This broad belief system, in part, focuses on free will and how life isn't rational. Rhetoricians may be trying to persuade or enlighten a group of people who simple won't listen/understand/care about what is being said. Think about our political system and how people may make their voting decisions. I know plenty of people who vote for candidates based on a number of things unrelated to what they say. Do you think everyone who votes watches the debates, researches the issues, and is swayed by the political rhetoric throughout the campaign period? My point is no one knows how rhetoric will affect society, or individuals, if even at all; but overcoming obstacles, and searching for answers, is an essential part of the rhetorical situation. Without it, we are preaching to an audience without a point.

And in relation to the Mosque controversy, here is an article I stumbled upon "proving" (and I use this term with the utmost sarcasm) that there are people out there very, very easily swayed by the rhetoric (enthymenes) missing important premises:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

Rhetoric: Necessary Evil

     After reading Herrick's piece about rhetoric, I feel like I don't view this form of writing any differently, only with a little more empathy. He brought up lots of examples proving that we use persuasion in almost every part of our lives: business, music, love, etc. Prior to Monday, I reserved persuasion for essays in English class and political debates, both inherently evil enterprises, but now I see how persuasion can exist everywhere and don't know where we would be without it. Rhetoric, in the sense of Athenian decisions on war or twisting the truth in "Thank You For Smoking", is just one way of looking at the genre.

I particularly liked the definition that characterized rhetoric as

"Achieving clarity through structure"
and
"Sense of beauty through aesthetics"

I think it casts rhetoric in a different light, a light that makes it seem both technical (clarity and structure) and persuasive (beauty and aesthetics).