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/
I stumbled upon this concerning the mosque thing. You might like it.
ReplyDeletehttp://politicsreport.com/sites/default/files/images/Ground-Zero-Mosque-the-dumbest-controversy-in-the-history-of-mankind.jpg
But I agree that "searching for answers" should be inherent to approaching any rhetorical situation. We must never stop thinking or re-examining ourselves for the opportunity to realize something we did not know before. In order to grow as a person one must be open to change, and in order to change one must be willing to leave behind a once cherished idea. I think an existential exigence has no end; searching for the answer is an end in itself.
I like the fact that you brought up the campaign period. It will surprise you how many Americans really do not fully understand their politicians' platforms, much less their policies and fundamental beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but feel that we have gone to a popularity contest.