Pick a piece of writing from your everyday life. How might Bitzer and Edbauer interpret the piece differently? Similarly?
In your response, be sure to think with and use the key terms provided by Bitzer & Edbauer (e.g. exigence, constraints, audience, ecology, etc).
Hannah Kealy
ReplyDeleteIn this generation, phone applications are very prevalent. One application that is downloaded by almost everyone that has an iPhone in my generation is “Snapchat.” People post pictures and videos updating their friends on their whereabouts throughout the day. With tons of friends at schools in other states, snapchat keeps me in touch with them in a fun and easy way. I have snapchat streaks with my friends for up to 180 days, so you could say I am an avid snapchatter. The writing that I do on this app acts as part of my rhetorical situation every single day. Bitzer and Edbauer see rhetoric from a much wider range. They both stress the interacting connection between rhetoric and the environment it occurs in. Bitzer sees the rhetoric situation with the presence of an exigence, audience and constraints- in 3 parts. Edbauer does not look at the rhetoric situation in parts, to him, rhetoric interacts, “reverberates” in different ways altering every situation and encounter. Either way, snapchat does all of the above. Bitzer would see that there is more than one purpose for snapchat. But for the purpose of pointing out the exigence, I would define it as a way to contact someone using photos and videos in order to display one’s current position. Today, there are over 700 million snaps sent between users on a daily basis. With this in mind, Bitzer would point out the large audience snapchat holds. From the wide range of people using the app, there are user preferences allowing different groups of people to see certain things. Choosing from those preferences allows different interactions giving a range of variable responses. This is where Edbauer’s piece comes in. Edbauder would see all the users as parts of a large community that interacts and “vibrates” off one another. Edbauer also talks about generative research, emphasizing the role of not only talking about a topic, but being about it. Rather than separately discoursing, Edbauer emphasizes the social aspect of rhetoric. This idea is related to his main suggestion of the existence of a “rhetorical ecology.” The two of them both come down to pointing out the many relationships that go on during rhetorical discourse. Snapchat interacts, forms relationships and even points out connections made within the app with specific emojis. Every single day this app acts as an ecosystem for rhetoric and both Bitzer and Edbauer acknowledge that.
Edbuaer and Blitzer's argument's are extremely prevalent in this day and age. Edbauer focuses on rhetorical situations being public conversations and discussions that go over serious and current topics. With the election, world news and wars, Brexit and more, we have so much to talk about with one another to further educate ourselves on these things. This could be compared with Facebook, which is something everybody uses.
ReplyDeleteFacebook is used as a platform for expression and communication between friends and acquaintances. People use it to post videos, photos, and statuses about everyday things. My Aunt uses it to post political arguments and videos, my brother uses it to post about geological findings and trips to Georgia, Virginia and more, and I use it to post photos with my friends and cooking videos I find delicious. Everyone uses it to express different things, however it connects us all together because we all use to to communicate with one another. Facebook is also something that prospective companies look at when hiring new employees, so I always know that my audience is going to be a more mature, sophisticated audience that wants me to reflect their company and so on.
As Blitzer defines, there are certain constraints which also hold us back on Facebook, that go hand in hand with the audience. We wouldn't want to be too crazy and out there with our opinions because we wouldn't want to offend any of our friends or family. We wouldn't want to post inappropriate things, or curse and scream on our statuses. This is similar to being sophisticated and smart, but also different in a sense that these constraints are just normal, everyday societal constraints that help keep us composed in a public manner. The article says these constraints include beliefs, attitudes, facts, traditions, interests and more which help shape how we act and post. I think the inner workings of all of these terms, and what has been talked about in these essay's, play a role in day-to-day posting on Facebook.
While we may not realize it, there is a wide range of ways writing can be used to convey information or ideas. One piece of writing that we use in everyday life is text messaging. It may seem like a very simple way of writing, but it is still a form of rhetoric that can be used in many different ways depending on the audience who is receiving the message.
ReplyDeleteBitzer and Edbauer had different ways of interpreting rhetoric. Rhetoric from Bitzer's point of view was broken up into three parts: exigence, constraints, and audience. Bitzer believed that rhetoric needed to be fitted properly to fit the audience that was receiving the message. For example, if you were giving a speech to a group of teenagers, the delivery of the speech would be far different as opposed to delivering the speech to a group of older adults. The message would remain the same, but the delivery plays an important part in whether or not the audience will be receptive to the message. Edbauer shared similar views with Bitzer, but he viewed rhetoric as an ongoing form of communication. To him, writing was a continual process that was constantly being worked on. Both Bitzer and Edbauer emphasized the relationship between writing and the thoughts and ideas that surround it.
Bitzer and Edbauer would emphasize certain things when it comes to text messaging. Bitzer would place emphasis on the audience, such as writing texts differently to friends compared to parents. When dealing with different types of people while texting, one has to make sure they understand the proper way to converse with someone depending on who they are talking to. Edbauer would emphasize the need for people to think clearly about what they are typing before they send something. Edbauer would talk about the fact that people must text like they are talking in person, that way they can better convey the emotions they are feeling. Texting is a form of writing that is used constantly in today's society, and it is important to still recognize it as a piece of writing that can be very useful.
ReplyDeleteI usually always have a fiction novel that I am reading. As soon as I am done reading one, I find a new one to begin reading. Although the characters and plot will change from novel to novel, the concept of a fiction novel is still the same—they are stories made up either completely or partially by the author’s imagination. Bitzer and Edbauer would differ greatly in their interpretation of a fiction novel, but there would be some overlap in their views. First of all, Bitzer would criticize fiction novels because the purpose of writing a fiction novel is not truly rhetorical according to his views. He believes a text is only rhetorical if it is created in response to a specific exigence. He also believes that a text is written to ultimately produce some kind of change in the world. Although some novels are written to produce change, others are written solely for entertainment. Each character, each utterance, and each situation is generally not written to spark change the world. Edbauer, on the other hand, realizes the importance of feelings in writing and the effects a text can have on the reader. She understands that each reader will perceive the message differently based on many different factors, such as their backgrounds and ideas. She believes that change is not the only purpose for writing, but the purposes of a text are distributed across different dimensions, such as physical, social, psychological, and spatial dimensions. Although they differ in what they believe is the purpose of rhetoric, they could both agree on a text being rhetorical if the novel was written in response to an exigence (like how To Kill a Mockingbird deals with racial issues in the south). Another reason Bitzer and Edbauer would differ in their interpretation of a fiction novel is that they disagree on what they believe to be a true audience. Bitzer claims that a rhetorical audience must be distinguished from a body of hearers or readers because his idea of a true rhetorical audience is one made up of those who can can be motivated to change the world in some way. Therefore, Bitzer believes that the audience of a fiction novel—or "mere readers"—is not rhetorical, unlike Edbauer, who believes that the elements of a rhetorical situation “bleed” or are fluid and connected with the social world and other events. Lastly, Bitzer and Edbauer would disagree on the whether or not the content of a fiction novel is rhetorical. To Bitzer, the content of a text must be “real” to be considered a form of rhetoric. Fiction, he claims, is only made realistic by fictive content, but it is not genuinely rhetorical. Edbauer believes that rhetoric should move beyond the strict realism of Bitzer, and it should stress how rhetorical productions are inseparable from lived encounters of public life. We should accept others’ views on a subject, and we should be less concerned with what is the “true” version of something.
A piece of writing from my everyday life would be Facebook comments. My friends and I are constantly posting photos with and of each other and commenting on them. The Facebook platform allows us to communicate about things even when we aren’t together and allows us to look at things taken from the past. For example, a picture we took last weekend.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to post a comment on Facebook and Bitzer were to see it, his initial approach may be, “what task is this comment performing?” He would then probably analyze the discourse being created and how it can create change. The exigence in the situation would be the picture itself. Furthermore, the act of posting the picture. It would be rhetorical because the comment would (hopefully) be a positive one- positive modification is called for. This sort of situation also holds an audience. There are people on Facebook that will undoubtedly see the comment. This rhetorical situation also includes constraints. They would be the beliefs, attitudes, interests, and motives around the picture. The comment would provide the orator’s harness around those constraints.
From Bitzer’s perspective, I think a Facebook comment is quite petty and a provides a very narrow view of the rhetorical situation. However, I do believe he would interpret this rhetorical situation as one that holds candidacy for a response. Moreso, a fitting response. The Facebook comment is, obviously, mentioning something about the picture. It could be anything having to do with the context of the picture, where it was taken, who is in it, etc. The initial posting asks for a fitting response, and that response asks for one too. This is a very simple situation, so it’s pretty weak and would probably decay quickly.
If Edbauer were to interpret this, I believe she would have the same opinion and think that this rhetorical situation is very narrow. However, it does allow for rhetorical theory to be applied. I believe she would interpret the exigence, audience, and constraints the same way, but she expands upon other rhetorical theories, Bitzer’s included, and I think some of what else says is also necessary.
In her article, she mentions how we are never outside the shape of the social field. I think a Facebook comment is a good example of a completely different social circle we cannot escape. If events are shifting and moving in life, they are also doing so online. Because so, place is not fixed. I think she would also include how this is a great example of how writing is distributed across a range of processes and encounters. Facebook comments occur online, so the use of keyboard is necessary, the person who is actually doing the writing, where the writing is happening and the environment, etc.
Bitzer and Edbauer have quite the different interpretations of writing forms as well as their purposes for the audiences. Bitzer stresses the importance of responding with emphasis and focus, comparing rhetoric to "moral action" since it acts as a response to current as well as relevant times that would intrigue the audience and make them more aware of the world. The author mentioned that change occurs at any time within the audience and that it is never too late to change their perceptions, and how there must always be a fuel for discourse and discussion if action is to ever occur. The sole purpose, then, is for rhetoric to only work in a matter of "persuasion" and inspire their audience to be more dynamic in their ever changing society. With this said, however, it does make me wonder how Bitzer would respond to the comics I make. They are made solely for emotional appeal and while they do comment on current situations and attempt to make light of them, their sole focus is not to make a large widespread change, but to create different experiences in each reader. I don't believe Bitzer would enjoy my "sad scenarios with happy endings" since they are only meant to make the audience feel good, not inspire them to make a change in their system or society.
ReplyDeleteEdbauer however definitely has a more personal emotional idea about rhetoric. The idea that one's own feelings must be reflected in their writings to share with others and get a better understanding of your world and the people around you. Edbauer mentioned how how the pedagogies of rhetoric are not only about thinking and analysis, but also about feeling and just letting the lessons take their course through your life. Rhetoric is not exactly a fixed form or media to Edbauer, but rather an experience or an "encounter" that is all around us when we talk and raise awareness. Edbauer, I believe, would enjoy not as much the comics themselves, but rather enjoy the process I take to create them. People watching, listening to conversations, reading up on current events, all of these and more allow me to give substance to my work and I believe that Edbauer can appreciate that despite the comics not exactly having a function in society, but mostly focusing on just making the audience feel something.
What both authors can understand is that audience is always key and that the idea of bringing people together one way or another is always the main ideal. While there are definitely noted constraints that a good writer must maintain in order to keep their credibility as well as their friendships, the idea of inspiring an audience to take action and analysis from the work their encounter and make is an idea that radiates off the two authors' texts. As long as a connection exits, rhetoric lives on.
To use the same example as I did during Thursday's class, updating my planner is an everyday activity. Without having documentation of all responsibilities that need to be fulfilled throughout the day, week, month, or year, I would experience more stress than already felt, which could cause a negative impact on my life. If Bitzer were to interpret this specific form of writing, I believe that they would see the "exigence" as the need to keep my day-to-day life organized in a way where there is little to no confusion, thus allowing me to fulfill all responsibilities promptly and efficiently. When thinking about the concept of audience within this specific rhetorical situation, the audience is the same as the speaker. Writing in my planner serves to keep myself organized. Anyone else who chooses to read it may not understand due to my word choice. I personally like to abbreviate certain words so I can fit as much as I can into a small writing space. That can be seen as a "constraint" or "artistic proof" as Aristotle liked to call it. Now, thinking of it through the eyes of Edbauer, concepts may shift slightly. While the aforementioned exigence still remains, there could be multiple additions that contribute to the rhetorical "ecology". I say ecology as opposed to situation because Edbauer explains that "situation" comes from the Latin word "situs", which means located in one place. So, instead of thinking of it as solely to organize my life events, one could also say that it is assisting in the development of my academic career and social life. Edbauer encourages us to look at rhetorical communication as something that is constantly in flux, instead of conforming to "elemental conglomerations" as referred to by Bitzer. After reading both essays, my eyes have been opened to analyzing my everyday writing differently, and hope to learn more about these mentioned concepts as class moves forward.
ReplyDeleteBitzer and Edbauer’s views on rhetoric within writing have similar grounds but opposing outcomes. Bitzer based his description of rhetoric largely on current social factors, such as exigence, constraints, and audience. An example of these rhetorical components within everyday writing can easily be found in social media platforms, such as Twitter. The constraints applied when writing a tweet originate from social values and the idea of maintaining a likable image in the eyes of our peers. For the most part, people try to avoid directly offending people over social media. We do this so that we can seem likable in the eyes of our peers, and perhaps even to complete strangers. It’s within human nature to want other people to like and accept you, and sometimes this leads us to follow these social constraints that makes us more relatable, but also unoriginal and monotonous. Another of Bitzer’s key terms that can be easily identified over Twitter, is audience. Each tweet written is created for a specific audience, and is thereby delivered in a way that is form-fitted to be appealing to that audience. Over Twitter, tweets are simple posts of words, images, or videos that is meant to be a public announcement of the user’s interests and ideas. Particularly among younger generations of people, tweets are created to reach out to people with similar views and interests, and are written with these audiences in mind. For example, if I wanted to share my interest in a particular music artist, I would post a tweet that conveys my enthusiasm. With the help of topic searching tools such as hash tags, other people who search the same artist would be able to see my tweet and possibly reply. Overall, Bitzer would see this platform of writing as effective in using rhetoric in a very current, focused, and socially influenced manner. Edbauer’s views on rhetoric, while sharing many of the same ideas as Bitzer, have a stronger emphasis on the connections between people through writing and rhetoric. She argues that the rhetorical situation exists within the live consciousness emotions of people. Because of these views, Edbauer might find a platform such as Twitter as impersonal and superficial, with too much of an emphasis on public image and social courtesy.
ReplyDeleteEverybody uses Facebook after high school. It’s used for so many things that it was basically become the end all social media platform. You can watch and share articles, videos, pictures about almost any topic. Companies use is to promote and advertise their products, beliefs, relevant content to their company/brand. However, Facebook has become less personal. When people meet eachother even if it was just briefly, they will add eachother on Facebook. If you don’t have your Facebook on private, people who aren’t your “friend” on Facebook can still see what you post.
ReplyDeleteBitzer stresses the three parts of the “rhetorical situation”: exigence, audience, and constraints. When posting on Facebook all of these constituents are taken into account. Particularly audience and constraints, if you have family on facebook, you wouldn’t want to post/share an inappropriate picture or video. Even if you don’t have family on Facebook, you always have to be careful what you post because future employers may be able to gain access to your Facebook or may even request it before hiring you. For some Facebook users exigence may be taken into account and they may only post their best pictures and share the most important articles/videos; that usually completley depends on the individual though. Some Facebook users will share every video, picture, or article they find interesting or just enjoyed. I think Bitzer would definitely recognize how surface level Facebook is because the typically have so many contraints.
In respect to Edbauer, I think she would like Facebook because it’s a community. Albeit not an extremely intimate community, but a community used to share beliefs, interactions, pictures, personal moments and accomplishments, and much more. Even though Facebook has become less personal, the comments left on social publications’ articles and videos create a shared open discussion about the content. Edbauer emphasized the social aspect of rhetoric and how it should be used for the clear and active communication. I think her favorite part of Facebook would be all of the live feeds online publications do. Thousands of people can all be watching at the same time, people can comment in real time and have discussion with other users, and the ones putting on the live feeds usually acknowledge and answer some of the comments they catch on the feeds as well.
In my everyday life, most of the writing that I do consists of random words written on papers that are then immediately erased, and things that are only meant for my own eyes to see such as to-do lists, goals, notes-to-self, and the like written in my journal. As Bitzer defines a rhetorical situation as someone who responds to a situation of a certain kind, and more specifically a kind that has the ability to have a positive modification, it’s possible that Bitzer may see all of my writing as that kind of rhetorical situation where I am the sole audience as well as the one who exhibits the positive modification. Everything I write can have a positive modification, whether the problem be making my writing more clear and precise, or actually solving the problems of which I have written about. My writing does contain all three things that Bitzer talks about in terms of the constituent parts of a rhetorical situation. The exigence, or problem could be the goal I write down or things that I want to achieve, the problem being how to do so. The audience would be myself, and I suppose whomever I include to help. The constraints would also be myself and my attitude about solving my problems, my timeframe, and the characteristics and general probability of solving said problems. Bitzer and Edbauer disagree on who may be considered a true audience. Bitzer maintains emphasis on the audience being what motivates the change in the problem, while Edbauer believes the audience may be fluidly connected to the situation and not nearly included so much as an oversimplified sender receiver model only. However, I think because the rhetorical situation of writing down my own thoughts is so narrow, Bitzer and Edbauer might have to find some common ground. Assuming that nobody else actually does read my journal, the sole audience is myself. With that being said, the oversimplified sender-receiver model fits quite well into this situation wherein I am both the sender and the receiver. Bitzer may say that through self reflection I may gain the maturity and perspective that i need to solve the problems and achieve the goals myself. Although Edbauer views the constraints to be more fluid and include a more structured and complex dichotomy, rhetorical theory can still be applied and possibly yield the same results just on how strict the audience is.
ReplyDeleteOne piece of writing from my everyday life is my journal that I write my thoughts and feelings in from my day. I think that Bitzer and Edbauer would interpret my journal very differently. I think Edbauer would look at my feelings and dissect my thoughts as rooted from the culture and location that I grew up in. Basically, Edbauer would believe that my perception whether negative or positive about my day has been shaped by the influence of the culture and connections that I was raised with. I think Bitzer would look at my perception differently and believe that my thoughts and feelings were stemmed primarily through the specific situations I had undergone that day. Bitzer believes that the meaning I drew from that day occurred through the situations I had undergone or encountered during that day. Bitzer looks primarily at the situations I had been through just during that one day. Edbuaer would look more closely at my tone and perception and think that where I was at the moment I drew meaning would make a difference in why I attached meaning to it. For example, if I had seen a hurt dog in the road during that day and had expressed sadness and sorrow over the dog being hurt and how I wanted to help it and talk about how we shouldn’t leave animals injured on roads, Bitzer would believe that I gave meaning to that topic because that topic in general is meaningful. However, Bitzer would believe that I drew meaning from that situation because I grew up with a dog therefore I have connection with that certain animal. Also, Edbuaer would look at maybe if there were other people around me who felt the same way as me and Edbauer would think that I would give more meaning to it because of that as well. Basically, Edbauer focuses on perception and location to pinpoint why something is meaningful to someone. Whereas Bitzer believes that people automatically know what is meaningful and decide to investigate that meaningfulness. I personally think that meaning is derived from perception, location, and feeling.
ReplyDeleteA format of writing that is involved in my everyday life is a very new form of communication known as text messaging. Text messaging even though informal is a source of rhetoric that many individuals participate in through their everyday lives. When it comes to the perceptions of Jenny Edbauer and Lloyd F. Bitzer their conceptions of rhetoric discourse such as via text messaging stem from different perceptions.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing Edbauer, she is more interested in the rhetorical ecology or location involved behind the discourse. She believes that… “the social does not reside in fixed sites, but rather in a networked space of flows and connections.” Edbauer is focused on the experience behind things in certain locations and how these experiences effect emotional perceptions. If I were to send a text message Edbauer would perceive my message more as a feeling that I experienced in a moment. She would also see my message as a perception based on my background or rooted from my culture. For example, in many Hispanic countries individuals type “jajaja” instead of “hahaha” when they believe something to be comical.
Bitzer supports the idea that rhetorical discourse comes into existence as a response. An example of this could be having an answer that comes into question, or discovering a solution that finds a problem. He believes that speech is given rhetorical significance based on the situation. Further more, he supports the idea that rhetorical situation(s) must exist as a necessary condition of rhetorical discourse. What is most important is that rhetoric needs to and invites discourse capable of participating with the situation and therefore altering reality. In a sense, such as my everyday writing example of text messaging there could be a multitude of possibilities as to why I would need to send the text message, but the important thing to remember is that there is always a reason as to why I must send out the text message and it must appropriately fit the audience in which it is being sent to. For example, I wouldn’t send the same type of text to my parent as opposed to my close friend. My text message to my parent would be more formally typed with full use of all spelling of words, whereas my text message to my close friend could use abbreviations such as “LOL” meaning laugh-out-loud. The situation along with the audience according to Bitzer controls the rhetorical response that I would create via text message. He believes that things are meaningful in themselves, me sending a text message to a friend would be me trying to impact someone or change something.
Television is a form of writing that is present in my everyday life. The idea of tv is very interesting to me just because of the way that the media is created. Many television shows have different writers from episode to episode and they often involve entire rooms of people contributing. A pretty big part of what Bitzer is saying is that the writing is written the way that is depending on what audience it is being directed towards. So with television, the writing for Disney channel would wind up being drastically different than that for HBO and that is made apparent with the appropriateness of the content. One of Edbauer’s major points is that the writing itself has an underlying meaning that brought it about and makes it relevant to certain situations in the first place. The idea of a piece of writing evolving based on the platform is more of a Bitzer interpretation than an Edbauer. To Edbauer, writing is more complicated than just who and for what purpose the writing is being created for. It shifts onto what that writing is for and also incorporates what that content itself will do as a result when seen by different groups that may have more of a connection to it than other. So in terms of television writing, in Edbauer’s eyes, the writing would be directed at a more specific group than just either children or adults and then on top of that, the content would connect more with it’s intended audience than it would going by Bitzer’s discourse. To Bitzer, the content would be pretty static and an audience’s reaction to that content would not exactly result in any kind of change to the writing in the future. This could be represented again through different television networks. Big shows on big networks such as Game of Thrones on HBO already have a well thought out course for the show. No amount of input from the audience could alter what takes place in the script. With some other networks, like the CW and it’s tv show Arrow for example, audience feedback from platforms such as twitter can result in certain changes in the course of the media as fans interact with writers. So in this sense, HBO would be going down Bitzer’s path while the CW takes Edbauer’s.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I wanted to discuss my passive aggressive post-its to my roommates on our shared fridge, I think my Facebook presence suits this assignment better. As News Director of FSU's student run radio station, WVFS, I have a Facebook page for my News Department. On this Facebook page, I post about upcoming events our team has to cover, changes in anchor shift scripts, and shifts that need to be covered. It's a community page that I oversee. Other members are encouraged to voice any issues or concerns they have. As someone who is not super great at checking her email consistently, the posts I make in this page are important methods of communication.
ReplyDeleteBitzer describes the rhetorical situation is a response to a situation created in discourse, as by the speaker, to modify the audience’s perception towards said situation or topic. My topic? News. The constituent parts that make up the rhetorical situation are exigence, audience, and constraints. Exigence is described as the invitation to initiate and engage in discourse (with the audience).
My audience is my staff, whom I hope will reply and not leave my posts ignored with "173 people read this." I have to write to engage a bunch of hipsters, while maintaining a staff and air of professionalism. Yep. Audience is the mass to which the discourse is presented in front of, those who are supposed to be “constrained in decision and action,” meaning those whose opinions are dependent on the discourse through constraints.
The constraints in the rhetorical situation are the influencing factors that the rhetor presents to the audience, as the rhetors points of contention. The rhetorical situation, along with its constituent parts, shows the complexities of rhetoric.
In the Edbauer reading, the "triangulated" terminology already lends itself to discussing my Facebook posts. Sender, receiver, and text. This translates directly to me, my news staff, and my Facebook posts. My affective ecology for Facebook in my "historical" flux would have to be that Facebook is a mark of the time that I am News Director in 2016. My "situation" or ever changing situs. (I hope my analysis is correct of the Edbauer reading.)
Though informally; I tend to write a great deal about marine life and marine environments. I grew up near the ocean, and have subsequently had many interactions with all sorts of marine life such as dolphins, manatees, sea turtles, etc. I think the ocean is a fascinating place and needs to be protected. The concept of marine conservation can be looked at as a form of rhetorical discourse and Lloyd Bitzer and Jenny Edbauer would likely have differing viewpoints on this matter.
ReplyDeleteBitzer asserts that a rhetorical situation is born from a certain situation that incites a response. In this case, Bitzer would likely believe that the reason I so adamantly want to conserve marine life is a result of the current situation of ocean pollution. There is a large amount of plastic in the ocean among other things, creating a situation in which rhetoricians would need to persuade their audience into getting involved in marine conservation. The pollution in the ocean controls the response, the more there is of it, the more people will try to persuade others to be conscious of their trash. If I were to post something on social media about the damage of plastic in our oceans or an article about using less plastic in our lives, it is a response to the situation (in this case being plastic pollution) and is given significance by it.
Edbauer presents a different viewpoint than Bitzer. Her assertion is that rhetorical situation is not only determined by the situation and the response incited by it, but also the experiences and prior knowledge of the persons involved in said situation. Edbauer would argue that the ocean’s pollution is not the only reason I posted the theoretical article mentioned in the previous paragraph. My past experiences with the ocean, conversations surrounding it and continued growing interest in it are all factors in this rhetorical situation. Where Bitzer would say I want to persuade people to protect the ocean because it simply needs to be protected, Edbauer would say that I want to persuade people to protect the ocean because it needs to be protected AND because I am fascinated with the ocean and want to protect it.
If Bitzer and Edbauer were to look at a popular, public writing source, like twitter, I think they would be amazed. Amazed not necessarily in a positive way.
ReplyDeleteBitzer believes that rhetoric and writing in general should have one positive outcome. The facts are already there, for our human eyes to discover and for us to put into words. I personally do not agree at all with his theory but nevertheless, it is crucial that we learn from Bitzer. Lloyd Bitzer is from a time where the world was seen as black and white. Where religion was the only way and at a time when the United States Government was seen as ‘pure’. This is pre vatican ll. This is pre civil rights movement. This is an era of yes and no. Never a maybe. If Bitzer was to see my twitter feed, he would probably shit his pants. My feed contains conflicting opinions on matters of importance but instead of people coming together for a just, moral conclusion, it is a shit show of hate speech coming from all sides. In the end, he would regard twitter as a place for written anarchy.
Edbauer, on the other had, believes that connection to people through writing is a very important part of rhetoric. Twitter, whether it be a nice back and forth or a sting of hate speech, people are connecting millions of times a day on this social media. The fact that people read millions of opinions, allows them to hone down their own ideas into a concrete arguments for later use.
In today’s current age it is almost rare to see someone without a cellphone. Whether it is one of the old Nokia models or the latest iPhone, they are highly prevalent in modern society. Based off this, I would say that text messaging would be my everyday form of writing. Whether I respond to a group message in order to figure out dinner plans or update my mom on how my day was, it is something that I am always constantly doing.
ReplyDeleteNow, depending on whom I am sending a message to (my audience) my formatting and way of speaking would be highly different. One example of this would be the way that I tell my mom about certain news compared to how I would tell my friends in the group chat. Contrary to the group message, I would probably not start off with a joke in order to avoid a long lecture via text. According to Bitzer, I would mold my message in order to invite a “fitting response” from the individual I would be sending the text message to. Hence, I would be more proper and state facts when sending anything to my mother in order to elicit a response that does not result in many angry emojis. One such example of this in history would be the way Presidents format and deliver their speech after certain occurrences, i.e. wars.
Unlike Bitzer, Edbauer would say that what I write within my text messages would go way beyond the “triangle” relating to “audience, text, and writer”, actually encompassing more categories such as my environment, social dimensions, etc. Based off this, Edbauer would analyze the setting I was in when I wrote this message, and how it could have possibly influenced what I was trying to incorporate. If I had just been in a location where everyone around me was belligerent, any message I would write might give off a tone that sounds annoyed, seeing as rhetoric “is better conceptualized as a mixture of processes and encounters”.
Regardless of the different points of views that both Bitzer and Edbauer hold, they focus on most of the same important aspects that are necessary to better incorporate rhetoric into writing, and provide varying examples and explanations of it.
ReplyDeletePoetry or rhymes or raps if you will, are something I enjoy and seem to write almost everyday. It seems like in today’s society the art of poetry is less regarded than what it was several hundred years ago. It is an art form that has evolved over time portraying a wide ranged spectrum. Rhetorically speaking, I find poetry very intriguing becuase it conveys messages and emotions that are received differently from person to person. According to Bitzer, for example, If I’m writing a romantic sonnet for someone specific, I would create my message in a way to convey a specific response, that would hopefully be received positively.
Edbauer would rather encompass the environment than audience, text, and writer. She would take into account the setting I was in when I wrote the poem. If Im am trying to write a romantic poem, a dark grunge setting probably wouldn’t be the best place for this because my emotions would take on the setting. But if I were in a happy setting like Paris, France, I think viewing the eiffel tower would only promote my romantic emotions in order to convey what I am trying to say to the reader.
A piece of writing I come across in my everyday life would be my journal. My journal is where I take time out of my day to record everyday things that happen to me; moments, memories, and emotions. Because of my journal being something so personal, the writing style tends to be centered more towards my eyes. Details may be hazy due to the fact that its something I myself, literally lived out. Its not supposed to serve as an informational text or for an audience for that matter so it lacks that connection with audience, which is something Bitzer would really focus on. He would mention how people's beliefs, attitudes, and interests will really sway how everything in my journal is viewed. Which basically implies that my journal would not be a successful piece to engage a reader. While Edbauer would respond that its all continuously forming "within a network of lived practical consciousness or structures of feelings." Edbauer also mentions rhetorical ecology throughout which is a term that exemplifies a continuous developing concept. Bitzer would also mention how without context, rhetorical situations wouldnt mean much. So in other words, if I don't provide enough information in regards to context, my audience will be completely lost and unaware of what they're reading about.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s generation, more and more people are starting to use cellphones. The typical user range keeps expanding with age; home phones are now obsolete; texting has become one of, if not the most popular, form of communication between people. Every day I read and I write multiple text messages. Whether its checking in with my mom, talking to my roommates in our house chat, talking to my high school friends in my high school chat, or sending dog pictures to my sister, text messaging has transformed and taken over our everyday lives.
ReplyDeleteThe texts I send can be very broad or very specific, but as Bitzer mentions, its situational as its contingent on the context of the conversation. The style of the delivery, in Bitzer’s eyes, is effective what you’re saying can be conveyed to a cell phone user easily through the text message. For example, texting your grandparents (in some situations) would not be a good way to contact them because they might not know how to use texting. The style of the delivery is based off the audience you want to reach. Content of what’s being delivered is also important to Bitzer. As far as texting, the language you use should directly reflect the audience. For example, you can text slang and use improper grammar while texting your friends but might be more formal when texting an adult or someone you don’t know as well. It all comes back to the exigence of the rhetoric, forming and overall ecology.
Edbauer, on the other hand, would see texting as a form of rhetoric too impersonal compared to what she believes rhetoric should be. Though it’s not an immediate human interaction, Edbauer would interpret texts that illicit a banter and an on-going conversation or communication. Unlike Bitzer’s very technical definition and explanation of rhetoric, Edbauer is more focused on the actual experience and connection being made. Except for a technological connection, human interaction is constrained very shortly when a texting conversation is taking place. Both Edbauer and Bitzer would focus on the audience at hand and how to appeal to them, in their respective ways.