Readings, and Related Inspirations

Propriety, Conspiracy Theory, and the Rhetorical Situation – 8150

1 Comment

I know I talk a lot about how important the rhetorical situation is, but really, today is my first time reading Lloyd Bitzer’s “The Rhetorical Situation,” Richard E. Vatz’s “The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation,” and “Barbra Biesecker’s “Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation.”

Dr. Bitzer - taken from

Dr. Bitzer – taken from

Vatz and his tie, taken from

Vatz and his tie, taken from

As I read Bitzer’s arguably cannonical piece, I thought a lot about this ‘reality of the situation’ business he keeps referring to (6). I wondered who was going to determine this ‘reality’ of a situation? Is it the speaker? Is it the audience? Is it someone else entirely?

Thank goodness Vatz comes along and sets us straight… or does he? First, as Biesecker later will point out, Vatz completely upends the rhetorical situation as Bitzer lays it down. But the part that’s the most important to me is when Vatz states that there exists a phenomenological perspective of the speaker (154), and that “meaning is not intrinsic” (156). These are concepts we have been talking about all throughout modern theory, and are important to point out. Who gets to decide what is ‘real’? How do we delineate the meanings of words when language is intrinsically broken?

And while I’m all for Biesecker’s invitation for rhetoricians to deconstruct, what I really want to talk about is what no one is talking about (take THAT Derrida and your white space!).

Vatz makes an interesting point when he claims that we highlight the events we see as important by talking about them – by participating in symbolic action generation: “When political commentators talk about issues they are talking about situations made salient, not something that became important because of its intrinsic predominance” (160). So according to Bitzer and Vatz… does dominant culture decide what is a situation and what is not?

As I mull over the ‘salient situations’ and the ‘reality of situations,’ I can’t help but think of what we don’t talk about when we don’t talk about women (a traditionally non-dominant piece of the society puzzle). The list of female taboos used to be really long – think propriety everyone – but it has thankfully shortened over the years, depending on who you spend your time with. One issue I’m ALWAYS fascinated with is menstruation. It’s so taboo, everyone in the room grows still when I mention it (which is somewhat often in all relativity of who mentions things in rooms). I did a quick google search and found this interesting blog entry about how even in commercials for menstruation protection (you know, tampons and pads), actual menstruation is not mentioned. Don’t believe me? Youtube it. Here’s an example:

Aside from issues of propriety, which I could probably go on and on about, when Vatz mentions “political commentators,” I think… conspiracy theory. What if we didn’t actually land on the moon?

Taken from

Taken from

What if there ARE aliens out there?

You know this happened... right? Taken from

You know this happened… right? Taken from

What if there are REALLY reptoids from the center of the earth inhabiting human skin and waiting to take over the world when the polar ice caps melt and let the rest of their people out (I may be mincing conspiracies here)?

My favorite conspiracy theory by far... taken from

My favorite conspiracy theory by far… taken from

Are these not rhetorical situations if our dominant culture doesn’t see them as such? Are they not part of the ‘reality’ of the situation? How do we deconstruct something that we don’t talk about? Or is the fact that topics are taboo situate them in a situation of ‘white’ space somehow? Are conspiracy theories relevant rhetorically, even though they are not given much credence by the dominant culture?

In case you need it (because I thought you might), here is more information on reptoids. Because that’s a thing.


One thought on “Propriety, Conspiracy Theory, and the Rhetorical Situation – 8150

  1. What a fun and interesting read, Valerie! I really appreciated the questions you posed: “Who gets to decide what is ‘real’? How do we delineate the meanings of words when language is intrinsically broken?” Thanks for your thoughtful contributions here and in class.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s