I. Response to Grant-Davie’s “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents”

---

Critical Arguments

Considering Bitzer’s work on rhetorical situations, Grant-Davie develops the scope of the original constituents—exigence, audience, and constraints—while suggesting that the rhetor functions as a distinct constituent itself. Grant-Davie defines a rhetorical situation using Bitzer, as well as Vatz and Consigny, as the interaction between the four constituents which ultimately creates a discourse. The article redefines exigence using stasis theory, developing three questions it should answer from Bitzer’s one. These questions complicate a simple look at exigence by asking what the discourse is concerned about, what is its cause and value, and what the goals are. Grant-Davie then argues for the role of the rhetor by examining their complex function of originating or shaping and delivering the discourse, as well as the possibility for multiple rhetors. The article uses this look towards the multiplicity again when considering the audience. Ultimately, Grant-Davie suggests that exploring the connections between the constituents will provide the rhetor with a liberal understanding of the situation at hand. 

Quotations

“Bitzer’s three-way division of rhetorical situations has been valuable, but to reveal the full complexity of rhetorical situations, I think we need to develop his scheme further… The often complex interaction of these multiple rhetors and audiences should be considered.” (266)

“To use Consigny’s terms, rhetors create ethos partly through integrity–a measure of consistency they take from situation to situation instead of putting on a completely new mask to suit the needs of every new audience and situation; and they also need receptivity–the ability to adapt to new situations and not rigidly play the same role in every one.” (270)

“…exigence can be quite complex and the point at which it can be said to have been resolved may be hard to identify. The same exigence may motivate discourses in many, quite different situations without ever being fully resolved.” (274)

“Teaching student writers and readers to ask the same questions, and to understand why they are asking them, will help them realize their options, choose rhetorical strategies and stances for good reasons, and begin to understand each other’s roles.” (277)

Theories & Methods

Grant-Davie builds the argument for a complex understanding of rhetorical situations by using Lloyd Bitzer’s foundational work on the constituents of these situations. In order to work towards the complexities, Grant-Davie also utilizes Vatz and Consigny’s critical works responding to Bitzer. Examinations of real rhetorical situations, such as the Sherwood Hills debate, put the trio’s theory into practice, whereby Grant-Davie can sketch out the complexities. 

Reflection & Connection

The principal argument in this article reminds me of an interview of Roland Barthes who, in response to a question on the affordances of transcription, said, “Transcribed, speech obviously changes its receiver, and thereby even its subject, for there is no subject without an Other. The body, although still present (no language without a body), ceases to coincide with…the personality” (Barthes 5). Although Barthes is talking specifically of the differences between speech and writing, he also seems to be working towards the context’s creation of complexities. That is, both Grant-Davie and Barthes suggest that a message is heavily influenced by its context, or the rhetorical situation as the article defines it. For Barthes, the message changes to fit the situation depending on how the language is transmitted. When the mode of transmission shifts from speech to writing, “The speaker’s image-repertoire changes space” (Barthes 5). Similar to Grant-Davie’s analogy of the carpenter and their tools, Barthes argues that the tools which are most useful for a given situation change depending on the mode of transmission—or reception for that matter. 

Grant-Davie’s and Barthes’ acknowledgment of the complexities of language makes me think of writing studies as a discipline working at an understanding of rhetorical situations so that various tools may be applied with a sound rationale. As this article presented, there are a number of ways to approach a rhetorical situation. Therefore, there are a number of ways in which to approach any writing situation. The explanation of why a certain approach might be useful, however, ultimately supersedes the specifics of how language, or a rhetorical situation, is approached.

A Question

Grant-Davie argues that approaching a rhetorical situation as if it had clear boundaries between its constituents is a useful process for rhetorical creation. How might you use a similar process as a member of the audience? Would a similar process provide you with enough information to identify rhetorical methods at play?

II. Response to Aristotle’s Rhetoric

---

Critical Arguments

Aristotle argues that enthymemes, an argument with an unstated premise, construct a rhetorical persuasion. The enthymeme is a product of the rhetoricians demonstration of truth, which Aristotle claims to naturally prevail as it is the easiest argument to show and believe. Furthermore, any language besides that which deals with the essential facts of the argument are appeals to the audience. Using the court of law as an example, Aristotle states that these appeals, such as a litigant arousing anger in the jury, detract from the truth. In the second part of Book I, Aristotle argues that rhetoric is the only art able to examine and apply modes of persuasion on any subject. To do so, the rhetorician must construct a reasoned argument, contextualize the audience and recognize their human nature, and provide proof. Aristotle also mentions the efficacy of an emotional appeal as a means of persuasion. The rhetorician should be aware of how the emotions are aroused. 

Quotations

“Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both [rhetoric and dialectic]; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit.”

“It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated. The orator’s demonstration is an enthymeme, and this is, in general, the most effective of the modes of persuasion.”

“It is clear, then, that rhetoric is not bound up with a single definite class of subjects, but is as universal as dialectic; it is clear, also, that it is useful. It is clear, further, that its function is not simply to succeed in persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near such success as the circumstances of each particular case allow.”

“There are, then, these three means of effecting persuasion. The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions-that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited.”

Theories & Methods

Similar to the subject discussed, Aristotle demonstrates the use of rhetoric to convince the audience. He does so by explaining the process by which a rhetorician would successfully present an argument in the court. By using the very means presented in the work, Aristotle persuades the audience. Any emotional appeals, however, are left largely unused, as Aristotle deals with the demonstration of facts alone—the facts being the use of rhetoric in a court.  

Reflection & Connection

I find that Aristotle’s focus on oratory rhetoric brings into question the different modalities of rhetoric. How does the situation, written or spoken, alter the tools which the rhetorician uses? Again, an interview of Roland Barthes in The Grain of Voice makes me consider whether or not there are salient rhetorical differences between linguistic modes. Thinking about writing studies, then, I wonder if Aristotle’s Rhetoric, being that it is such a foundational text for rhetorical studies, is adapted for writing scenarios. Writing studies seems to be generally concerned with methods and teachings of writing, but I wonder if it must confront other modes of language, such as speech.

Perhaps nothing major changes between the methods of communication, but I’m sure there are some unique challenges the rhetor faces when dealing with one or the other. I would guess that technology is beginning to introduce challenges as well, particularly in the realm of addressing the audience—which might be unintentionally massive. The role of the rhetor also strains when identity is so easily concealed or constructed. Technology’s apparent democratization of communication must complicate writing studies in some way. I wonder how it might handle more than two millennia worth of texts on writing while also considering the growing horizon of digital writing. Where and when do you move past Aristotle’s Rhetoric? Perhaps you do not have to.

A Question

In the first and second part of Book I, Aristotle focuses on oratory situations. How might the modes of persuasion presented take different forms if the rhetorical context is a written text? What factors must the rhetor confront when writing as compared to speaking?

III. Response to Meisenbach, et al.’s “They Allowed” : Pentadic Mapping of Women’s Maternity Leave Discourse as Organizational Rhetoric

---

Critical Arguments

Meisenbach et al. identify Kenneth Burke’s pentad as a vital tool in revealing the points at which ideology, power, and resistance come into play in organizational discourse. By identifying these moments, Meisenbach et al. argue that pentad ultimately aids in reforming steps taken in organizational discourses, especially those concerning feminist interests. By applying the scene-agency ratio, Meisenbach et al. show that organization’s bureaucratic nature stifles discussion or negotiation of maternity leave. Brief looks at similar ratios reveal that the scene, the bureaucracy, dominates the discourse and leaves women without agency of their own maternity leave. The article then turns its attention to constructing alternative paths to maternity leave with pentadic analysis. Meisenbach et al. state that the women who acted as their own agents of leave often faced bureaucratic consequences. Ultimately, the article suggests that the pentadic analysis of maternity leave at organizations reveals a need to push the discussion into the realm of a larger social scene—a scene which merges the public and private.  

Quotations

“In particular Kenneth Burke’s pentadic analysis offers a valuable and unique opportunity to highlight and show alternative paths within moments of discursive closure. The pentad allows scholars interested in control, resistance, and empowerment to identify where these moments are occurring within the discourse and where opportunities for transformation may exist.” (2)

“Moreover, feminist theory provides a lens by which researchers can critique normalized structures and social institutions, such as paid work. Thus, the goal of feminist inquiry is not limited to merely understanding women’s lives; it commits to change while acknowledging the political nature of this commitment (Wood, 1995). As a feminist project, therefore, this study offers more than just a description of current maternity leave discussions; it also actively seeks alternative ways of conceptualizing maternity leave that can assist those who need them.” (5)

“These women’s discourses revealed a consistent set of terms surrounding the act of arranging a maternity leave that is presented here as the representative anecdote. The pentad consisted of the women talking about their maternity leaves as being set up (the act) by human relations departments, bosses, and doctors (agents), through written policy (or occasionally discussion) (the agency) within bureaucratic organizations (the scene) in order to control and regulate the maternity leave (the purpose).” (8)

“In sum, pentadic mapping of maternity leave discourses suggests that these pinkcollar workers primarily recreated a scene-dominated pentad that closed in on a bureaucratic discourse. In particular, the women articulated numerous scene-agency, scene-agent, and agency-agent ratios when describing their leave management. Organizations, HR departments, supervisors, doctors, generalized others, and
pregnant women all acted as agents subservient to the bureaucratic scene and means of maternity leave management.” (14)

“On a macro and policy level, these issues suggest a need to discursively move discussions of maternity leave from a bureaucratic organizational scene into a larger social scene–one that incorporates organizational, family, and civil society–public and private. Paths to promoting the health and care of mother and child (alternative motives) may be realized here.” (16)

Theories & Methods

Meisenbach et al. rely on Burke’s pentad for the foundation of their argument. They push Burke’s work, however, out of traditional texts and into pragmatic situations of feminist concern. This article also makes use of 21 interviews of women from the age of 20 to 44, each of which had taken one to three maternity leaves. As Meisenbach et al. state in “Procedures,” the study takes into account qualitative data as well as rhetorical analysis. The argument, therefore, puts Burke’s pentad into practice in order to establish their evidence.

Reflection & Connection

Meisenbach et al.’s work with Burke’s pentad in a real life scenario reminds me of my first encounters with rhetoric. In my first semester of Honors Colloquium, the professor asked us to consider the purpose statement of the Honors College. We were to question what the language was doing and how it constructed us as students in the college. Now, this was a very different real life scenario to the one Meisenbach et al. discuss—and granted a much lower stakes one—but the question at hand had a similar concern. Much like Meisenbach et al. question the language of maternity leave, we were questioning the how language of the purpose statement was being used and, ultimately, what it was trying to do. 

Although I am fairly certain we did not read anything on the pentad, I know we read some Burke. This makes sense, as Burke is concerned with identifying motives. This application of rhetoric onto practical situations, especially those which I found myself involved in, is how the field initially struck me. Rhetoric can reveal how language plays out power or establishes norms. Where, then, does writing studies come into this? It seems to me that at least some part of the field must be tangled up in considerations of rhetoric and social constructions or situations. In fact, I am sure that is the case. The name itself suggests a composition focus, which throws me off, but questions like the one Meisenbach et al. ask are also questions of writing and language.

A Question

In what other situations might Burke’s pentadic analysis be applied to what Meisenbach et al. call non-traditional rhetorical texts? When and/or why would pentadic analysis prove more helpful than other modes of rhetorical analysis in identifying how power and ideology are functioning within a situation? Meisenbach et al.’s consideration of a representative anecdote seems important here.

IV. Response to Keranen’s “‘Cause Someday We All Die’: Rhetoric, Agency, and the Case of the ‘Patient’ Preferences Worksheet”

---

Critical Arguments

Keranen turns a critical eye towards institutionalized medical documents, which appear to provide the patient with options whilst on verge of death, but rather, as she argues in this article, frame what should be a moral and ethical decision as purely technological or medical one. Focusing on a Patient Preference Worksheet at an acute care facility, Keranen explores the language of code statuses. The Worksheet at hand, Keranen argues, prioritizes physician decision and positions familial or patient preferences as tools for uncomfortable—or, perhaps, unstructured—conversations on death. The article also identifies the Worksheet as a boundary object, a document which should address the intersecting social realms. Keranen argues that end-of-life discourse shifts focus to the means of death while de-emphasizing the conversation of death itself. Constructing death as a technological consideration forces the patient to make a clear decision, but, as Keranen shows, this is likely a decision they wish not to confront. Consequently, physicians may have a significant influence on apparent patient autonomy. Keranen arrives at a conclusion in which the Worksheet is flawed in its dehumanization of death, but a development in a necessary rhetoric of end-of-life decisions. 

Quotations

“In the unsteady journey to the great unknown, the language of life and death, the rhetoric we use to make what are sometimes irrevocable decisions is ensnared in a complicated and often contentious process in which everyday vernacular rhetoric, technical rhetoric, and institutional imperatives collide around the bedside of dying patients in consequential and heartrending ways.” (180)

“Even in what is ethically and legally defined as the patient’s right to choose, powerful rhetorical pressures influence decision-making, privilege medical expertise, and shape communication in ways that cultivate particular end-of-life subjectivities.” (181)

“The rhetoric of code status was thus created out of a desire to reduce perceived human suffering and to alleviate physicians’ feelings that, in resuscitating patients, they were harming them*as one physician at Good Care noted, he sometimes had the feeling he was ‘‘assaulting’’ patients when reviving them. At the same time, allowing patients to forgo end-of-life interventions resonated with financial incentives to free up beds and reduce expensive treatments.” (184)

“By promoting managerial values of efficiency and expediency, the new end-of-life rhetoric can obscure fundamental moral choices and increase the dominance of technological rationality and medical authority over the patient agency that the Worksheet is ostensibly designed to secure….discussion is fraught with ethical and communicative dilemmas, competing impulses, and systematically distorted communication. Through all of these, it is the Worksheet’s function as a boundary object that needs to be critically interrogated.” (187)

“[The] patient seems not to want to decide. The patient doesn’t know, hopes never to be in this situation, and by the end of the conversation appears frustrated by repeated questions. The institutional requirement to uphold patient autonomy forces a radical confrontation with physiological aspects of death that defies the human desire not to look death in the face, normalizes technological framing of death, and thereby forestalls consideration of the broader meanings of eu-thanatos.” (194)

“On the one hand, the heartless ethos of the form appears inhumane, but it authorizes what can be a humane end to suffering or even a valiant ‘rage, rage, against the dying of the End-of-Life Discourse light.’ On the other hand, its procedural rationality can encourage physicians to withhold Hyde’s ‘life-giving gift of acknowledgment.’ (201-2)

Theories & Methods

In order to understand the nature of the present “Patient” Preference Worksheet, Keranen examines the history of deathbed rhetoric in hospitals to identify how code status has developed and functioned in the twentieth century. In doing so, she brings in a number of rhetoric scholars, Hyde, Kenny, Segal, who have published on similar medical related topics. Keranen builds off the work of these scholars while suggesting the need for more work. The article also introduces some Foucauldian theory to make sense of the power dynamics between patient and institution.

Reflection & Connection

Keranen’s work with the language of life and death does make me think of Foucault, who is mentioned throughout. Although I have not read much of his corpus, I have a faint idea of his ideas on power. Choices, which seem to be free for us to choose, are constrained or influenced by social situations. What might appear to be a free choice, then, may truthfully be a socially constructed or socially informed one. Keranen’s criticism of the Patient Preference Worksheet works to uncover the powers—identified as the medical institution—which shape deathbed discourse. In this manner, I am again reminded of my first encounters with rhetoric. In first year Honors Colloquium, we were encouraged to consider how language functioned as a tool insomuch that we asked who a text was working for and what it might accomplish. 

Keranen’s article demonstrates the interdisciplinary nature of writing studies, particularly in its consideration of ethics. The Worksheet itself is a point of convergence where rhetoric studies and ethics ask the same questions. Similarly, Keranen’s inclusion of Foucault and his thoughts on power demonstrate a broader application of writing studies, That is, it seems to me that an article such as this exemplifies the ability to apply methods in rhetoric or writing studies to various social situations. For Keranen, rhetoric analysis is a tool which is able to reveal how language shapes our understanding—and certainly choices—of death in hospitals. An article like this one makes me think that writing studies shares concerns with social criticism. 

A Question

Keranen considers the trouble language runs into when trying to serve different social entities at once–the boundary object of the Worksheet fails to address the needs of family and physician. In what other situations does language have to confront a crossroads of often conflicting needs? Does the intersection of private and institutional concerns have to harbor such a dilemma? Making use of Foucault and power may be helpful in this investigation.

Continue reading: