1.

0 The Rhetorical Situation

Perhaps your most common encounter with the word “rhetoric” is when someone asks
a “rhetorical” question. Despite its label, rhetorical questions need not be answered out
loud. Rather, these questions are intended to make audiences think deeper about a certain
topic, or they are used by the speaker to prove a point. At its core, a rhetorical question is
an attempt to influence the listener’s way of thinking. So what does this tell us of the nature
of rhetoric?

According to Aristotle, rhetoric is the capacity of discovering in any particular case

the available means of persuasion. Notice that this definition can be divided into two
chronological parts — the identification of cases and the discovery of available means of
persuasion. That is, before any attempt at persuasion can be made, a particular case must
first be recognized. The case in this instance is a rhetorical situation.

According to Bitzer, it is the situation which calls the rhetorical discourse into existence.
In the same way that a question is a prerequisite to an answer, a rhetorical situation is a
prerequisite to rhetorical discourse. The responsibility of bringing this discourse into
existence rests on the rhetor. Ultimately, rhetoric functions to produce change within a
situation through the use of discourse.

Can any situation be rhetorical? Bitzer claims that this is not the case. He defines a
rhetorical situation as:

a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting as actual

or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced
into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about
significant modification of the exigence. (Bitzer, 1968, p. 6)

This definition calls attention to the three constituents of a rhetorical situation, namely:
exigence, audience, and constraint. Let us discuss these three in detail.

1.1 Exigence

Firstly, since the function of rhetoric is to influence a situation or outcome through

discourse, a rhetorical situation must allow for change to happen. If the source of the
problem cannot be changed or influenced, then the situation cannot be considered
rhetorical. The problem addressed by rhetorical discourse is more specifically referred to as
an exigence—an imperfection, defect, obstacle, unaccomplished task, or something that is
other than it should be (Bitzer, 1968).

While numerous exigences may exist within a given context, not all of these exigences
can be considered rhetorical.

1.2 Audience
The second aspect of a rhetorical situation is the audience. Since rhetorical
discourse achieves its purpose by influencing the thoughts and behaviors of perceivers who
become mediators of change, it follows that rhetoric must always have an audience. Does
this mean that any bystander can become a member of a rhetorical audience? Not quite.

1.3 Constraints

The last aspect of every rhetorical situation is the set of constraints present in a given
case. These constraints are made up of people, events, objects, and relations that have the
power to influence the decisions and actions of the audience in order to modify the
exigence (Bitzer, 1968). As you might guess, there are many forces that can act on a given
exigence at any point in time. These constraints can generally be classified into two: (1)
those originated or managed by the speaker and (2) other constraints arising out of
the situation.

Synthesis

In summary, a discourse is given rhetorical significance by the rhetorical situation

(Bitzer, 1968). In order for a situation to be considered rhetorical, it must have (1) an
exigence which lends itself to modification through discourse; (2) an audience capable of
being influenced by the discourse and of being mediators of change; and (3) a set of
constraints that limit the decisions and actions of the audience in modifying the exigence.
Now that we are aware of the conditions necessary for rhetorical discourse to occur, let us
examine how contemporary rhetors use this knowledge to persuade their audiences. This
brings us to the second part of Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric—identifying the available
means of persuasion. For us to discuss these means effectively, let us use communication
in politics as our context.

2.0 Political Rhetoric

Have you ever exercised your right to vote during a national elections? If so, then you
might have listened to a number of debates and speeches during the campaign period.
Major television networks in the country waste no time in bringing candidates together for a
debate in order for them to pit their ideas against those of their opponents. You are probably
familiar with the format of these debates. Each candidate is given time to state his/her plan
of action before the other candidates deliver their rebuttals. During these instances, were
you conscious of the means by which the candidates attempted to persuade the audience?

According to Condor et al. (2013), political rhetoric is mostly concerned with strategies
used in constructing persuasive messages in debates and disputes. This is not surprising
because, from its earliest stages, rhetoric has been used to expose ineffective policies and
advance necessary changes in democratic societies. Back then, political oratory required
loud voices and formal gestures in order to be effective. Do you think this still holds true
today? We do not have to think too far back to remember the last time we heard a political
speech. Every year, student government elections are held in the University of the
Philippines. From classroom campaigns to meetings de avance, there are plenty of
opportunities for you to be exposed to political rhetoric.
Before we proceed, please read Condor et al.’s (2013) chapter on political rhetoric:

Be guided by these questions:

1. What are the different persuasive strategies mentioned in the chapter?

2. Of these strategies, which have you encountered during political campaigns?
3. Are these strategies effective for you? Why or why not?

Aristotle mentioned three means of persuasion, namely, ethos or ethical appeal, pathos
or emotional appeal, and logos or logical appeal. Of these, Aristotle noted ethos as the most
important. You may notice that Condor et al.’s (2013) examples are derived from this idea
of using ethical appeal in persuading an audience. Before we elaborate on what you just
read in their chapter, let us briefly discuss Aristotle’s concept of the rhetor’s ethos.

Aristotle placed great importance on the concept of ethos, which is also defined as the
attitude of a perceiver toward a source of information at a given time. To put it simply, it is
an audience member’s evaluation of the speaker’s character. Since ethos is based on the
perceiver and not on the source, it can vary in as many ways as there are perceivers. One
person in the audience might think that the speaker is somewhat credible, another might
agree to a greater extent than some, while the rest may not agree at all. The aim of ethos is
to show the sincerity and the trustworthiness of the speaker. What are concrete ways to
achieve this? Let us turn to the strategies posed by Condor et al. (2013).

2.1 Taking and Avoiding Sides

Political communicators often deal with audience members who subscribe to a wide range
of beliefs. In order to address this problem of diversity, a politician may want to forge
advantageous allegiances with certain groups during a speech. According to Condor et al.
(2013), it is in the best interest of these politicians to appeal to as many groups as possible
without sacrificing loyalty. For example, a group of candidates may want to explicitly
distance themselves from political parties known to advance the interests of the elite. By
doing this, the candidates can associate themselves with parties catering to the “ordinary
people,” thus potentially cementing their influence on a broader audience.

2.2 Explicit Appeals to Common In-group Membership

Yet another way by which political communicators may appeal to diverse audiences is
by finding or establishing a commonality among them. Condor et al. (2013) referred to this
as a “single rhetorical identity” (p. 279) — a group bound by an overarching characteristic.
They added that three requirements must be met in order to be an effective political leader.
First, diverse communities must be regrouped into a single identity category. Second, the
leader’s propositions must fulfill the needs of this category. And third, the leader must
present him/ herself as a prototypical in-group member. For example, if a candidate appeals
to a national identity by claiming to be a “typical” Filipino, then his/her goals, appearance,
language, and demeanor must reflect this identification.

2.3 Constructing Aspirational Identities

In attempting to advance changes in the status quo, an aspiring candidate may want
audience members to envision a future which is markedly different from the present. By
constructing future identities of audience members as more empowered and privileged
members of society, the speaker aims to rally the public towards an achievable change.
According to Condor et al., this can be done by advocating for a group that is “currently
positioned outside, or on the margins of, a particular political community” (p. 280).
For example, a candidate may want to inspire members of the LGBT community by telling
them of a future wherein people of different genders will be treated with equal respect.

2.4 Implicit Displays of Rhetorical Alignment

There are also indirect means of influencing the thoughts of audience members.
Through mere clothing, a speaker may present him/herself as a representative of certain
groups. Body posture, paralanguage, and gestures may also contribute to the establishment
of a particular identity. Subtle yet effective use of language is also beneficial in this regard.
The simple use of inclusive pronouns such as “we,” “us,” and “our” can serve to endear the
speaker to the audience and facilitate a benevolent atmosphere, making it easier to
establish and maintain rapport.

2.0 Synthesis
In summary, the political sphere is invariably tied with rhetorical discourse. In attempting
to influence public opinion, political communicators apply specific persuasive strategies.
By presenting themselves as trustworthy, sincere, and amiable, modern-day rhetors
may strengthen their bid for leadership positions within the government. However, we must
remember that a critical understanding of the context and content of political discourse
is needed to effectively implement programs and propose necessary changes. In addition,
a public speech is not the only way to exercise political rhetoric, and mere knowledge of
persuasive devices is not enough to guarantee an advantage. Various other factors may
affect the potency of rhetorical messages. One such factor is technology. In the last section,
we will discuss its influence on the practice and utility of rhetoric.

3.0 Digital Rhetoric

How does the digital age affect the way we communicate? This is a question many
scholars are trying to answer today. Zappen (2005) provides an overview of studies on how
traditional rhetorical strategies work in digital spaces. He points out that traditional rhetorical
strategies are reconfigured in digital spaces as computers and associated software mediate
communication online. 

Read Zappen’s (2005) article on digital rhetoric. Use the following questions as  guide:

1. How does persuasion work in online communication? How are the rhetorical
strategies of persuasion deployed in online spaces?
2. How do computer programs function as persuasive technology?
3. How do the processes of identity and community formation on social media affect
rhetorical practice online?
In the article, Zappen (2005) cites Gurak’s discussion of the basic characteristics of
communication in digital spaces such as speed and reach. Let us consider speed. In social
media platforms, it is easy to share ideas and emotions on a whim. Twitter, for example,
provides a convenient venue for sharing one’s thoughts with an online social circle.
However, it imposes a 140-character limit on what one can say. How does a character limit
affect the persuasive impact of a post? More interestingly, how is persuasion done using
short posts? Another example of how speed can influence the rhetorical message is
through repetitive posting or sharing. Think about the last time you shared an article on
Facebook. What happens to the credibility (ethos) of the article when it is shared a
thousand times? Does it make the article more, or less, persuasive?

The persuasive quality of a piece of information is also affected by reach. According to

Gurak (2001), the concept of reach is further divided into aspects such as multiplicity and
lack of gatekeeping. Multiplicity refers to the number of people who can access the
information at any given time. Again, refer back to our discussion of audience in a rhetorical
situation. Only people who are capable of being transformed by a rhetorical message can
be considered part of a rhetorical audience. How does digital reach influence this dynamic?
Does a wide reach equate to a big rhetorical audience? Consider viral videos as a concrete
example. With a viral video, an overwhelming number of people can engage with the
rhetorical content within minutes of it being posted online. Is a viral video more persuasive
than a video with limited circulation?

Another aspect of reach is lack of gatekeeping. Anyone can post anything online. In fact,
the technology also allows for the deliberate exercise of anonymity on the part of online
authors, and we are often not entirely sure who the authors of much of the content online
really are. How does this impact the credibility of online content? In traditional media,
authorship is a key aspect of the persuasive power of text. Does authorship matter in social
media? If not, where does the persuasive power of online messages come from? How does
ethos as a means of persuasion work—or not—in social media?

3.0 Synthesis
The digital age has changed the practice of rhetoric in a number of ways. For rhetors,
digital technologies afford speed of communication and a much wider reach. For the
audience, digital technologies afford rapid access to multiple perspectives on any given
exigence, as well as the opportunity to participate directly in discourse and contribute to or
undermine their rhetorical effectiveness. We are of course at one time or another rhetor or
audience and, in online contexts, usually both. We need to develop a critical understanding
of how communication in digital spaces works and, ultimately, how such spaces can be
utilized for effecting positive change through communication.

Conclusion to Module 2
In this module, we have taken steps to understand the structure of rhetorical situations.
We should now be aware of how the interplay between exigence, audience, and constraints
determines the effectiveness of different persuasive devices. We have examined specific
examples of rhetorical strategies in political communication and we have also considered
issues in rhetorical practice online. Although the field of rhetoric has progressed
considerably over the past decades, the concepts elaborated by Aristotle and Bitzer
maintain their relevance to this day. As communication students, we have a duty to be
sensitive to rhetorical situations and analyze them. Our aim in doing so is not just to
become effective communicators ourselves but ultimately to promote use of rhetoric to bring
about positive transformations in society.

Required Readings 

Bitzer, L. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.

Condor, S., Tileaga, C., & Billig, M. (2013). Political Rhetoric. In L. Huddy, D. Sears, & J. 

Levy (Eds), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp.262-297). England:Oxford

University Press.

Zappen. J. (2005). Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory. Technical

Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 319-325.