As If, Bitzer: The Rhetorical Situation in "Clueless"

In “The Rhetorical Situation,” Lloyd F. Bitzer claims that the situation itself calls for a rhetorical address (2). Moments themselves are not inspired by speeches; rather, the speeches are created as a consequence of these moments. Bitzer likens the situation and rhetoric to a question and answer dilemma: the situation acts as a question being posed, and the rhetoric is man’s answer to this question. He also goes on to claim that rhetoric is “a mode of altering reality...by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action” (4). In order to alter this reality, rhetoric must have and be aware of the following: exigence, an “imperfection marked by urgency” (6), audience, and constraint, or limits to the situation and what can be said in the moment. These three things allow rhetorical discourse to come into play and the rhetor to address his setting, the time and place that calls for his speech.

Richard E. Vatz, in “The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation,” takes a stance against Bitzer’s theory. Vatz brings up the point that Bitzer’s statements “only inform us as to the phenomenological perspective of the speaker. There can be little argument that the speakers believe they feel fear or embarrassment. Their statements do not, however, tell us about qualities within the situation” (154). He goes on to state, “No situation can have a nature independent of the perception of its interpreter or independent of the rhetoric with which he chooses to characterize it” (154). This idea may seem like a small discrepancy, but it shows a key difference between Vatz and Bitzer’s ideas of rhetoric. No matter what, because we are human and trapped to view our word through our own skewed perceptions, none of us will truly know what is going on within the outside situation. We can only understand how the situation applies to ourselves. We bring meaning to everything without even trying because we always bring our own thoughts and biases into the equation. Further, Vatz argues that choice factors into this mythical rhetorical situation. A rhetor chooses what must be communicated within the moment; the moment does not dictate this decision. Several things are happening at once, and it is up to the rhetor to pick which thing deserves the most attention and about which a discussion should be held. This choice gives these things salience, allowing a hierarchy of importance to be assigned to each thing.

These readings reminded me of the movie “Clueless” (based on Jane Austen’s Emma). In the movie, Cher sees Travis as a loser, a pothead who does not have ambition or any qualities deserving of her new friend Tai. Since Cher is a popular, rich high school girl who is admired by nearly everyone, she of course has her own biases against Travis, a boy low on the social totem pole. She makes a speech to Tai degrading him and other high school boys because in her perception, they are not good enough for herself or her friend. While Cher does find a good moment to tell this information to Tai (Tai has just moved to L.A. and is the new girl at school), she is not ruled by this moment. The situation did not come about and Cher’s response was the perfect way to take advantage of Tai’s naivety; rather, Cher made a choice among all the information to tell Tai - anything from how teachers grade to which cafeteria foods to avoid to quickest routes from her locker to class - and decided to focus on warning her against Travis. The moment may have actually called for Cher to persuade Tai to get to know Travis better. After all, he is nice to Tai as soon as they meet, and they seem to have chemistry. Cher’s own perceptions of the situation cloud her judgment and cause her to speak against Travis.