Rhetorical Reading Summary of “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents”

Rhetorical Reading Summary of “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents”

            Keith Grant-Davie wrote a very inspiring piece for the Rhetoric Review Journal back in 1997. This piece was titled “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents”. Although this sounds horribly boring I was captivated. Grant- Davie wrote this piece to define key points of rhetoric while expressing how limitless the uses of them are. This ultimately came to the conclusion that rhetoric does not have boundaries and always has a purpose. Grant- Davie had a very important purpose to his piece. He wanted everyone to understand rhetoric and see it in a new light.

            Keith Grant-Davie is a professor of English at Utah State University, located in Logan, UT. Logan is a rural, Rocky Mountain town located close to many outdoor activities. Grant- Davie is very interested in how people interact through their language.

            As previously mentioned, “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents” was published in the journal Rhetoric Review. This is very significant because the purpose and context of any rhetoric is crucial to understanding it. Rhetorical Review is a journal published back in 1997. This journal served the purpose of helping writing teachers gain a new perspective to then reflect on to their students. This hopefully will help everyone see Grant-Davies ideas. Back in 1997, when it was published, few people wanted to think outside the box. This aimed to change that.

            Grant- Davie had a very important goal in “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents”. He was trying to convey how all text is speech and should be viewed as a conversation between all parties. These parties, or people involved, have very specific roles and names. The person writing a rhetorical piece is called the rhetor. The rhetor is responsible for providing content for the interlocutor to read. This relationship is what allows the conversation to take place. Writing does not contain meaning until rhetors and interlocutors interact to create meaning and knowledge. It is very important that both the rhetor and interlocutor understand they should be attempting to converse. Grant- Davie creates conversation heavily in his piece by referencing other writers in their work and talking about the good and bad in them to help them analyze their research.

            Grant- Davie goes on to discuss exigence. Exigence is very important because it is the preface of any writing. There is always a reason or communication, an obstacle to overcome or a defect to fix. This is what exigence is and it could come from a past event or to better the future. Grant-Davie reflects heavily on Lloyd Bitzer’s work to describe exigence although they do not agree on everything.

            Exigence, the reason for rhetoric, leads in to discourse. Discourse is what a rhetorical piece is trying to accomplish. Although that sounds very simple, it is not. To be more specific, discourse refers to the language itself and how the way you use language will affect the impact of the rhetoric. Discourse in its most simple form is the writing (or other communication) itself.

            Many people believe that the rhetor plays a boring role of creating a piece and that being the end. This is wrong. Grant- Davie says, “Vatz only points out the rhetor’s role in defining the situation, yet it seems to me that rhetors are as much constituents of their rhetorical situations as are their audiences.” What is really being said here is that the writing, or rhetor, will not create an epistemic piece for only their interlocutor. Rhetoric will help the rhetor themselves learn and grow by speaking to, and exploring themselves while they write.

            The audience of rhetoric will always change how the piece is constructed. All of the interlocutors have their own individual knowledge base and interests. These must be catered to in order to effectively conversate. This requirement can be called a constraint. Constraints define what language can and cannot be used in writing. Grant- Davie claims that they are nearly impossible to define because they are so open ended and can include virtually anything. What I found to be the best definition of constraints is- factors that limit or otherwise influence the persuasive strategies available to the rhetor. The constraints do not always limit in a bad way though. For example, you may be putting out rhetoric to very well versed and knowledgeable English teachers. This will let you use much more in depth language and ideas that would not be suitable for consumption many other places. This is exactly what Grant- Davie did; he utilized a positive constraint.

            The relationship between the rhetor and interlocutor, exigence, discourse, epistemic purpose, and constraints make up the largest and most obvious portions of “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents”. This is nowhere near the end. There are still many more fine details and forward ideas that Grant- Davie addresses.

One of these finer points is receptivity. Receptivity is the ability to be dynamic and change situationally. If a rhetor does not utilize receptivity they will not be able to write effectively for any situation. A rhetor must assess the interlocutor, exigence, discourse, epistemic purpose, and constraints. Once they assess those they must make the necessary changes to adapt to their situation.

There are more points Grant-Davie made that I consider very crucial to “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents”. The first being that any piece of rhetoric is not limited to a single person or idea. A piece may have multiple exigencies, constraints, rhetors, or interlocutors. This opens possibility of multiple forms of discourse. A single rhetor can even play multiple roles with different exigencies. Because there can be influences from so many directions it is hard to say what writing can be considered “good”. To find out if writing is good you must ask if it accomplished what it was trying to or not. If it did then it can be considered “good” in my opinion. “Good” writing is situation and contingent to what you want to convey or achieve.

            After reading all this you may be very confused by what writing or rhetoric truly is supposed to be. That is okay because there is no good answer and is what you make of it. You must asses what the purpose is and move from there. Although Grant-Davie understand a lot bout writing he even has many unanswered questions as to what is right and wrong. The point being that you should always create conversation through your writing to create knowledge.

References

Grant-Davie, Keith “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents”

            Writing About Writing. Downs, Doug and Wardle, Elizabeth.

            Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014 p.347-361