Amell 1

Molly Amell
WRIT3701W
Final Project

Breaking Down the Rhetorical Situation in the Context of a Modern Office

As the years go by, many theories have explored the purpose, structure and origin of
rhetoric. Naturally, many theories have therefore been at odds with each other. A great many
rhetors have made compelling arguments in complete opposition to their colleagues and
contemporaries. In these instances, it is often of merit to examine current rhetorical documents to
determine the success of a certain theory over its opposition.
One such subject has caused particular division among rhetorical theorists: the concept of
the rhetorical situation. In the late 1960s, Lloyd Bitzer wrote a controversial piece outlining a
process in persuasive discourse which he dubbed the rhetorical situation. In it, he suggested
that all rhetorical discourse is prompted and occurs as result of a particular situation. By the
tenets of this theory, the situation controls what is being said. In this way, Bitzer cites examples
like the JFK assassination, suggesting that such situations require a particular utterance to be
made, which prompt the public addresses that follow.
This theory had some interesting implications, which were visited in the response
Richard Vatz made to Bitzers essay only a few years later. In it, he staunchly argued the exact
opposite of Bitzers claims, stating that it is one hundred percent the choice of the rhetor what is
and is not going to be said. He contended that situations are made salient based on the rhetoric

Amell 2
that surrounds them, and it is up to the rhetor to choose how an event will appear to the
audience.
In this way, one of the greatest differences between their two arguments lies in the
assignment of intention or blame. Vatz puts a great deal of ethical responsibility on the rhetor,
suggesting that his or her choice to emphasize or not emphasize a certain event or situation will
always have moral implications. On the other hand, Bitzers claims that a situation precedes the
rhetoric around it leaves human decision, and therefore blame, out of the equation altogether. In
an attempt to further the validation of one of these mens arguments, a contemporary method of
communication will be examined in order to determine whose framework seems most logical.
The method of communication in question is an interoffice newsletter that circulates
around to staff members of the School of Public Health Deans Office and their Office of
Admissions and Student Resources. In all, this is about 60 people receiving a newsletter each
week. This newsletter is better
known as the Tuesday Tidbit,
and is sent out each Tuesday
morning. The primary goal of this
newsletter (see example at right)
is to update the staff on events
and reminders as well as promote
community and build
relationships among the
coworkers. Different strategies
are employed to achieve these

Amell 3
goals. The main stories on the Tidbit are small blurbs in paragraph form with simple titles and
minimal body text. A photo or piece of clipart usually accompanies these stories. This is usually
the place where the updates and reminders go. The right column is another spot where updates
and news can be placed, if they are short and are more Save the Date in nature.
To build relationships and comradery amongst the staff, fun events are advertised
occasionally, but the most common community-building feature to this newsletter is the
Standing Ovation section at the
bottom (see right). In this section,
different staff members or teams are
recognized and nominated by one
another in order to appreciate each
others efforts. With these two primary
goals in mind, community building and
event updating, the Tidbit can now be
analyzed from within either Bitzers or
Vatzs framework.
When examining the different
stories chosen to be featured in the Tuesday Tidbit, it can be discovered that Vatzs side of the
argument is more readily apparent; in this case, the rhetoric usually creates the situation.
To begin with, the featured story on May 5th, a Did You Know? piece on the history of
Cinco de Mayo, is a classic example of the rhetor choosing what is being communicated. After
all, I was in charge of writing the newsletter that week, and my original plan was to make
Happy Cinco de Mayo! the email subject line, and include a small piece of clipart or GIF at the

Amell 4
top of the Tuesday Tidbit before beginning the other stories. However, my supervisor, who is
always in charge of what content is included (she can be seen as the rhetor in this case), insisted
that I instead do an entire piece on the
history of Cinco de Mayo. She was very
picky about the GIF I selected, and she
insisted that this piece be the leading
story (see right). This situation supports
Vatzs theory because anything could
have been the main story that week
regardless of the independent situation
of it being the fifth of May. However,
my supervisors individual interests led
her to choose to emphasize the history of
Cinco de Mayo over other things. While
I agree that featuring this story had
value, I would not have originally
thought to do it myself, given the fact that I am admittedly less aware of the background of the
holiday. In this way, there really was no situation that prompted this story to be written. As a
matter of fact, depending on who was in charge of writing the Tidbit that week, it may not have
even been mentioned at all, let alone been made salient as the lead story for the week.

Amell 5
A recent Standing Ovation feature also provides evidence in favor of Vatzs opinion on
the rhetorical situation. The Standing Ovation in question featured a short shout-out to one of
our offices accountants, Galaanee
Saaqqataa, for being willing to help get rid of
bugs in the back hallway (see right). The
nature of this shout-out is playful, funny and
appreciative. Galaanee was nominated for
this Ovation because she was being selfless
and helpful in a situation that would make
most squeamish and uncomfortable. While
this is a kind gesture, it is not so salient on its
own as to automatically require an utterance,
as Bitzer suggests. Instead, it is something that a fellow coworker chose to emphasize out of
appreciation. Had this coworker not said anything, we would have even known to include it.
Even then, we had gotten several Standing Ovation requests from different people that week,
and ended up choosing to put this one on hold until we had gotten through a few of the other
ones. In this case, the rhetor (myself and my coworkers) chose not to make something salient on
our own terms. We picked a different nomination (featuring the finance team, pictured above on
page 3) to run that week instead. Regardless of which was more deserving or pressing of a
matter, regardless of the situation, we chose a specific order in which to send out the Standing
Ovations. In this way, it is clear that we are controlling the story and producing certain
discourse on our own, independent of the situation.

Amell 6
For these reasons, it seems that the School of Public Health Deans Office Tuesday Tidbit
supports Vatzs argument stating that rhetoric precedes a situation. The writers of the Tidbit are,
more often than not, choosing what to put in the newsletter based on what they individually want
to emphasize or deemphasize. While certain situations may arise that invite more of an utterance
than others, it is still always up to the rhetor how prominent it will based on the way it is written.
From there arises the situation.