Grant-Davie begins his essay with an explanation of cause and effect.

Using a
history book analogy he says that we need to ask why something happened not just
simple facts about what happened. He said that if one understands why decisions
are made and why things turn out that way one will understand why writers make
decisions concerning rhetorical situation. Next, he compares definitions of rhetorical
situation from Bitzer, Vatz, and Consigny. Bitzer defined rhetorical situation as the
context in which speakers or writers create rhetorical discourse. He highlights the
fact that the rhetors response to the situation is controlled by the situation. If the
speaker or writer sees a need to change reality, they see that the change may be
effected through rhetorical discourse. Vatz challenges Bitzer saying that situations
do not exist without rhetors. He says that rhetors create rather than discover
rhetorical situations. They answer and ask the question. Consigny says that both
Bitzer and Vatz are right and wrong. He says that rhetoric should involve integrity
which is the ability to apply a standard set of strategies effectively to any situation
the rhetor may face. This supports Vatzs claim. He also says that it should include
receptivity which is the ability to respond to the conditions and demands of
individual situations. This supports Bitzers claim. He then uses an analogy talking
about how carpenters have a limited amount of tools to do their job with, but they
dont always choose the same tool because it doesnt limit the carpenters
perception of the job. This brings together the two claims and really explains the
need for both views when writing.
Grant-Davie then goes into identifying the constituents of situation. He briefly says
that Bitzer identifies the constituents as exigence, audience, and constraints. The
author disagrees and adds rhetor to the list. He then starts explaining exigence. He
says that it is the matter and motivation of the discourse taking place. It is the fact
and definition, the cause and value, and the goals the discourse should accomplish.
The rhetor is the person or people responsible for the discourse and its authorial
voice. They must be aware of their identity and the fact that it will vary from
situation to situation. The rhetor may play several roles that are constrained by the
other constituents of the rhetorical situations and by the identities they bring to the
table. The audience is people with whom the rhetors negotiate through discourse to
achieve the rhetorical objectives. They are present and future audiences reading for
every reason. The audience isnt just who the rhetor had in mind, it is anyone who
reads the piece. The question was raised: not who is the audience but how a
discourse defines and creates context for readers. The constraints are factors in the
situations context that may affect the achievement of the rhetorical objectives.
They have the power to constrain the decision and action needed to modify the
exigence. The authors definition of this concept is all factors in a situation, aside
from rhetor and audience, that may lead the audience to be either more or less
sympathetic to the discourse and that may therefore influence the rhetors reponse
to the situation.
The first essay we read was formatted in a way that was easier understood. The
concepts were clearly defined in a story telling way that I feel was more thought
provoking than this essay. It talked more about the meaning of the discourse to the
audience rather than the technical question one must ask themselves when writing.

I think both of the essays change my understanding of rhetoric in different ways.

The first essay made me understand the true meaning of rhetoric and the meaning
behind it. The second essay helped me to think about the rhetorical situation from a
more organized point of view.