1. Royster's article resonated closely for its focus on the erasure, displacement, and appropriation of othered identities within the discourse communities. While Royster stresses upon inquiry and discovery as central processes that render visibility of the "other" voice, she also highlights the importance of refraining from narrow visions on both ends to create a culture of sharing and reciprocity. How important is the issue to your own teaching philosophy and why? In your own experience within discourse communities, have you ever felt erased or inspired to adopt the role of the negotiator? What lessons, if any, from the experience would you carry to your own classroom while teaching?
2. In "The Rhetorical Situation" Bitzer says that the rhetorical audience "consists only of those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and being mediators of change...it is true, of course, that scientists and poets present their work to audiences, but their audiences are not necessarily rhetorical (8)". To what extent is Bitzer's claim questionable? Do you find it assumptive of the idea that the audience of poetry are mere hearers or readers and that poetry doesn't implicitly carry theorizations of transformative power?
2. In "The Rhetorical Situation" Bitzer says that the rhetorical audience "consists only of those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and being mediators of change...it is true, of course, that scientists and poets present their work to audiences, but their audiences are not necessarily rhetorical (8)". To what extent is Bitzer's claim questionable? Do you find it assumptive of the idea that the audience of poetry are mere hearers or readers and that poetry doesn't implicitly carry theorizations of transformative power?
Hi Hera,
ReplyDeleteI think your question regarding Bitzer's categorization of some audiences being mediators of change, and thus rhetorical, and others as not due to the form they are hearing is quite interesting. In some ways Bitzer manages to slightly sidestep your push back when he says, "that the rhetorical discourse within a play or novel may become genuinely rhetorical discourse outside of fictive context" (11). I think that we can reasonably extend his exception for plays and novels to poetry, even if Bitzer would not do so himself. I think that what's important for us to consider poetry as just as capable of creating change through its audience as every other art form.
However, what I found most interesting in your question was the idea of thinking of a rhetorical audience as hearers. This clearly allows us to connect Bitzer's piece (from the 1960's) to Royster's conception of voice in 1996. For her the hearing of a voice is part of what allows that voice to have its power. No matter how true or real a voice is it must be acknowledged by the audiences available to it. I think that we might be able to conceive of a rhetorical situation as only possible of occurring inside of a discursive space where the speakers are heard and responded to, not just listened to.