It’s uncommon for me to respond to arguments in order to show my disagreement or how I don’t think their theories work since I worry approaching texts negatively can be petty and unproductive. That said, the notion presented in Smith’s article, not unlike part of Lloyd Bitzer’s discussion on the Rhetorical situation, that “not every act of communication is rhetorical, and not all communication theories provide a rhetorical perspective” (115) seems like a notion that would be inappropriate to leave unexamined.  In a post-Burkean era, it’s odd to find an argument that claims there are things Rhetoric cannot be. Certainly I can see the anxiety of certain fields baulking at what they perceive as an invasion by rhetoricians and technical writers into their specialized fields, but denying that certain things and certain kinds of communication are rhetorical just seems odd and unproductive to understanding Rhetoric.

Smith adds to her explanation of what Rhetoric’s not that “More importantly, rhetoric does not have to do with every grunt and groan or every word we say. Rhetoric also excludes merely expressing oneself in a haphazard way to others in general, or to oneself” (115). For the purpose of using this towards technical writing, it’s fair to agree that not every situation will match Bitzer’s idea of the rhetorical situation since Bitzer believes both that not all situations are rhetorical and that situations are defined by constraints and context. So, it would then be fair to say that grunting or haphazardly expressing one’s self may not meet Bitzer’s paradigm of the rhetorical situation, but certainly as rhetoricians we can find that any cough, grunt, or self-expression may not only contain rhetoric, but bring one of Bitzer’s rhetorical situations into being or lead to Smith’s idea of rhetorical communication.

It is useful to amend Smith and Bitzer’s ideas with Richard Vatz’s response to Bitzer’s argument. Vatz is accurate in identifying that the very core flaw of Bitzer’s argument that “Rhetorical discourse is called into existence by situation; the situation which the rhetor perceives amounts to an invitation to create and present discourse” (Bitzer, 9) is that is impossible to easily define what constitutes a “situation” just as it would be necessary to pin down what constitutes “communication” to Smith. And why? “Bitzer argues that the nature of the context determines the rhetoric. But one never runs out of context. One never runs out of facts to describe a situation. What was the ‘situation’ during the Vietnam conflict? What was the situation of the 1972 elections? What is any historical situation?” (Vatz, 156).

So the problem with identifying a “situation” is that there’s too much context to say what any situation really is just as there may be a great deal of context to identify whether or not any communication is rhetorical in Smith’s terms; yet, it seems completely feasible to study the rhetoric of a grunt or self expression (general or specific) in many smart and legitimate ways.

This obviously has theoretical implications, but it also has pedagogical implications regarding the technical writing classroom and the engagement with the audience, which can be sorted out by examining Robert Johnson’s article, “Audience Involved.” Robert Johnson smartly addresses the issue of making documents in a way that properly address audiences by engaging the audience members with tests that seek to discover the usability of a product or process. Johnson believes this leads to an involved audience that helps shape the discourse and shape the rhetorical meaning of the event: “Finally, not only does the involved audience literally bring audiences ‘into the open,’ but these actively sought out and valued members of the discourse production community engage students directly in the pubic sphere” (101). This strongly relates to Vatz’s notion that “Rhetors choose or do not choose to make salient situations, facts, events, etc. This may be the sine qua non of rhetoric: the art of linguistically or symbolically creating salience” (160).

The danger then in acknowledging either Smith or Bitzer’s notion that some things are not rhetorical is this: a paradigm where things are not rhetorical allows for the establishment of a binary where some things hold a certain level of importance and value in communication, and others don’t. Bitzer’s theory obviously has to function this way or he would never be able to excuse the multitude of different contexts that affect the outcome of any situation. Similarly, Smith defining certain kinds of communication outside of rhetorical importance minimizes the value of these speech acts to a larger level of context. Usability tests, as Johnson has rightly identified, allow technical writers to address their writing with a better idea of who their audiences are and how the different kinds of audiences or audience members help shape the different contexts they must write for. This also keeps the writers from de-valuing the importance of different elements to their writing (like clarifying jargon or including warnings) as they may if they were to put these items outside of rhetorical communication or situation of the event they were writing towards.

Burke seemed to think that anything could be rhetorical and ultimately this is useful insomuch as it allows us to assign a certain elevated value to all levels of communication and take into account a wider scope when writing technical documents. In this regard, the rhetorician is not unlike a coroner who opens the body and respectfully and carefully examines the inner workings of the processes and then knows the importance of all the different pieces both individually and as a whole. The rhetorician here must take into account the importance of everything before him or her, and not go about naming which parts are important and which are not; that precise kind of thinking can lead to disasters like we saw in both shuttle crashes. Being aware of the user, the audience, and the interactions that come from all kinds of communication will best prepare students of technical writing to address documents and situations both ethically and rhetorically.

Sources:

Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 25, (1968): 1-14.   JSTOR. Web. 27 Aug. 2012

Johnson, Robert. “Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing.” Central   Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 91-103. Print.

Smith, Tania. “What Connection Does Rhetorical Theory Have to Technical and Professional Communication?’ Readings for Technical Communication. Ed. Jennifer MacLennan.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 114-121. PDF

Vatz, Richard E. “The Myth Of The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 6.3 (1973): 154-161. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 1 Sept. 2012.