Debating Debates

When debates are first mentioned, we tend to imagine a more modern version of one. You know, an academic/scholarly/professional setting, a mediator to keep track of time, and some people discussing  a variety of issues in about five minute intervals. But before these modern versions of debates there was a different type of debate, the Lincoln-Douglas style. Unlike modern debates which normally last for approximately 30 minutes, these debates would be hours and hours on end, with each side usually getting at least two hours to speak their part. During these times, it wasn't uncommon for them to pause the debate, dismiss the crowd to eat dinner, and return later for the second half. Despite all of the differences mentioned above, there is a more subtle yet intriguing difference between these debate styles.

During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, both speakers were able to fully and comprehensively explain their point. They had hours to make their case and were able to build the foundation of their argument with facts, background, and more in-depth explanation. In terms of being a participant in the debate, this opportunity to completely get the point across explained to the audience the reason behind why the speaker said what they said, and the audience, in turn, was able to analyze, dwell on, and respond (in their head) to that information. The audience member could, if they wanted to, have a full discussion and cite information given in that debate only, since so much of it was given.

Now a days, during a debate, participants get only a few minutes to state their argument, position, and  some backup information. While the time cut of a debate was inevitable and necessary for today's day and age, it also means that the speakers are robbed of the opportunity to completely state their argument. Since there are gaps in what they get the chance to say, a lot of blanks are individually filled in by the each member of the audience themselves. This leaves a lot of gray area to discuss, a lot of potential points to address, and even information that could be misinterpreted and mistakingly taken the wrong way. Unfortunately, in these modern debate styles, people are unable to address everything, like they could with the previous debate format. Since these compact versions of debates spark controversy and discussion but are not given the full amount of time needed to wholly delve into the topic, members of the audience draw their own conclusions and make their own points, basing them only off of what was said in two minutes.

As the audience members depart and talk about the debate they've just seen, or when the debate is shared on social media, many people don't do the necessary background research needed to take a stand on the debate topic. With so many people taking so many different, and even contradicting, things away from a debate, this leaves opportunity for individual debates amongst people about the original debate itself. Which side was right? Which speaker left out which important fact? Who answered the questions more directly? These are just beginning points of where the discussion would start, but as for where it goes, the possibilities are endless.

Before, debates were just that- debates. Each side came, said what they needed to say, the audience heard what they needed to hear, points were made, and a conclusion was drawn. Today, these shorter debates seem to double as both a mini version of what was happening before as well as a spark igniting the flame of discussion and debate among more and more people, and potentially reaching far beyond the audience in attendance. I can't help but wonder, what would Postman think of this? What do you think of this?  Do the shorter debate times make them more "amusing"?

Reminiscence or Remedy?

      In a world where public platforms are now saturated with heated Twitter feuds and alternative facts, the scope of public discourse is disheartening to most.  One only need look back on the nearly laughable absurdity of the 2016 presidential elections to realize the harrowing epitome public discourse has reached.  The presidential debates of this election left viewers to take away little more than brash antics and personal attacks on character, which were amplified by news networks and both political parties. 
       The current state of public discourse in our country makes it tempting to simply sit back and lament the way things should be, or even more enticing, the way things used to be.  This lingering nostalgia is perhaps best represented in the viral clip from the HBO series The Newsroom, in which anchorman Will McAvoy flatly states that “America is not the greatest country in the world anymore.”  He follows his statement with the glorification of how Americans used to be: strong, innovative, moral, and most importantly, informed by great men.
       While this scripted speech is certainly rousing on the surface, it is little more than that.  McAvoy does not extend his deep rooted reminiscence to a formidable solution for Americans and instead damns his audience of college students as the worst generation ever.  It is here where nostalgia for public discourse, and the overall state of our country, becomes detrimental. 
       It is unquestionable that there are major problems in the realm of public discourse and the path to fixing those problems seems challenging, if at all possible.  However, this is not an excuse for us to give up on the future of public discourse forever.  Learn from the past yes, but don’t become entrapped by it.  We live in a world full of technologies and networks that complicate public discourse and make the needed improvements feel overwhelming.  And overwhelming they are, yet still nothing will be achieved through a passive wistfulness for “simpler times."
       So what can we do now?  As cliché as it sounds, start with individual change.  Stay informed and engage in pro-active discourse within your own circles.  Be ready to speak and listen when it’s time.  We should continue to analyze public discourse through the lens of the past, but we must remember to keep our eyes set on the future.

Expounding On Bitzer & The Rhetorical Situation

When we were comparing different definitions of rhetoric on the second day of class, Lloyd Bitzer inevitably made an appearance. I just read Bitzer in my Digital Literacies class and feel that his ideas--though we may not always agree with them--are essential to the study of rhetoric and discourse. Let this function as a sort of informal guide to Bitzer’s epistemology for those who have not read his work, or would just like a refresher.

Lloyd Bitzer is an American rhetorician and is renowned for writing “The Rhetorical Situation”, in which he asserts that situations prescribe certain rhetorical responses or meanings. “The Rhetorical Situation” asserts the following: rhetoric is situational, situations invite a “fitting” rhetorical response, and the rhetorical situation is composed of the exigence, audience, and constraints.

Firstly, Bitzer insists that rhetoric is situational. He compares this to “primitive” language in which a situation demanded certain verbal responses: for example, if several fishermen are fishing together, then situations will arise that demand what they say or how they say it; for example, they might instructions like when to reel in or drop a net. Bitzer believes that we are similarly obligated to speak in rhetorical situations.

He also defines rhetoric as a mode of altering reality" via discourse. Rhetoric does not physically alter objects in reality, but nonetheless changes it through “mediation of thought and action”. In other words: rhetoric does not physically create a wall (or a chair, or a cat, or what have you) but it actively influences our perceptions of it.

Secondly, he provides a more concrete definition of the rhetorical situation as “a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence”. More simply, it’s a situation in which an exigence--a problem--can be changed via discourse. He clarifies that there are non-rhetorical exigencies, like death and natural disasters, which cannot be changed by discourse.

Rhetorical exigencies, Bitzer says, are “imperfections marked by urgency” and control rhetorical situations. Essentially every political issue is a rhetorical exigence, for example. Exigencies are important they essentially provoke the rhetorical situation.

Audience and constraints also make up the rhetorical situation. Audience is pretty self-explanatory, but constraints require a bit of an explanation. Bitzer’s constraints refer to everything that has the power to influence the rhetorical situation. They do not necessarily refer to one’s limitations, but instead to all the things at one’s disposal. The three artistic proofs, the speaker’s personal character, the size of the room that one is speaking in--all of these things are constraints. The exigence, audience, and constraints all come together to create the rhetorical situation.

Thirdly, rhetorical situations invite “fitting responses”. A fitting response is just that: a response that fits the situation. For example, if the president was supposed to address some national crisis and instead started talking at length about his childhood or some other unrelated issue, that would be an unfitting response. Bitzer also insists that fiction cannot create real discourse, though it can emulate it.

Many have taken issues with Bitzer’s ideas about the rhetorical situation. Richard Vatz, another rhetorician, criticizes Bitzer on the basis that people assign meaning to situations, and without inherent meaning situations cannot prescribe a certain response. Even though I agree with Vatz, I think Postman may have agreed with Bitzer. Bitzer’s belief that rhetoric is shaped by situation is strikingly similar to Postman’s ideas about how the medium of a message shapes its meaning. We could even say that Postman believes that medium “prescribes” thought processes. As we continue to read Postman, we should definitely keep Lloyd Bitzer in mind.