A Priest, a Paranoid Nun, and The Rhetorical Situation

    In refuting Bitzer's "The Rhetorical Situation", Richard E. Vatz privileges rhetoric with greater authority. He reverses many of Bitzer's arguments, and in doing so, positions rhetorical discourse as the cause, and not the effect, of "a situation's impact" and meaning. Rhetoric shapes and dictates reality, Vatz argues. His view that rhetorical discourse constructs and shapes reality sits in opposition to Bitzer's belief that rhetorical "situations are discrete and discernible"; they are "objective, publicly observable, and historic". Bitzer sets parameters for the situation because rhetorical discourse, according to him, plays no part in creating the situation; the situation already exists. But who determines that a situation is "publicly observable and historic"? Bitzer misses a step here, and neglects to take into account the "choices" that go into "presenting" information to the public.

    Bitzer's definition of "the exigence component" is also problematic. Rather than treat "exigency" as a result of rhetorical discourse - a process of decision-making about what "should be done", he characterizes it as a given assumption, prior to rhetoric. Problems such as pollution (which Bitzer brings up) and war are universally understood as harmful to society, therefore, they lack any conflicting viewpoints. What qualifies as "an imperfection" in society is in actuality often more ambiguous than what Bitzer would believe. To his credit, however, Bitzer does state that in some cases, when "the matter is uncertain - because the exigence might be rhetorical" -  the exigence is "indeterminate". But since Bitzer doesn't believe that rhetoric can control the nature of the exigency, little can be accomplished.

    Vatz brings up the fact that Bitzer fails to address the ethical dimension involved with exigency. For this reason, I intend to discuss the 2008 film, Doubt, which illustrates the fact that exigencies don't always 'just happen' in the world (as Bitzer would suggest), but sometimes emerge through gradual processes of rhetorical discourse.
     At the beginning of the film, a minor exigency is brought to attention when Sister Aloysius (played by Meryl Streep), the principal of the Catholic school, discusses the sermon earlier in the day by Father Flynn (played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman). She asks her fellow nuns at dinner why Father Flynn would be inclined to speak about doubt. Might it be related to some past improper behavior on his part? she asks. She advises them to keep an eye on Father Flynn, should any indiscretions occur. This is an example of rhetorical discourse creating an exigency. The suspicious nature of Meryl Streep's character makes something out of nothing, so to speak. This "translation of the [sermon] into meaning...is a rhetorical act of transcendence" (Vatz), which allows Sister James (Amy Adams) and the other nuns to become aware of an exigency, even as harmless as the topic of a sermon.

     As the plot unfolds, Amy Adams' character encounters a situation which builds upon Sister Aloysius' (Streep) earlier suspicion about Father Flynn (Hoffman). One day, she notices that Donald Miller, the altar boy of the school, is visibly upset after meeting with Father Flynn. While comforting him, she smells alcohol on his breath, and later witnesses the Father putting a white shirt in the boy's locker. Sister James then reports what she has seen to Sister Aloysius.  Sister James' response was "determined by the situation" and it "fits the situation" (Bitzer). This scene serves as the overriding exigence of the film; it is the circumstantial evidence that sets Sister Aloysius on a personal mission to prove Father Flynn a pedophile and to have him removed from the church. If Sister Aloysius hadn't used rhetoric to create an exigency (in the first clip), it is uncertain whether or not Sister James would have reported what she had seen.

     In the final clip, Sister Aloysius confronts Father Flynn and demands that he tell her the truth about the situation (the suspected relationship between he and the child). She tries to add credibility to the situation by revealing that she has investigated his past, and knows about his frequent moves between parishes in the past. The film ends with Father Flynn resigning, and it remains uncertain whether or not Sister Aloysius' allegations were true.

 

      Given the ethical and criminal implications of the exigency (Father Flynn's suspected improper relations with the boy), Meryl Streep must rely on rhetorical discourse to keep the situation both relevant and significant. With no evidence of the exigency, apart from what Sister James has told her, she creates meaning for the situation. Rhetorical discourse governs and controls the exigency (Vatz)  much more so than the exigency dictating the discourse. With the main constraint being the facts of the situation, Meryl Streep's character must keep her discourse private and away from the public audience. The film aligns much more closely with Vatz's views that meaning and exigency are produced as a result of rhetoric, even if the discourse is never substantiated.