The second of three constituents that Bitzer mentions in conjunction with the rhetorical situation is audience. In Vatz’s article, he mentions the responsibility of the rhetor to the audience for their creation of salience. Even further, Biesecker mentions that audience too can be a problem as other models treat it as an unproblematic and obvious site. While all of these points may seem broadly related but not directly connected, I found that they all coincided with the field of health communication and audience influence that I have previously studied.
In “Health Communication Theories,” Gary L. Kreps explains how the field of health communication in communication studies looks at the powerful roles performed by human and mediated communication in the delivery of health care and the promotion of individual and public health (464). This field is very broad and complex and incorporates a variety of research and theory from many areas, including rhetorical studies among others, such as intrapersonal and interpersonal communication, group communication, organizational communication, public relations, and more. Discourse in this field is looked at in terms of coordinating the effotrs of many different people in promoting health and delivering health care and how strategies can be used to disseminate relevant health information to key audiences (464). Health communication can be important as it is used to alter key publics’ perceptions about relevant and dangerous health risks and to coordinate prevention and response to public health emergencies (464). For these reasons, great responsibility and consideration go into the way situations are handled and conveyed to audiences through health communication.
There are many theories that deal with audience and how to best reach them in communication studies. These may or may not be used for health communication. In “Audience Theories,” Kim Christian Schroder addresses several of these, including the hypodermic needle theory (media effects are direct, immediate, and strong), the two-step flow theory (influence as a result of complex interrelations), uses-and-gratifications theory (audiences make use of media for their psychological and social needs), audience reception theories, and theories of collective creativity.
In “The Rhetorical Situation,” Bitzer argues that because rhetorical discourse produces change by influencing the decisions and actions of people, rhetoric always requires an audience (7). This ranges widely, however, and could be an actual audience or even just a person who engages himself or ideal mind as the audience. Bitzer also points out that a rhetorical audience must be distinguished from just a body of people, and must consist of “only of those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change” (8). This means that the rhetorical audience needs to be able to serve as a mediator of the change that the discourse is aiming at. Therefore, Bitzer is basically arguing that because rhetorical discourse promotes changes through its influence of audiences’ actions and desires, it requires that members can function as mediators of change.
To me, this idea of attempting to influence audiences’ actions and decisions with using mediators of change tied into public service announcements and campaign messages in relation to health communication. Communication theory, and I believe in turn rhetoric, is very important to consider when planning health communication campaigns and messages. It is crucial to tailor messages to particular audiences to best reach them. The goal is not only to change their perceptions (Bitzers’ decisions) on certain issues, but to also change their behaviors (Bitzers’ actions). Health communication is not effective if we simply change someone’s mind about something; we must also change what they do about it. Therefore rhetorical discourse in this field not only promotes change through its influence of audiences’ desires, but also their actions. Additionally, the majority of health communication messages also encourage audiences to serve as mediators of change. By passing the message on to family and friends, audiences can also influence and persuade others. Similarly, if some members of the audience are persuaded to change their beliefs and behaviors, they can set an example to others to do the same.
I also noticed that some of Vatz’s article connected to health communication messages. Vatz argues against Bitzer’s view of an objective rhetorical situation. He argues that rhetoric is a creation of reality or salience instead of a reflector of reality. Tied in with this, he comments that this increases moral responsibility for the rhetor (158) and thus ethics comes in. Because a rhetor chooses what is or is not important in situations, they are held responsible for what they convey about this salient information. He points out that the “rhetor’s responsibility is of supreme concern” because the choices he or she makes “will be seen as purposeful acts for discernable reasons” (158). Ethics also plays an important role in health communication. We are not only trying to convince the audience to believe or behave a certain way, but we are creating perceptions of truth surrounding certain health issues. We must do our best to communicate what is best for the audience’s health in the situation, or else it is morally wrong.
I also wanted to mention that I noticed that something in this week’s readings that applied to my object lesson from last week. When Vatz discusses the moral responsibility of the rhetor for what he chooses to make salient he ties this in by illustrating it through journalism and their ethical considerations. He says “The journalists who choose not to investigate corruption in government or the health needs of the elderly are also potential more culpable” (158). This relates directly to my discussion last week of how journalists construct truth and importance and the ethics associated with that. Leaving out information is just as bad as reporting false or misleading information. I thought this again fit very well with my discussion from last week.
If anyone would like to read “Health Communication Theories” or “Audience Theories,” I have hard copies of them. I do not have a link to them, as they are encyclopedic entries from previous coursework.
No comments:
Post a Comment