Genesis of Rhetorical Action

Vatz’s problems the Rhetorical Situation were ethical and philosophical in nature. They were not very practical – a more practical approach realizes that without some variation on the rhetorical situation, studying discourse becomes incredibly difficult. I can’t imagine writing an analysis of a particular speech without using the term “situation” at least incidentally. But as I wrote previously, I do tend to disagree with the way the situation is purported to bring all discourse into being. I believe other factors must be considered. So does Bill Benoit, who challenged The Rhetorical Situation, and most theory about genre, with his theory of the “Genesis of Rhetorical Action.”

“Rhetorical discourse is called into existence by situation,” wrote Bitzer (p. 9). He granted even more power to the situation when he wrote, “The situation controls the rhetorical response in the same sense that the question controls the answer and the problem controls the solution. Not the rhetor and not persuasive intent, but the situation is the source and ground of rhetorical activity-and, I should add, of rhetorical criticism. (p. 6). Benoit (2000) has adopted and adapted Burke’s pentad in order to demonstrate that there are indeed factors other than the rhetorical situation that bring discourse into being.

Basically, Benoit used Burkean ratios to argue that scene, or situation, was not the only thing that could inspire an act. The purpose-act ratio, the agent-act ratio, and the agency-act ratio could also be responsible for generating a body of discourse. A rhetorical critic should approach a text by considering the influence of each other pentadic term on the act. The critic may find that the rhetor’s purpose best explains the creation of a discourse, and accounts for the specific nature of that discourse. It is also possible that this use of the pentad will only confirm that the scene is indeed the term with the most explanatory power over a particular message. Still, the value is in systematically considering each ratio before falling back on the rhetorical situation as Bitzer would have.

Admittedly, Benoit’s system, because it relies on Burke’s pentad, is guilty of the tendency in communication studies to rely on “elemental conglomerations” for describing and explaining discursive processes. Jenny Edbauer cites Louise Weatherbee Phelps as a major opponent of this sort of approach. Still, I believe the theory of the Genesis of Rhetorical Action is useful for opening up a universe of alternative explanations not only for why a piece of discourse exists, but for what that piece of discourse does, and how it does it.

Benoit, W. (2000). Beyond genre Theory: The genesis of rhetorical action. Communication
Monographs, 67(2), 178-192.