Whose Theories Create Better Communicators Bitzer v.

Vatz
After reading both texts regarding the rhetorical situation I would conclude that
neither Vatz nor Blitzer are more applicable in helping one become a good
communicator because their theories work well in some situations and poorly in others.
Bitzer states that speech is “given rhetorical significance by the situation” (Bitzer
28) which means that Blitz sees the situation as something more objective. A situation
where Bitzer’s ideas could be more helpful is something like a job interview. One could
argue that there is an objectively good job interview “script” that one could follow that
could garner the same results whether you are interviewing for a job at McDonald's or a
fortune 500 company. This idea is further emphasized when Bitzer discusses the
presidential inaugural address where he states that an inauguration “demands an
address which speaks to the nation’s purposes, the central national and international
problems, the unity of contesting parties; it demands speech style marked by dignity”
(Bitzer 23). So, some situations transcend Vatz’ idea that situations need
characterization by the rhetor and rather have a meaning that is already set-in stone
through tradition or experimentation and the only difference being the rhetor’s preferred
style.
Vatz’ main argument is that good rhetoric creates a situation (Vatz 54), this could
be applied to the field of clinical psychology because no two patients are alike, so every
situation requires a different approach and rhetoric. Say that a therapist has two
different clients who suffered from depression due to a loss of a loved one. If the
therapist were to apply Vatz’ theories, they could treat the same problem of depression
between the two patients as completely different situations and thus change the way
that they treat them. This would not only make the treatment effective but would also
strengthen the therapist-client relationship.
Additionally, Vatz’ idea that “meaning is not discovered in situations but created
by rhetors.” (Vatz 53) is very applicable to the current societal trends that we see today.
We see the biggest example of this with the problem of “fake news” and “alternative
facts”. Many articles and essays are being published with false or misleading
information which makes it so pure objectivity is becoming more and more difficult to
come by. It has reached the point that the only way to experience a completely objective
situation is to experience it for yourself and even then, it can be clouded by one’s own
biases.
Overall, I find the question of who is more helpful to be trivial since it is not
necessarily the ideas that matter but the context to which they are being used.