Blog 2: Rhetorical Situation

In the last class, the conversation was still focused on rhetoric, except the author of the reading had slightly different views of rhetoric than Aristotle. He stated that in order for something to be considered rhetoric, it had to be in response to a situation. This makes sense to me, since most of what I consider to be rhetoric is based off of something that has happened, like a politician giving a speech or a lawyer's words to a jury. The situation comes first, and then rhetoric follows. It is up to the author to decide however, if a particular situation requires a response, and to act in an appropriate way by responding to what the audience needs/wants to hear. If they do not address what they should, then they have missed their chance or handled the situation badly. To me, even though I'm neither a politician or a lawyer, I can still see this in my everyday life. If I get in a fight with one of my friends, it's common for me to only think of the right thing to say after the fight is already over. I continue to dwell on it, but the real point is that I missed my opportunity and didn't handle the rhetorical situation in a correct way. I know the author states that in order for it be considered rhetoric, there first has to be a situation, and in most instances I think that's correct. However, he brings up an example that a eulogy is only rhetoric if the person has died, and if eulogies are created without an audience for them, then they aren't considered rhetoric. I don't think this is necessarily true, and that it can't be so simple as to say that rhetoric only follows a situation. It's definitely true in some instances, but the rule cannot be considered absolute.
We also looked at a presidential speech made by Barack Obama at a Ramadan dinner at the White House. A word that was seen throughout the rhetoric article was exigence, which basically is a condition that needs to be addressed. All the situations that rhetoric follows are exigences, and like I said before, it's up to the author to determine what exactly the exigence(s) are. In his speech, he discussed Muslim Americans in response to hosting a Ramadan dinner. The dinner was an exigence, but there was also another one. Throughout the speech, there was a defensive tone and constant references back to the the founding fathers and the constitution, reminding the audience that freedom of religion and freedom period is what makes America what it is. This was in response to the controversy surrounding the construction of a mosque in ground zero, something many were against. By saying that ever since America's inception religious freedom has been a fact, he responded to those who were critical of the building. It wasn't he who made the decision, but the men who founded our country. He didn't necessarily have to respond to the controversy, but the situation presented itself and through his rhetoric, he addressed the exigences that were there.