Entry 1 (from week 2 of class)

1. On page 40 of Hauser’s text Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, we are given a list of situations, both real and imagined in which the significance and outcome of the situations depend entirely upon our personal definition and thought process. After reading Hauser’s statement, I began to dabble in the philosophical notion of reality, and wonder if it is entirely possible for two people to share the same definition and thought process on any given topic. What if my reality is that my hair is blonde, but your reality is that my hair is black? Does that change the fact that I have hair? Does the color matter? In this case, probably not. What happens though when someone else’s reality costs someone else their life? For instance, over this past summer, a woman who was hiking on Sauk Mountain near Rockport, Washington was mistaken for a bear and fatally shot by a 14-year old hunter. Now, I’m not asking us to determined guilt or innocence on the boy’s part, however, I do feel that this situation presents an interesting case to be examined because in this situation, because of one person’s reality (and we will assume lack of malicious intent), another person died. Now, if and when this boy stands trial for murder, how will his reality alter the jury’s view? Is there a case to say that because the boy believed he was shooting a bear, he is not a fault for murder, or, should he have been quote, “more careful”? How then, when it is obvious that our realities can be so different, do we find common ground? Is it possible to separate reality from perception?

Please refer to (http://www.kirotv.com/news/17075002/detail.html) for further information on the story presented in this question.

2. On page 46 of Hauser’s text, after giving the example about the West Nile Virus case, he discusses how Mr. Gulotta’s response to the situation helped shape how the citizens felt. He says, “Had Mr. Gulotta said nothing about the county taking aggressive action, but instead used the press conference to praise the Mets’ attempt to win the National League pennant, people were likely to think, ‘He’s avoiding the issue because he has something to hide; maybe the virus can’t be checked’ ”. Hauser’s statement that avoiding the issue because he had something to hide reminded me of the first Presidential Debate between Senator’s McCain and Obama which took place on Friday, September 26th, 2008. The first question of the evening was in regards to the financial package and what they were doing to fix the economic crisis. In my opinion, both candidates blatantly ignored the question and talked only about how pleased they were to represent their respective parties and to further reiterate what they would do once elected, rather than handle the question at hand. In a time when it is beginning to look like a good idea to cash out at the banks and keep your money under your mattress, do you think the candidates choice to avoid the question was the best fitting response (as defined by Hauser as, “Not necessarily a successful response, but one that is addressed to resolving the complex of factors that define the situation.”)? Also, in your opinion, what were the needs of the audience and how did the candidates adapt to the needs of the audience through the constituent elements of rhetorical situations?

3. On page 13 of Bitzer’s article, The Rhetorical Situation, he states “In the best of all possible worlds, there would be communication perhaps, but no rhetoric – since exigencies would not arise.” Given what we have learned so far, do you believe this statement is true? Why or why not?