The debate between Lloyd Bitzer and Richard Vatz focuses on one main question: Does rhetoric come from situations, or do situations come from rhetoric? Bitzer believes that situations already contain meaning and urgency, and these qualities “invite” a rhetorical response. Vatz, on the other hand, argues that rhetors create meaning by choosing what details to talk about and how to present them. While both make good points, I believe that rhetoric creates the situation because rhetors are the ones who give events their meaning, emotional impact, and importance.
Bitzer sees rhetoric as something that happens after a situation appears. In his view, an exigence, meaning a problem that needs to be addressed, exists first, and rhetoric comes second as a reaction to it. That means the situation controls what kind of response is appropriate. Bitzer writes, “rhetoric is a mode of altering reality, not by the direct application of energy to objects, but by the creation of discourse which changes reality through mediation of thought and action.” (Bitzer, p. 4) In other words, rhetoric matters, but only because the situation calls it into being and shapes what it must do.
Vatz argues the opposite. He believes exigence does not exist on its own; rhetors create it through their choices about what to highlight and what to ignore. For Vatz, events don’t come with built‑in meaning. Meaning appears only when someone decides how to frame the event. As he puts it, “meaning is not discovered in situations, but created by rhetors.” (Vatz, p. 157) This means the rhetor plays an active role in shaping how people understand what is happening.
My own example shows why Vatz’s view is more convincing. Imagine a university has a short Wi‑Fi outage that lasts fifteen minutes. One student leader sends a calm message saying it’s a minor issue. Another student posts dramatically online, claiming the outage proves the administration is incompetent and that students should “demand accountability.” Even though the event is the same, these two responses create completely different situations, one calm and one intense. The difference comes not from the outage but from the rhetoric used to describe it. The student who exaggerates the problem creates a crisis that didn’t exist before. This supports Vatz’s point that rhetors decide what becomes important.
In the end, Bitzer helps us see how rhetorical responses are shaped by context, but Vatz shows how meaning is actually made. Rhetors don’t just respond to situations; they help create them. Events don’t tell us what they mean; people do. And because people’s interpretations come before significance, rhetoric creates the situation rather than simply responding to it.
Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14.
Vatz, R. E. (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 6(3), 154–161.
aB . All Rights Reserved . 2026