Ever felt like you said the exact right thing at the exact wrong time? Or maybe you’ve watched a politician give a speech that felt totally "off," even if the grammar was perfect and the teleprompter was running smoothly.
Honestly, we’ve all been there.
That disconnect—the gap between what is said and what the moment actually requires—is the heart of what Lloyd Bitzer was obsessed with back in 1968. When he published his landmark essay, Lloyd Bitzer The Rhetorical Situation, he wasn't just trying to bore college students. He was trying to figure out a fundamental truth: rhetoric doesn't just happen in a vacuum. It’s "called into existence" by the world around us.
Basically, Bitzer argued that the situation is the boss. The speaker is just the employee.
What is the Rhetorical Situation, Really?
Bitzer defines the rhetorical situation as a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations that present an "exigence." That’s a fancy academic word for a problem that can be fixed with words.
Think about it this way.
If your house is on fire, you don't need rhetoric. You need a hose. You need "direct energy." But if you need to convince the city council to build a new fire station so your house doesn't burn down next year? That’s a rhetorical situation. You’re using discourse to change reality through the "mediation of thought and action."
✨ Don't miss: Green Emerald Day Massage: Why Your Body Actually Needs This Specific Therapy
Bitzer’s big idea was that a situation invites a specific kind of response. It’s like a question that demands an answer. If you give a eulogy at a wedding, you’ve failed the rhetorical situation. You didn't give a "fitting response."
The Three Pillars: Exigence, Audience, and Constraints
Bitzer broke this down into three main ingredients. If you’re missing one, you don't have a rhetorical situation. You just have someone talking to themselves.
1. Exigence This is the spark. It’s an "imperfection marked by urgency." It is something that is "other than it should be." But here’s the kicker: it has to be something you can actually change by talking. Death, as Bitzer points out, is an exigence, but it’s not rhetorical because no amount of talking brings people back. However, the grief of the living? That’s rhetorical. You can soothe that with a speech.
2. The Audience In Bitzer’s world, the audience isn't just whoever is in the room. It’s specifically the people who are "capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change." If you’re preaching to the choir, and the choir can't actually do anything about the problem, they aren't technically a rhetorical audience. They’re just listeners. To have a real rhetorical situation, you need people who can actually move the needle.
3. Constraints These are the fences around the speaker. They can be "artistic" (things the speaker creates, like their reputation or their logical proof) or "inartistic" (facts, documents, or even the beliefs of the audience). If you’re trying to convince a group of vegans to eat steak, their beliefs are a massive constraint. You can’t just ignore them. You have to work within those boundaries to find a fitting response.
Why Bitzer and Vatz Still Fight (Metaphorically)
You can't talk about Bitzer without mentioning Richard Vatz. In 1973, Vatz basically told Bitzer, "You’ve got it all backward."
🔗 Read more: The Recipe Marble Pound Cake Secrets Professional Bakers Don't Usually Share
Bitzer believed the situation is objective. A crisis happens (like the JFK assassination, which Bitzer used as an example), and the rhetor responds to that objective reality. Vatz, on the other hand, argued that situations aren't objective at all. He believed the speaker creates the situation by choosing what to talk about.
Think about a "crisis" in the news today.
Is it a crisis because it’s objectively a crisis, or because a politician or a news anchor used their "rhetorical power" to tell us it’s a crisis? Vatz thought the rhetor has all the agency. Bitzer thought the situation held all the cards.
It’s a classic chicken-and-egg scenario.
The "Fitting Response" in 2026
We live in a world of 24/7 "exigencies." Every time you see a viral thread on X or a TikTok "call-out," you’re seeing someone attempt to navigate a rhetorical situation.
But why do some messages flop?
💡 You might also like: Why the Man Black Hair Blue Eyes Combo is So Rare (and the Genetics Behind It)
Usually, it’s because they fail the "fittingness" test. If a CEO posts a "crying selfie" after laying off 500 people, the exigence (the layoffs) is real. The audience (the employees and the public) is real. But the constraints (the expectation of professional accountability) are completely ignored. The response isn't "fitting." It’s a rhetorical train wreck.
How to Use Bitzer in Your Real Life
You don't need to be a speechwriter to use this. Whether you’re asking for a raise, writing an apology text, or trying to convince your friends to go to a specific restaurant, you can use Bitzer’s framework to increase your odds of success.
- Identify the Real Exigence: What is actually the problem here? Is your boss annoyed that the project is late, or are they worried about how it makes them look to their boss? Address the actual urgency.
- Audit Your Audience: Are you talking to the person who can actually say "yes," or are you just venting to someone who has no power?
- Respect the Constraints: If you know your friend is broke right now, don't suggest the $100-a-plate sushi spot. That constraint is an "inartistic" reality you have to navigate.
Bitzer’s work reminds us that rhetoric is pragmatic. It’s meant to get stuff done. If your words aren't changing the world—or at least changing the room—you might want to look at the situation again.
To master your own communication, start by looking at the "imperfections" in your environment. Before you speak, ask yourself if your words are a tool to fix that imperfection or just noise in an already crowded room. Reflect on the last time a conversation failed; was it because the audience lacked the power to help, or because you ignored a major constraint? Identifying these gaps is the first step toward becoming a more "fitting" communicator.
Actionable Insights for Navigating Your Next Rhetorical Situation:
- Analyze the Urgency: Before speaking, determine if the problem is "rhetorical" (solvable through communication) or "material" (requires physical action). Stop trying to talk your way out of problems that require a wrench.
- Target the "Mediators of Change": Stop wasting persuasive energy on people who agree with you but have no power. Pivot your message toward those who can actually execute the solution.
- Map the Constraints Early: List the "non-negotiables" of your audience—their values, their time limits, and their biases. Treat these as the rules of the game rather than obstacles to be ignored.