The arguments surrounding the rhetorical situation and its supposed myth do not seem to be as pressing or meaningful as Moutford's issues raised in "On Gender and Rhetorical Space." Bitzner argues that the situation is the source of rhetorical activity, while Vatz claims that rhetoric controls the situational response. Consigny offers an intelligent blending of the two theories by recognizing that the situation is not determinate nor determining, and that there are real constraints on the rhetor's activity. He does, however, agree that the rhetorical situation is characterized by "particularities," and that the rhetor is indeed creative. It seems to me that people will respond to situations in creative ways, in addition to creating situations to which to respond. Exactly how or why this happens does not seem of pressing importance. The capricious, volatile nature of the human being makes it difficult to describe or account for human motivation and discourse, and I think all these articles need a greater emphasis on psychology to add to their credibility.
Moutford's article seemed more authentic and immediately relevant. While I'm not particularly interested in the ideas presented about gender or pulpits, I am interested in the cultural implications of space, including "the intersection of social behavior and material space," (49) as described by Henri Lefebvre. I would like to read more about this topic, and at least two books or articles from this reading caught my eye. As rhetoricians, we cannot and should not ignore material space.