The Rhetorical Situation and Intertextuality in Lehrer's "The Future of Reading"

Earlier today, two people in front of me in line were discussing how when they read, most of the time they will be halfway through a page of text and realize that they have no idea what they just read. Their mind was simply somewhere else. I think we all can relate to becoming numb to words on a page or, in Lehrer’s argument, especially, words on a screen.

In his article “The Future of Reading”, Lehrer draws on his personal experiences to explain that the technological advances of text are making the act of reading too easy, and therefore jeopardizing our conscious contemplation of a sentence’s meaning.  

Lehrer recounts a study by Stanislas Dehaene that explains that when we passively read we use a “pathway” in our brain known as the ventral route, a direct and efficient area that accounts for the majority of our reading. It makes it possible for us to read without feeling as though we are exerting any effort. Dehaene explains that when we actively read we stimulate a part of our brain know as the dorsal stream, used when we pay conscious attention to the words of a sentence. Clearly the two people in line in front of me were discussing their passive reading habits.

Lehrer elaborates on Dehaene’s research by claiming that familiar words printed in Helvetica on clear screens can be read quickly and effortlessly. “Meanwhile, unusual sentences with complex clauses and smudged ink tend to require more conscious effort, which leads to more activation in the dorsal pathway.” (Lehrer)

In his essay “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents” Grant-Davie claims that a rhetorical situation involves exigence, rhetors, audience, and constraints. James Porter, in his essay “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community” focuses on the relationship between intertextuality, which stems from the idea that we all have a shared web of meaning, and discourse community. Drawing on ideas of Grant-Davie and Porter, the rhetorical situation of Lehrer’s “The Future of Reading” can be described as intertextual. These elements of the rhetorical situation and intertextuality work together to make Lehrer’s article effective. We see that not only Lehrer’s message, but the way in which he delivers his message, is responsible for the article’s success. 

Based on Grant-Davie’s ideas, the rhetorical situation in Lehrer’s article is constructed using four key concepts, but I will focus on the exigence, constraints, and audience. The exigence in this particular situation is the increasing popularity of digital texts, and the constraints include genre, length, and medium, just to name a few. Lehrer seems to have analyzed his audience by focusing on the intertext of the discourse community, which Porter suggests is the most effective way to reach an audience.

Intertextuality is used as Lehrer introduces Stanislas Dehaene’s findings. This boosts Lehrer’s argument and credibility. All of the short anecdotes Lehrer incorporates, such as quips about auxiliary cords, overweight baggage at the airport, HD TV, and the use of Helvetica also serve as intertextual elements.  The intertext Lehrer offers with these anecdotes unites the reader and writer by bringing about mutual understanding about a topic.

Lehrer’s rhetorical situation is what the audience responds to, but the intertext embedded in Lehrer’s writing shapes the article and creates a discourse community. Lehrer plays on the idea of community by using the shared understanding among readers to his advantage. Even if a reader does not personally relate to Lehrer’s experiences, he or she can still appreciate and understand his message through his intertextual anecdotes and becomes influenced by his pathos.

In text production, medium influences content. One of the most important ideas Lehrer mentions in his article is that “every medium starts to influence the message…technology will feedback onto the content, making us less willing to endure harder texts.” Like he said earlier in the article, technology is constantly making it easier for us to perceive content. Reading is not necessarily supposed to be easier, the most rewarding books or ideas require effort. This idea is actually quite profound, and Lehrer does an excellent job using Aristotelian logic to elicit readers’ consideration without exaggerating his point.

Porter explains that the intertextual nature of discourse shifts our attention away from the writer as an individual and instead focuses on the sources and social contexts from which the discourse arises. Upon first reading this, one may draw the conclusion that it is not applicable in Lehrer’s case because Lehrer’s article is very personal. Since the article is in first person, most of the information comes through the writer as an individual; however, by using rhetorical techniques, Lehrer manages to focus the content on the social context of the discourse. The reader is left feeling as if these were his or her own thoughts and is hardly thinking specifically about the author, but rather the implications of the article’s content.

Just as Grant-Davie stresses the importance of the timing and social context of a rhetorical situation, Porter emphasizes looking beyond the intertext to the social framework that regulates textual production. One of the most effective aspects of Lehrer’s writing is that it is relevant in today’s society.

Lehrer’s implementation of rhetorical strategies shapes his argument and appeals to the discourse community. He introduces the exigence in an entertaining and relatable way and offers a solution to it. The article is concise but the reader does not feel cheated of information.

As the people in line with me were talking, one of the girls admitted that she even fell asleep while she was reading on her phone. This exemplifies Lehrer’s argument perfectly. Even Lehrer acknowledges that the pleasure of reading on his easy-to-read Kindle might explain why it helps him fall asleep.