My confusion with constitution

In English 225 this week, we continued to discuss an article by Maurice Charland entitled "Constitutive Rhetoric: The Case of the People Quebecois."  In this article, Charland uses Kenneth Burke's work to discuss how one my use identification in their rhetoric before they can begin to persuade their audience.  According to Charland, in the rhetorical process, you must use identification to "hail" your audience.  The idea of "hailing" or "interpellating" your audience comes from Louis Althusser, who says that you recruit or transform individuals, making them become subjects of your argument from the very beginning.  Of course, the person has the option to just ignore your hailing; in other words, just because you say "hey, you there!" doesn't mean that the person will acknowledge you.

You don't just hail people on the street, you also hail them in your writing and your arguments; or, at least you should!  When writing, we often assume that the people who will read our article are already open to the the argument, but this isn't always the case.  Instead of just delving into your argument, you must first "constitute" the subject.  Honestly, when I first read the article, I kept reading the term "constitutive" and could only relate it to my science classes; in genetics, a constitutive promoter is a DNA regulatory region that makes the gene hooked up to it "always on".  Therefore, the first time I read this article, the term "constitutive rhetoric" was confusing.  I didn't understand how you could "always" your audience.  Instead, our teacher Brett used the constitution to explain that you constitute something, you create it, you form it.  Well, although this clarified things, it definitely made me realize the importance of taking other classes, to get myself out of my science classes, and realize that studying just one subject limits your knowledge and approaches to thinking.  Anyway, sorry for the side note...moving on...

Do bloggers "constitute" their audiences?  We often assume that those reading our posts already know where we are coming from, or what we expect.  When I started thinking about writing this blog, I thought whether I constituted my audience.  I often just think that English 225 members and Brett were reading my blog, and that's all I really thought about.  But, Brett has previously told me to explain my concepts more because this blog is public, and others may be reading it (unlikely, but a nice thought).  So, I guess I have changed a little bit in my writing.  I try to explain concepts that those in my class already know, not because I want to bore them, but because I am acknowledging my possible other audience. But is acknowledging another audience the same as "creating" them?  I'm not really sure.  I don't think I create them.  I don't often try to build community and relate to those who may not be open to my opinions before I make my arguments, but maybe I do? 

Perhaps even more interesting to me is the idea of commercials and whether they "constitute" their audiences, or whether their audience already exists.  I think there are definitely two sides to this argument, and I can't say that I agree 100% with either side. 

One side of the commercial & constitutive audience argument is that commercials don't constitute their audience because they audience is already created/called out to by the television show that is on.  I was watching some court TV shows today (Judge Judy, Judge Alex, etc.) and I noticed that a ton of the commercials were about lawyers and attorneys.  Believe me, if you need an attorney, watch Fox between 2-4PM.  Nearly every commercial had a lawyer: "only an attorney can help you every step of the way," "call Sam Bernstein,"  "we'll fight for you."  Did these commercials create an audience?  I lean towards saying no, because those who are watching the show are already looking to get legal info, are interested in the legal process, or are intrigued by the cases they will see.  So, placing these commercials between the legal shows isn't the same as between comedies.  If the commercials were in between scenes from "Two & a Half Men," they would call out to the audience more, they would have to create the audience, but that task is already done by Judge Judy when placed after one of her verdicts.

On the other hand, one could argue that, no matter where they are placed, the commercials do create their audience.  Even if the type of audience is called out by the type of show that is on, that doesn't mean that the commercials don't have to call out to you.  The attorney commercials try to make the audience see that their clients are just like everyone else.  The "clients" (in quotation marks since they are actually actors), look just like everyday people, they have everyday cases, and you feel like you can relate to them.  Then, they actually call out to the audience: "only an attorney can help YOU every step of the way" or "don't let them take advantage of YOU".  It seems that in fact, the commercials are calling out to the viewer, "hailing" them.  I agree with this position as well.  However, I just think they make their job a lot easier by targetting an already law-interested consumer rather than addressing those who don't follow law.  To what extent do commercials between shows that are similar to their claim call out to the audience, and to what extent have they already been created...I wonder, although I'm not sure there's a clear cut answer.

Next time you are watching TV, pay attention to the commercials and the context in which they are shown.  Do you think they created an audience, or was the audience already created? Does it depend on the product they are selling (a car commercial vs. a furniture one?)?  In either case you have to create or relate to your audience in some way, but to what extent?  What are your thoughts?