Sir Isaac Newton was struck with a thought when the apple fell from the tree. That thought blossomed into an idea: the idea of gravity. Of course many discoveries have been made about science since Newton's time, including many during the Enlightenment. However not every thought-provoking secret of life has been revealed, but by looking at today's society one would assume that everything has been thought about. In "The Elusive Big Idea" Neal Gabler describes our society as being empty-minded and unable to produce big ideas because our technological inventions are not thought-provoking and truly beneficial to all aspects of society. Our society's viewpoint, which is currently thoughtless according to Gabler, is an example of a rhetorical situation because, according to Bitzer, it can be analyzed and changed. A rhetorical situation is a position that exists because of the rhetoric it contains and that has discourse. A rhetorical situation is defined by three parts: the exigence, audience, and constraints.

The exigence, or problem, that Gabler accosts in his article is that technological advances and social media demote intellectual conversation. By having internet access to Facebook, Twitter, and the all-knowing Google by the means of cellphones, laptops, and tablets, immediate information is something we have become accustomed to. If we do not know something our immediate response is to "Google it." We desire to know everything, which is not a bad thing, but it can become engrossing. How can a thousand facts that do not relate benefit us or cause to actually reflect and think? A new iPhone comes out every couple months, but that is not promoting ideas. These inventions demote actual conversation because we are so captivated by the glowing screen that we do not find time to talk about meaningful concepts. If we stop long enough to put down our electronics, and concentrate on the bigger picture and bigger thoughts, we would be starting to get somewhere. Gabler challenges his audience to "not just ... apprehend the world but to truly comprehend it," (2) like they did in the past when it came to knowledge. Since we just gather many pieces of information, we should analyze the ones with meaning to try to understand them.

The audience of "The Elusive Big Idea" is those who want to be inspired and break society's cycle of gulping down information. Or more simply put, those who were able to read through the article without tossing it aside because it required too much thought process. The audience consists of people who want to bring back revolutionary ideas and thoughts into conversations. According to Bitzer, they are "capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change" (8). These are people who believe that changes in the way we think about ideas are needed and not just in the sense of advancement by inventions. Examples of people who could possibly be in the audience are people who are unsatisfied with today's society and people who are interested in having conversations about phenomenal, debated topics. These people are the ones who have PhD's in philosophy, economics, or psychology. Or maybe it is just people who have an inspiring story to tell. There are some people, who have opposing arguments that believe that our generations are steadily outsmarting the previous ones, could be the target of Gabler's article. Gabler could be trying to prove those opposing wrong by pointing out big names of the past and not acknowledging those thinkers of the present as worthy.  

The constraints of diminishing ideas are the opposing arguments that favor technological advances and the benefits of informative facts. Some people believe technological advances are beneficial for society in every way. They help people communicate instantaneously from long distances, provide answers to help in emergencies, and give us answers to some challenging questions. While some innovations are beneficial such as robots that allow homebound students to attend class and artificial organs, not all advances are as life-altering. If we expanded our thought to focus on how life works and question everything that existed we would have a more educated population than those with smartphones. Social media, like Twitter and Facebook, helps us keep in contact with those far away, but is used most as a way to stalk ex-boyfriends and let everybody know every single action we perform. 
Because today's young adult generation is addicted to knowing everything that is happening right this second, they do not desire to seek out deep thoughts. Posting lyrics of your favorite song or a quote by Confucius is not considered deep thought to Gabler. Deep thought is reflecting on what happens and questioning why. Newton observed the apple falling from the tree and wondering why and what allowed it to. Even though thinking has delayed value, and not immediate like knowing, does not mean that it should be ignored or not produced from knowledge. Proving you can walk away from your iPhone for five minutes and have an intellectual, face-to-face conversation is an admirable trait.

This article, however, does have some limitations. It limits discussions of today's idealists and makes it seem like these people will never be acknowledged for what they have done. People in the modern era that have accomplished big ideas are popular and respected in the scientific and psychological communities. Many medical advances have been made, such as multiple sclerosis pills and discoveries that give us more knowledge about breast cancer. Also Gabler hints at the proposal that big thinkers are going to die out. I disagree with that belief because when I was in middle school it was uncommon to have learned Algebra 2 until high school; now it is the norm for them to be taught it in middle school. That goes for other subjects, like English and science. I know many scholarly thinkers around my age like those who are doing ground-breaking research at universities across the world so I do not believe that we will disappoint our past generations as Gabler seems to think. Gabler does not dwell on why he thinks that there will no longer be theorists, so his belief is not supported in this article. 

This article, in short, is addressing the need for more revolutionary thinkers to make sure society does not become possessed by modern inventions of entertainment. This can take as little effort as reading a stimulating book. Many thoughts start out small and if we add more wood to the fire, soon there will be a bonfire of a idea and sparks inside other beginning intellectuals minds.
