Readings mentioned today

Hey all,
I uploaded the Baudrillard piece and here are links to the Williams (fluency) and Dibbell (rape in cyberspace) pieces. :) I also found an online version of Cicero's clarification of Eloquence that might be useful.

Procedural Rhetoric

This article started off with what sounded like a very interesting simulation program, that worked almost as if it were an "if, then statement" (if that makes sense). For example, if the teacher decided to one thing (option A), then this (reaction B) would happen, or if the teacher decided to do option B, then reaction B would happen. Kinda brought me back to my high school math classes a bit. But math isn't what the article is calling this simulation, it's describing it as procedural (rhetoric).

The article starts off with by breaking down the words procedural (the way things work including the methods, techniques, and logics that drive the opertaion of systems) and rhetoric (which it describes refers to the effective and persuasive expression). Put the two terms together and they form procedural rhetoric,  which is "the practice of persuading through processes in general and computation processes in particular."

The article then goes into great detail defining procedure and processes. Starting off with the traditional, more   familiar definition/cocept of procedures, which we see in bureaucraticies, politics and the law. This more familiar concept of procedure "invokes notions of officialdom", and is usually understood as as "established, entrenched ways of doing things." Then, after describing this, the article introduces computational procedurality, and shortly after brings in the notion that "procedural expression must entail symbol manipulatio the construction and interpretation of a symbolic system that governs human though or action."  (**This is where I had dreaded flashbacks to the Burke reading the other day AND when I realized that procedural rhetorics is evident in digital rhetorics...I'm beginning to wondering what digital rhetorics doesn't engulf....)

One last thing that really caught my eye from this article is where the article explains that "procedurality can...entail the operation of cultural, social and historical systems," and continues to say that it, "requires taking a set of cultural systems apart to see what logics motivate their human actors." Reason why, because articulation came to mind, that procedurality may call for articulation, for some reason that excited me.

Procedural Rhetoric

I love Bogost and procedural rhetoric. I read this last semester and am excited to be reading it again.

The concept of procedural rhetoric is that the persuasion or argument is found within how something works. For instance the main rhetoric of a videogame it is in the mechanics. While the art, the music and the plot can have their own rhetoric, a game designer needs to be aware the argument their game is making and how it influences the character. For instance I remember playing one game where you work in airport security. The game moved very quickly, so soon I was just going through the motions as fast as I could, removing the banned objects from the customers. It was only till after I was done playing that I thought about the fact the game had made me remove people’s clothing at one point and what that meant rhetorically. I felt how I played the game was added to by the minamilstic art and the simplest music; but it all centered around the procedural rhetoric.

I also tried to think about this in other ways beyond games as I read this piece the second time. What can be said about the mechanics of a web page? I thought about how I how facebook brings up a small box when I want to share something, verse tumblr, who will bring me to a separate page. Or how a comedic webpage called 9gag lets you scrolls using two keys and to like a picture with another when most sites require the use of a mouse. These mechanical choices persuade the user of the web page in a certain way.

I wonder how far that persuasion goes? Does it go even deeper then the procedures rehtoric of the website. I wonder if web browsers and OS can use procedural rhetoric. If so, what would they try to persuade their user of? I wonder if this something a designer or programmer consciously thinks of. We recently read something about racism in the way websites are designed for my web design class. I wonder if the mechanics of websites can have a racist, sexist, or homophobic connotation. 

Procedural Rhetoric

This reading was a lot to take in. I'm just going to over the things I thought were interesting. The very first page of this document described a "game", in which students could learn about the sides of teaching they didn't know. This, to me, is a genius idea because not many people know about what goes on behind closed doors, nor do they really think about it. I believe having this game played or accessible by anyone who wants to become a teacher would benefit the school system. This way they aren't surprised or shocked when they do student teaching or when they get their first job. They will have thought about all the potential scenarios and how they would handle them. This example helped to explain Procedural Rhetoric to me.

He explained each word separately, and then combined them into one meaning. I like that he applied the terms to Tenure, the educational game. Since Tenure informs users about different aspects of teaching, it persuades them to think differently about how they were taught or how they will teach others. This is fascinating to me because I've never considered how my teachers taught. They were just there. This is a procedure as the author defines it, as a way of "creating, explaining, or understanding processes". Teaching is a process for sure, and this game creates scenarios in which it explains the teaching process in order to help you better understand said process. He (the author) then goes on to say that procedural rhetoric is "the practice of persuading through processes". This game definitely persuades its users.

Another part that stood out to me, also at the beginning, was the section about employee procedures. It says, "when asked to perform some unusual task, such employees may be instructed to balk, offering excuses like "that's not our policy"". I thought of a story one of my marketing professors told us to convey the power of customer service. There was an elderly woman who bought a tire and was unhappy with it. She wanted her money back. She took the tire back to Nordstrom's and complained. The employee apologized and gave her the money. He didn't say that at Nordstrom's they don't sell tires. This was a good example of rhetoric to me, because the employees are empowered to make the "right decisions". The employee was able to be persuaded by the old woman to return her money because he wanted her to be a customer in the future. By not having to follow strict procedures, he is able to rhetorically persuade his customers to return and shop again.

A last part I want to hit on was when the author talked about customer service returns in a digital space. The online returns interface can't be persuaded with, since it's all computers and algorithms. This is, perhaps, one way digital rhetorics cannot be (at least not yet) fully integrated in an online space. When the system realizes the purchase was past the return date, it doesn't ask for an explanation or even allow one. In person you can use rhetorics to return your purchase and get your money back. This was interesting to me to remember that there are still limitations to technology, though it does do some wonderful things.

Procedural Rhetoric

Procedural Rhetoric: a practice of persuading through processes in general and computational processes in particular. More specifically - the web. As technology moves more into the foreground of rhetorical appeal, the computer is beginning to magnify process and procedures.

These types of procedures are not like the ones in programming, however, they are used in more of a literal sense. As the author discusses, computers and the way that they are programmed can not be altered. Well, obviously they can by the programmer, but that's a different story. When someone wants to return an item to a store, a clerk might alter the procedure for accepting the item back on certain circumstances. However, if you try to return an item to an online store and it is, for instance, beyond the time that it can be taken back, then the server running the website will run a code to check if the item can be returned. If it does not meet a certain qualification - it will say no; no exceptions.

The way that I see the use of process in the web can be both good and bad. It can make a more uniformed society - one that does not create so many exceptions. Or, it can turn people off to the use of technology. A website might expand a company's customer base, but it might lose customers at the same time because they get frustrated with the software.

According to Charles Hill, those trained in classical rhetoric are beginning to understand the quality in the use of visual rhetoric. Images are being used more because they are more vivid than text or speech. They discuss the idea of a hypermedia that clutters websites with an obnoxious amount of hyperlinks, and how the use of them is both helping websites and making them suffer. On one hand, hyperlinks make a page more resourceful; on the other, it makes pages extremely hard to navigate.

Psychology and Form(ssss) & then I was in over my head.

Burke's article on Psychology and Form made me wish I had brushed up on my Shakespeare, Capek, and a few others I honestly am not familiar with, whatsoever. But through it all, I was able to understand what Burke was trying to express to us. He started off differentiating between the psychology of information and the psychology of form. And his examples, even though I haven't read Hamlet or Macbeth in a while, his examples made some sense. A lot of his article was about the audience, more specifically how the audience responds to different forms (of work/info/lit.) Burke also discusses the terms, art, eloquence, and psychology, and how they are all intertwined and dependent on each other.

But what stood out to me most about this article were all of Burke's different types of forms and progressions he explained. To start off he says that,

"Form in literature is an arousing and fulfillment of desires."

Which, in relation to digital rhetoric's, is rather important (imo). From my perspective the concept of form can be applied to digital rhetoric's on several different levels/aspects, including delivery and matter/material. Burke lists and describes syllogistic progression (a form of a perfected conducted argument, advancing step by step), qualitative progression (a subtler progression form...the presence of one quality prepares us for another), repetitive form (the restatement of the same thing in different ways), conventional form (the appeal of form as form, when a form appears as form), minor or incidental forms (metaphors, paradox, disclosure, reversal, contraction, expansion, etc.), he also explains the interraletaion of forms and the conflict of forms, and lastly rhythm and rhyme and significant form (onomatopoetic).  I'm not gonna lie though, I was getting quite a brain work out trying to first understand, then apply all of the different forms he describes to digital rhetoric's, from the examples pulled from old literature, to finding a digital space to apply it to.


and as for that *cough*dreadfully difficult*cough* second reading...I'm with the rest of the girls, totally lost. Basically pulling from it that yes, we as human beings use symbols to communicate, in the form of language. (One thing I struggle to understand and agree with is his idea that human organisms are the only organisms to use a language of symbols to communicate..I guess I just feel like there are plenty of organisms out there that, although they may not have an alphabet, they have other forms of signals)- but for all I know he could have expressed this in the article..and it just went completely over my head, like much of it did.

*individuation?
-I don't get you.

*The Self becomes a product  of the Culture
-"Whatever may be the genetic traits differentiating one individual from another, and whatever the distinct histories of individuals, the nature of symbolic action shapes the Self largely in modes of role, of sociality"
-I guess when I read this I thought of the idea that (to relate to digital rhetorics) depending on what community we are in, affects the "Self" we choose to display, or our role/identity in that online community.

And I guess..for now..that it all.

Burke Reading

From what I could understand of the first Burke reading was that he was talking about two different types of psychology; the psychology of form and the psychology of of info.

Burke said in the reading that the artist should use the psychology of form; where the artist sets up the situation using their writing, painting, etc and then the audience is the one that feels the emotions in that situation. Burke makes a reference (okay, he makes a lot of these, to the point I was wondering if he had lost some sort of bet and had to put a ridiculous number of references in) to great plays written by Shakespeare. In those plays it is not the main characters who is really feeling the emotion but the audience who is watching.

From what I could tell Burke felt the psychology of info to be not just facts, but a kind of info dump (liker this Burke reading). He makes a reference to the idea that when Shakespeare's characters make great speeches to each other it is the audience that matters, not who they are really speaking to. If they actors tried to sit down and explain everything to each other or the audience instead of focusing on the audience's emotions then it would be less of a scene.

Pyschology of info, on the other hand seemed to be...well, not the opposite exactly. That would seem to imply that art is the opposite of information. The clossest explanation I could find is that Burk feels that art is having an increase of psychology of information and a decrease in the psychology of form. Burke feels this is bad. I could see why - if I understood what the two forms are. Art can inform, but it shouldn't have to inform; for instance Burke brings up the fact that drama is closely tied to emotions, in fact it seems to wholly focus on  it.

The second reading was about language. Specifically the idea that language is a symbol system and humans are the only ones that use this symbols system. What sets this symbol system apart from the way that other creatures communicate is that we can talk about ourselves. Burke seems to come back to the idea of self a lot in this piece as he talks about language. He also seems to imply that a symbol system is an ever evolving thing; it will never 'stay put'.

Other then that I got lost. I found the Burke reading on language to be increadably difficult. This seems to rely somewhat on lingustic concepts and I'm still learning about that. Plus this is just a high concept of language in general. I hope someone got a better grasp on this then I did because I am very confused about this second piece.

Burke

Okay, I'll admit, I didn't really understand the readings fully no matter how many times I read them. I did, however, pick up some key points about Burke's philosophies that I think can be applied to a lot of what we are studying in this class.

Some key terms that Burke liked to use a lot in his writings:

Form: the psychology of the audience; the creation of an appetite in the mind of an audience and the satisfying of the appetite.
Rhetoric: rooted in an essential function of language itself, a function that is wholly realistic, and the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation in beings that by nature respond to symbols.
Dramatistic Pentad: when we attribute motives to others, we tend to rely on ratios between five elements - act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose.
Terministic Screen: a set of symbols that becomes a kind of screen or grid of intelligibility through which the world makes sense to us.

What his philosophy was (or what I understood it as) was that human life is an artform that can be easily explained. We are naturally attracted to the beauty in things. Whether it is a piece of music or a really good writing that (that might as well be art), we make better sense out of things that are beautiful to us.

How does this relate to Digital Rhetorics? When we read anything, we want it to be interesting to us. The way that the words are organized need to be artfully done so that we may not loose interest. Words on a website are the same way. Also, the way that things are organized on a page - such as the colors or images - need to be appealing to the eye. There is an artform in being a web designer - in a way that there is an artform in being able to create something that appeals to people's senses.

Burke's definition of man

Burke provided a definition of man that may make these two piece more understandable...or more confusing. I hope the former

Jailbreak the Patriarchy

Hey ladies of Digital Rhetorics! I read about the Jailbreak the Patriarchy Google browser extension the other day and thought about our discussion of feminism and identity within the digital sphere. :)

Burke Readings

Well, let me start by saying yikes! These readings were really abstract for me and I didn't fully understand any of the information. It was a really heavy content. 

I'll start with the (Nonsymbolic) Motion/(Symbolic) Action reading, with just a few things I did understand. 

Burke talks about the "Self" and "Culture" as being intertwined but separate. This made sense to me because it relates to me. I am a part of the Houghton culture as a college student, but I am different than all other college students in the Houghton area. I am also a part of the American culture, but I am much different than any all other Americans. He then says that intuitive signaling systems used by the cultures such as bees and ants can't be considered symbolic action. I didn't fully understand this part. He says they're not conventional or arbitrary, such as human speech. Human speech, he discussed, is something that has to be learned, which I agree with and disagree with. I understand certain parts of speech must be learned, but certain parts are also intuitive and can be learned without being explicitly taught, like grammar in children. They start to learn the language and speech rules, but you can tell they're not simply mimicking adults because of the grammatical errors they make.

He talks a lot about words, and the origin of words as well. He says corporeal ideas like "hot" and "cold", which are words for physical sensations eventually created "hot-head" and "cold-blooded". This interests me and this is something I can understand - the evolution of words. He also says how Caesar and the man he was inspired words like "Czar" and "Kaiser". This is cool to think about too, that one man can inspire words. The talk about "Self" made sense and it didn't make sense. I understand when Burke says that the sensations felt by the self are immediate, so the only one that feels it is the "Self". That was about all I got out of his "Self" discussion. 

He did talk about motion and action, which makes sense given the title of the reading. He says that motion can be present without action, but that action cannot be present without motion. I partially understood this, I think. He said something about sea creatures; that the sea can thrash about (motion) whether or not there are animals to create action. This made sense, it positions motion as more of a natural phenomena  where as action must be created by some being. The reverse also makes sense, given the previous statement. There can't be action without motion because motion precedes action?

The Psychology and Form reading presented just as much confusion for me as the previous reading, though it was shorter to read. 

Burke begins with a breakdown of a scene from Hamlet. He discusses the difference between psychology and form, though I don't fully understand. He positions psychology to be the audience as well as form to be the positioning of the psychology for the audience? The way the author writes something is form, and when the writing involves the desires of the audience (for whom the writing is written for), it becomes psychology? It seemed like a lot of loops to me that I just couldn't follow. He says psychology has become a body of information, which I can slightly understand because of how we process information. Or at least, I think I can understand? 

Burke talks about music and repetition as well. He says that music can handle repetition where as pure information cannot. This makes sense to me, since he went on to say that music is "least suited to the psychology of information, and is closer to the psychology of form. So, then, form is the way something is conveyed, and music allows for easier conveyance of repetition because one doesn't expect so much pure information in a song. Burke explains that information cannot handle repetition because "the aesthetic value of information is lost once that information is imparted".

The extra definition of form helped to give me a wide spectrum of understanding (at least more than the first part did). The reading described Form, Syllogistic progression, Qualitative progression, Repetitive form, Conventional form, Minor or incidental forms, Interrelation of forms, Conflict of forms, Rhyme and rhythm, and Significant form. These helped when I read in depth a bit more, but overall, these readings really confused me.

defining digital rhetorics

I have added a few files that might be of interest:

Encoding, decoding" (Hall)

"Coding with power: Toward a rhetoric of computer coding and composition" (Cummings)

"The politics of the interface" (Selfe & Selfe)

Content/Form  (SILVA RHETORICAE )

Form (Aristotle)

Rhetoric, Remembrance, and Visual Form: Sighting Memory (you might have to ILL this)

some definitions of rhetoric (Stanford, English)

Some journals you should check using your terms:

Enculturation

Philosophy and Rhetoric 

Poroi

RhetNet

Rhetoric Review

Rhetoric Society Quarterly

Rhetorica

The Quarterly Journal of Speech

post humanism

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/321460.html

sources for classical rhetoric: canons

http://www.letu.edu/people/annieolson/online/intro.html

http://rhetorica.net/textbook/canons_of_rhetoric.htm

http://www.phc.edu/rr_classicalrhetoricoverview.php

http://rhetoric.byu.edu/

Porter Part 1

Because this piece is so long, I'm going to break it up into two different parts, just like Porter did.

In the first section of this article we were taken back to traditional rhetoric. Refreshing our minds with the theories and principles of Aristotle, Quintilian  and some Cicero. The focus of this flashback was to review how delivery was once viewed in rhetoric, and to understand how it has changed over the centuries.

Similar to the range of choices and characteristics that the traditional rhetorical canon of delivery has, for example the body language, quality of voice, and hand, eye, neck and head positioning-  digital delivery has many "ethical, editorial, and political decisions involved," as well. Porter explains that, "understanding the range of digital delivery choices influences the production  design, and reception of writing is essential to the rhetorical art of writing in the digital age." Porter then explains the five components of "digital delivery": Body/identity, distribution/circulation, access/accessibility, interaction, and economics. 

*When I first began reading, I was very curious as to how this concept of delivery in the tradtional sense was going to be tied into the delivery of digital rhetorics- because I understood that delivery in the traditional sense was body language, tone, and positioning and knew that all of these aspects of delivery aren't capable of being exercised in digital spaces. This mean that this new dominance of digital rhetorics is somehow pulling principles of this traditional form of delivery and somehow, someway folding it into it's digital spaces and form of delivery.

A section of this reading that caught my attention was when Porter writes of Elizabeth Einstein's The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. I think a very very important point is brought up when the invention and explosion of the printing press changed the way information was delivered and shared. Porter explains that, "Not only did the printing press play a significan role in distributing and promoting religious ideas in the 16th century, she points out that the ability of print to collect, perfectly replicate, and widely distribute common sets of mathematical and scientifica data enabled yet another revolution.."

*Further explaining that, "the new form of delivery changed knowledge itself,  it changed the parameters, procedures, and locus for what constitued religious truth and scientific knowledge; it changed who had the right to create, promote, and distribute knowledge, giving power to a wider range of voices."

*I find this to a very important point to remember- that as times change and new technologies arise, we have had the revolutionizing of how knowledge is created, stored and shared. This idea of how the printing press changed knowledge is completely applicable to the creation of Internet and the WWW.

More quotes I liked:

"One cannot be an effective digital writer without knowing both technical procedures and how to deploy them to achieve the desired end. The techne for digital rhetoric includes both technical/procedural knowledge and knowledge of audience and effect."

...more to come

Porter Reading

Since the delivery is digital, delivery in digital rhetoric is very important. This is why I found this reading compelling (and long). There are some topics I have thought of before. Access in the digital space is a huge part of both game design and web design so I have thought about this on many levels. Also, throughout the piece Porter uses examples of buisness delivery. I've been in classes where we have examined ourselves as the constant consumer and online shopping was one of the ideas we looked at.

When I first started reading Porter's writing I thought of how there are some things I will put on my Tumblr that I would never put on Facebook. The only way I connect with people on YouTube is by subscribing to someone's account; I have never posted a video (I don't even know how). In turn, there are plenty of things I put on both that I would never put on this blog. I have a Twitter account that receives barely any attention and I only have a Pintrest and a WordPress account because it is required for a class I'm currently in.


I have varying identities in these different spaces. Yet, as Porter points out. "The body does not disappear in virtual space. It is certainly constructed differently, but it is there in all its non-virtual manifestations: gender, race, sexual preference, social class, age, etc". This was an interesting idea - though I feel that this idea means identity more then it does body. Then again apart of my identity is in Facebook, another part in Tumblr, another piece in Twitter. So maybe the body in this reading refers to what is made of all these identities.

Another part of this reading that stuck out was talking about how the delivery of topics in the digital space is being seriously effected by copyright problems. I feel you can't get far into the gaming society without stumbling upon - and sometimes joining in - the idea of intellectual property and copyright and how this effects the videogame culture. It is not a far jump for me to believe this is effecting delivery throughout the digital sphere as well. While I have my own views on copyright, I believe the Facebook policy example shows that how we are dealing with this issue is not good.

The Rhetoric of Programming

Ok, so this video here is full of programming jokes so I know not everyone in our small class will understand it (though the sarcasm and laughing will clearly show they're mocking stuff). The main point of this video is to mock some of the incredibly weird things that some of the more popular programming languages do. All the examples he (the man talking in the video) is giving in this video are showing fallacy's of some programming logic. Most of these examples are basically 1+1= fish of programming situations.

I wanted to share this video and get a second to talk about something that most people who don't program realize. The world of programming is an ever changing, highly opinionated world filled with people trying to persuade their peers that any program is either better/worse/wrong/right/pointless/revolutionary/dated/etc. I've sat with my friends -many of whom are brilliant programmers who already have years of experience programming - and listened to them debate code for hours. What code to use, what code not to use. The logical falicies they have seen in other people's coding. Why they code a certain way that they do. I have sat and watched them look over long lines of code, debating why they have the code work the way it does. This is because when you reach a certain advance level of programming it becomes as personal and even rhetorical as writing in English. A programmer can come to believe that code should work a certain way or a program should run a certain way.

I find this interesting - even when I don't understand everything they're saying - because it proves that digital rhetoric exists all the way down to the nuts and bolts of running the technology.

Something Interesting about Social Media

Social media is a type of digital rhetoric platform. This Social Media Video from 2013 (this year), that I came across during work, explains the power of social media. This made me think of digital rhetorics because watching this video can persuade the importance, power, and reach social media has to people, businesses, and groups (like student organizations on campus). The techniques it uses and it's method of delivery are especially interesting to think about (I watched it on mute).

We talked in class about portraying the "authentic" you. According to this, 1 in 5 couples and 3 in 5 gay couples meet online. Then there must be at least that many people being honest in their social media. I find it interesting that more gay couples meet online than straight, but perhaps it's because they feel safer admitting their sexuality or talking about their sexuality online? I just found this video very interesting and rhetorically engaging.

Hello, ladies...

I ran across this on my fb feed and thought that with our recent discussion of women, technology, and representation that you might be interested. The various mediated forms used to convey/participate with the ideas within this site are fascinating...

Digital Rhetorics Definition - Notes

Digital rhetorics is:

The use of rhetorics in a digital sphere.
The ability to persuade through texts online, as well as images, videos, games, and other digital mediums.
The knowledge of how to use writing and rhetoric to inform or persuade a specific audience to a specific purpose.
The understanding of how to best deliver a message in the digital sphere.
The ability to know your audience and how they access information digitally (through a mobile device, computer, gaming device, etc.).
The ability to manipulate a message across multiple spheres (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, a blog, etc.).
Being able to not only contribute ideas but interact with others in a digital sphere.
Understanding how o manipulate messages digitally to convey the appropriate message (incorporating emoticons to "lighten" a message, etc.).
The way text and the relationship between writer, author, reader and contributor evolve when text moves to a digital sphere.

Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric and HCI - Porter

This was a long reading! I like how Porter explains delivery as something that has evolved as the technology has. He starts by saying that delivery started as being the aural and oral aspects of speech as pertains to the body. Porter examines the body as a form of delivery in this reading. He explains that the gestures you make, your tone of voice, using pauses with your speech and perhaps a restrained tone will all help to convey your meaning and are all things that you don't usually see or hear online. I found it particularly interesting that on page 5, Porter mentions Gilbert Austin's work, which includes diagrams of how to hold your hands in order to get a point across. This was mildly entertaining to me because I don't think hands have that much impact, but perhaps I've never seen them used "correctly". I know a lot of people that talk with their hands, and most of the time they just kind of swirl their hands around, more like a nervous twitch than an intentional method of delivery. However, when I see this being done, I can't help but think the other person is feeling nervous and insecure. But that's just me.

In the digital age, however, delivery is also about the medium through which the message is given. With this new evolution of delivery, Porter explains that "understanding how the range of digital delivery choices influences the production, design, and reception of writing is essential to the rhetorical art of writing in the digital age". This stands out to me because there are so many different forms of writing online today. This specifically made me think of Twitter. The mode of delivery is new(er) and people are still adapting to it. For example, Twitter uses a lot of hash tags and ampersand symbols, which never would have appeared before in writing, but is rhetorically correct for Twitter because they link to other information, allowing for a large collaboration of ideas.

Porter also introduces the word "techne", which I believe has been in some earlier readings for this course. His definition is, "the art of creating discourse...to achieve a desired end for some audience". This helps me understand the word better, because it seems to me to be similar, though not the same as a goal or a purpose. It helps me tie it all in better. I enjoyed the section where Porter talked about the degrading of techne, saying it has becoming taught as more of a mechanical procedure than an art. He also applies it to digital writing, which again helped me to see the whole picture. He says that knowing how to use CSS does not make you able to be a web author, because you only know part of coding, not all of the basic components or an understanding of said components. I was able to relate to this specifically because I've taken web design and know that no matter how well you can use CSS, if you don't know HTML, it's not going to matter much. Porter also says that web design is becoming a degraded form of rhetorics as "the reduction of the art to routinized procedures". I agree and disagree with this. I think that in many tutorials and manuals, there needs to be routinized procedures to help people learn. However, the process needs to be somewhat left up to the imagination. What I mean is they should teach the basic skill set, such as a line of code, and teach you what you can do with the code, but leave it up to the coder how to use and implement a combination of code. After all, Porter says, "one cannot be a digital writer without knowing both technical procedures and how to deploy them to achieve the desired end". That makes knowledge more important than procedural coding.

There is also discussion about memory in here, which I found interesting. Porter says that in today's society memory is viewed as "a problem to be solved", not something which we should work to save. He disagrees, and I disagree. He gives the historical background of memory, but what what I found interesting came later. Porter says that in some western cultures and rhetoric, memorization became associated with mnemonics, especially the memorization of speech. Growing up in a public school system, this was one of my perceptions of memory; the memorization of writing for my classes. The other perception was of memories I had made with my family, friends, and athletics. I know there can be more than one type of memory, while they're both memory. Porter also says memory is essential for preservation. This impacted me as well because I am in a women's fraternity on campus, and will be the oldest member in the fall. That means that I will be the one that a lot of my sisters look up to with ritual questions and general questions about how things run and more importantly, why they run the way they do. Everything is written down and documented, of course, but it's not the same as having someone know by heart what needs to go on. When you go off of a piece of paper, it usually doesn't tell you why you need to do this and not that, or why this is emphasized but not that.

The last thing I want to really touch on is Porter's brief analysis of the websites. Victoria's Secret in particular. He says that the internet is by no means a neutral space where gender is invisible. This website is proof of that. However, he asks the question, "Is the primary audience for this site men or women? (Good question.)". My first reaction was that he was being sarcastic, because of course the target audience was women. When I took a second look though, I could see he wasn't be sarcastic, but serious. For example, sex sells. Usually though, it sells for men. As a women (though I can't speak for all women here) sex doesn't sell for me. Seeing some large chested, flat ab-ed women making a seductive face in lingerie doesn't make me want to buy it. I am under no illusion that I will look like a sexy supermodel when I try their clothes on. That makes me think the images are geared more toward a male audience.

There are also words like "angels" and "babydolls" on the website. Again, I don't know about other women, but why would I want to wear something called a babydoll? The same goes for angel, this I can understand the allure for, however, I don't think wearing sexy lingerie qualifies a woman to be an angel? This again makes me think of a more male audience. Yet another clue offers a free beauty tote. This has to be geared toward women, because while there are men out in the world who wear makeup, they most likely aren't going to be shopping for it at Victoria's Secret. This steers me back to a female audience. I wonder if this is the company strategy, however? Incorporate enough male elements so that men will feel comfortable shopping for their significant others (or themselves, who am I to judge?), but with enough female elements to where women won't be offended by shopping here? I found this section particularly interesting.

Ong: Communication Changing in the Modern Era

Reading the pieces from Ong, I found that his writing reminded me a lot of things that I had read in my Intro to Communication class my freshman year. He barely speaks about the digital era in either of his writings (until about halfway through), but I can't help but feel that they were very relevant to this course in that we need to understand the basic aspects of human communication before we can fully understand communication in digitization.

I thought it was interesting how in "Information and/or Communication" he references the lack of ability to have intimacy with someone through the wave of digitization. It reminded me a lot of the show Catfish, actually. 40 years ago people could send letters to each other and there was that sense of intimacy hen you were communicating with another because you recognized their handwriting. Now, there is the world of online dating and social networking - you have no idea if someone is who they say that they are.

In the Digitization article, I was really intrigued by the section on "Technologizing the Evanescent Oral World". Oral speech has changed so much over the years - new words are added to the dictionary daily. With the switch to the online world, words are being created all the time and actually used in everyday conversations. "Text Talk" is becoming increasingly more common (not that I agree with it). We had abbreviations for words long before the days of the internet, and yet those same concepts of making things easier to write still exists today.

Ong Reading

Language is older then writing  I had a basic idea of this from my advance history classes. In Ong's writting we really get into the history of writing and how it works with speech. We follow it to the idea of digitization. Or, apparently, we start at digitization.

I looked up images of the tokens Ong spoke of after reading the piece (which immediately gave me respect for whatever archaeologist was able to spot these things in the sea of dirt and dust they were working in). I then tried to connect these stones with the concept of digitization that I already had. I think of 1's and 0's when I think of digitization. I also think of computer screens, keyboards and electricity when i think of digitization.

This left me rather confused with the idea of these tokens. Especially when Ong pointed out that these tokens only represented an idea in a one to one system. Four tokens did not mean four tokens - it meant one token and one token and one token and one token. I had to read the section from tallying to cardnial numbers till I got the idea down. I'm guessing becasue I have always had cardinal numbers to work with -in fact they tortured me for many years till I entered a humanities major - that it's hard to imagine a world without them. Our world desperately depends on them. However language was created before cardinal numbers. People were living and interacting with each other before those existed and they must have gotten along somehow.

As Ong points out, writing is technology as much as the computer, the OS, the browser and the website I am using to type. It was created by humans to contain speech. Words are objects which can live longer then those that write them down; unlike speech, which is ending as soon as it is spoken. It drew me back to those tokens; how the pieces of rock represented one sheep and one sheep and one sheep before the sheep were brought out and after the sheep were gone.

I feel like there is a lot to discuss in this piece. After reading the blog posts about it I can already tell I haven't wrapped my mind around the linguistic aspects of this reading and I and the concept of 'you' and 'I'. I also think of more questions as I write - how does this effect recorded pieces, do we deal with events or objects when we speak over something like skype, how can I feel that I can adequatly communicate with words when I just read a piece that makes it clear I do not understand the the many complex depths of language? It should lead to interesting discussions.

Let Me Interact w/ You..(Ong)

This article has a lot of information held in text; Information, that until we mentally "lifted it from the visual field to the auditory field," and until we discuss it tomorrow in class, has remained an object- and according to Ong, "can be viewed as belonging in a way to the world of information rather than the world of communication." What boggles my mind about this concept is that, although the text is attempting to communicate the definitions of information and communication to us, it (the text) according to Ong, is nothing but information--until we read it. If you're confused after reading that, it's okay, I'm still wrapping my mind around it too, and I may even be misunderstanding it.

This article was very intriguing, there are several key concepts and points that stood out to me besides the basic (PSH, basic, good one Sam) descriptions of information and communication and they're ties to rhetoric. These points include the distinct bonds that communication and information have and how they influence each other, our overload of information (so true!), and the relationship between information and communication to our information overloaded preoccupation with digitization and hermeneutics.

Ong started off with differentiating between the two very interwoven terms, and explaining that although one (information) is much older than the other, the two have been apart of each others "lives" since the beginning, it just hasn't been understood. First, he explained that in order to have communication systems we need to have life, consciousness and working bodies- which are naturally made up of many information systems that aid and support in the communication process. Second, which I find very interesting, is when he expresses that "communication can consciously envelop information systems." Explaining further, in reference to the human genome project (which is where Ong begins to introduce the effects technology has on these systems), that "human beings are making this enormous code, previously entirely unconscious, subject to conscious communication and control." Lastly, he explains that human verbal communication can "build into itself and its activities any number of artificial information systems." (aka,computers!) This is where digital rhetoric can slightly step into the picture- that because of our conscious communicating, we are able to form these spaces that hold information with the use of information systems, in order to communicate.Phew.

Next up, INFORMATION OVERLOAD. I totally got sidetracked and began looking up all of these statistics about the amount of information we consume in comparison to earlier generations, I couldn't find the exact statistic I was searching for but I did come across these lil' gems,This Is How Much Information The World Consumes Each Year and The American Diet: 34 Gigabytes a Day.

So, eventually I got back to Ong, and was trying to analyze what he was trying to explain in this section when he said that "rhetoric is attaining a new dominance"..(hmmm could this be digital rhetoric?-is what came to mind.) What I took from this section was that, we started off with initially just realizing the power of rhetoric- and all we cared/studied/practiced about/understood were the communication systems of the discipline, but, now that we have begun to understand information systems and have been applying how we can use these info. systems with what we've already been studying (and mastering) for thousands of years about communication systems, putting the two together, is like attaining a new super power..and it's developing within digital spaces....and like I said before, it's getting creepy.




Lastly, which I will keep super short and sweet, because I don't want to write a novel, is my thoughts on the section on our preoccupation obsession, with hermeneutics. I couldn't agree more with everything he said. I was thinking...isn't what we're doing in this class kindddd of like hermeneutics of digital rhetoric? (urgent need of interpreting digital rhetorics? I mean, I understand it's not that urgent..but I'm sure we're all dying to completely understand and define digital rhetorics, right?)

*Note: By the end of this entry I officially will never forget how to spell concious concious conscious.

Is digital rhetorics affecting the way we communicate?

This was the question posed to us in class.

I think yes. With our generation in specific  the generation of technology, people are worrying that we are losing our face-to-face skills. There are people my age who would rather Facebook someone or email them instead of meeting with them in person. I think that's partly because of how comfortable we are with technology and the internet. There are also vocabulary changes. For example, when we text we may say "jk", "lol" or "ttyl". These stand for phrases, such as "just kidding", "laugh out loud" and "talk to you later". There are some people I know that use these in regular speech. I think it's acceptable in a digital sphere, but not in verbal communication. It's one of those things that began online and worked it's way into other digital platforms, such as cell phones, and may continue to work it's way elsewhere. It's acceptable in a digital world because it saves time, it's more technical, and it's the norm. However, when you're talking with someone offline, it's just as easy to say the words as opposed to the letters.

I also think that being in a digital sphere, we have become used to things happening quickly and without pause. When we're communicating, we may feel rushed or wonder why someone else is taking so long to get their point across. We're used to efficiency, though not always correctness. When we communicate, we've been molded by the digital sphere to expect certain things, such as a rapid response or accessibility to more information. I was watching a tv show the other day and one character asked of another, what is this? The second character said, "I thought Google eliminated the need to ask questions". This was interesting to me because with this day and age, we do rely on Google for a lot of information. Will this eliminate our ability to ask questions in conversations? Will I eventually feel embarrassed to ask what something is or for more clarification, or will I pretend to know and look it up later?

I the same tv show, a character mentioned something about Instagram. The second character said something along the lines of: "twitter is stupid and Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read". This made me wonder if digital rhetoric is affecting us in different ways. This character may feel that social media is stupid, but what if I use it for profesional connections and research? Then it will affect us differently.

Those are my thoughts.

Digitization Ancient and Modern - Ong

Well. This reading didn't seem to have much relevance for me until the last few pages. I have taken a class here at Tech that spent much of the semester going over Sumerian writing and cuneiform. So the first several pages were review for me. I did like the relation that "microchips are merely a technical improvement on clay tokens". I liked this because it related an ancient method to a current one. Microchips are simply an object that holds data. The old tokens and enveloped were the same thing. They were something that held information.

Ong says we think of digitization today as binary digitization of computers and information processing. This isn't how I think of digital, which was interesting to me. Yes, I think the above is digital, but it's not what I immediately think of. I think of something that uses technology. I think of gadgets that require screens, such as i-products and digital cameras. I also think of something that needs to be hooked up to a computer (through a cable or wifi) in order to share data. With Ong's previous relation of digitization, the rest of his writing made more sense. If you think of digitization as the adding of numbers or the representation concept, then I can see how writing has evolved throughout time from cuneiform.

Again, because of my linguistics class, I found the section where Ong talks about the South Sea Islanders and the process of giving them a written language. They were against having a written language, repeating that it wouldn't work. Ong says, "presumably, they believed that in written languages the spoken language was itself derived from writing". This is fascinating to me because I know it works the other way around. Writing didn't come until well after language, and though writing may have adapted for it's own purposes (such as spelling, silent letters, etc.), the spoken language hasn't been changed much, if at all.

I also found interesting the concept of "events" and "objects". Ong reiterated that sounds and speaking are events, since there is no trace left once the words are spoken, but that written texts are objects  because they are independent of their author and don't require sound to operate. Yes, someone still needs to read them, but the text remains unchanged, and is still there. This was interesting. It made me wonder when paired with current technology, if you record a voice, or someone talking, is it an event, an object, or both? The voice recordings would be on a CD, DVD, sound file, etc., which would be a physical object. However, once you play it, the words still evaporate after being spoken, so it would be an event. When mixed with technology, is it still the same?

Toward the end of the reading, Ong says, "the propensity of tokens to generate cardinal-number counting is striking evidence of their affiliation to digitization in tis common meaning of conversion of data to numerical form or calculation by numerical methods or discrete units.". This is where it all wrapped up for me; where everything became relevant. This was also the first time I got a full sense of what digitization means to Ong. Basically, the ability to use numbers and a counting system paired with a discrete representation system enabled past cultures to become digitalized?

Information and Communication - Ong

This reading by Ong started by stating that communication and information are two different things. I agreed, I've never known them to be related except that you share information when you communicate. However, when I read through this, Ong had a way of making the two definitions sort of mold together into one. Funny how he did that. He starts by saying information is a message, and communication is an exchange of meanings. he then say information does not of itself involve meaning. I guess this makes sense too, since all information needs to be interpreted before it can have meaning. I also like how he said that all definitions can call for further interpretation, since I've had several classes in which my professors have said that definitions are subjective and are never exactly set in stone.

He also introduced the idea that information is older than communication. When I first read this, I disagreed, because I live in the age of information, everything is much more available and well known than in the past, but humans have been communicating since they were first created with Adam and Eve. As he further explained himself though, I found myself understanding more. He goes to say that information can be considered as genetic codes, which have always existed, but humans didn't always know about it. He states, "Once the human mind could encompass this information, the information could enter the realm of communication in human consciousness." I found it really interesting that things you didn't know existed still existed. I've always known that, but I've never taken the time to think about it until this reading.

Ong also states that communication is sometimes perceived as "simply the movement of an item from one point to another", such as information. I must admit, this was my definition of communication; the sharing of some sort of information through some medium for some purpose. He goes on to say that there is no way for me to put a thought into someone else's brain. This made me think of the movie Inception, where their whole goal is to put a thought in someone else's brain without them knowing. Ong explains that no matter how much information I throw at someone or how much I share my thoughts, they still need to "react to form a concept". Just because I say "that pen is ugly" doesn't mean you will think it is too, you need to think for yourself and crate your own thoughts. Ong does admit to being able to influence people's thoughts though, which I think is where the notion of transferring my thoughts to you as your thoughts may have originated from in the first place.

I've taken a linguistics class, and the Speech and Power section reminded me of what I had learned in that class. A new idea to me was the word "infancy". I never knew "infans" means non-speaker, but that makes sense as to why infants are called what they are. I did remember the statement that communication and speech are empowerment. We watched a movie about a girl who had grown up abused by her father; he wouldn't let her speak. She never heard, spoke, or learned the language. When she was discovered and speech therapists tried to work with her, it was very difficult for her to learn, and she was learning at such a pace where they didn't think she'd ever be fluent in any language. This made me think of digital literacy. For those people that are not born in the era of technology and don't use it on a daily basis, technology and the digital world can be very overwhelming, hard, and confusing. It made me think that maybe digital rhetoric is a concept that needs to be learned slowly, step by step until you have it mastered.

I found Ong's idea of "I" and "you " very interesting as well. Of course "I" am not "you", but to you I am "you", and you are "I". It sounds confusing, but it makes sense. I've never considered "I" and "you" to be so important before, but as Ong says, your name is external, "I" is internal. No matter what your name is, you still have the same meaning of "I". That's really interesting to me. I also found it interesting that Ong said the "ultimate in assertion of power [is] naming oneself". I, being I, immediately thought of Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter. Then I wondered if a name can really have that much power? If you use a different name in the digital sphere, do you hold more or less power than if you used your real name? I think that's something to think about.

Leetspeak at Digital Rhetorics

As I was reading the Ong piece on Digitization, I found myself considering the emergence of Leetspeak as an acceptable form of misspelling within the digital sphere. Why does this form persist? Does it represent code because of its deliberateness more than traditional misspelling in digital space? What are your thoughts?

Writing is a Technology that Restructures Thought (Ong, 1986)

Hey all,
I just uploaded another piece written by Ong that you are not required to read, but that you may find interesting. In the piece Ong discusses how writing changes the way we understand the ideas we convey. :)

I'm a late bloomer and digital rhetoric is.. a lot.

Being a late bloomer to the class this is my entry on the first signed reading...enjoy?

I have a little bit of an advantage with this post because not only did I get to read the articles, but I also got to read what everyone posted and what we briefly discussed about it in class this morning. First let me reflect on what I drew from other posts...

First, I loved the way Sara made the connection between digital rhetorics and online marketing, I couldn't agree more. Persuasion, persuasion, persuasion, buy, buy, buy, definitely come to mind on digital spaces and the type of information/content certain companies/websites/digital spaces are displaying/holding. Second, I appreciate the explanation of digital rhetorics being how people respond to discourse, and how they try to persuade people to respond to discourse in digital spaces (I think that was Annette). Then in class, Pam mentioned that all of the articles spoke of digital rhetorics as if it were a political issue...they hover around what it is and talk about it technically, but they never actually just get to the point and straight up say what it's all about.

Before I read the readings, the first things that come to mind when thinking about "digital rhetorics" are media, persuasion, politics, media, marketing, commerce, e-commerce, media, social commerce, science, and did I mention media? Media is everywhere. Media is fed to us on a daily basis, whether it's entertainment, news, sports, you name it- I'm sure you can find some form of media of it on the web. So when I think "digital rhetorics" I think of media and how it is created for a reason, a situation, to express something, to inform or to attract attention. Wellllll, then I read the readings, and sure enough, digital rhetoric is a lot...a whole lot. A lot of ideas, concepts and theories all trying to understand how this new form of communication is planting itself into the web and in various digital spaces.**Also, from Losh's page, expressing that digital rhetorics is becoming more prominent in our society, and that it is becoming more of a necessity and a skill that could affect ones status and standard of living. I agree, and it makes me glad I'm taking this course ;) (kidding...but not really).

Digital rhetorics is...a lot. A lot to discuss, a lot to take into consideration, a lot articulate and the many attempts of defining what digital rhetorics is found with Googlism, shows us just that. This is going to call for some interesting discussions and a lot of brain exercising!

Digital Rhetoric, a basic breakdown- but no definition.

Zappen's article basically picked apart aspects of the different characteristics of digital rhetoric as it is seen through the eyes of scholars (including Gurak, Fogg, Warnich, Welch and more) and suggests and discusses the concept of our traditional rhetoric transforming into digital spaces, through digital media and becoming/posing/acting as digital rhetoric.

As I was reading, the first though that came to mind was realizing and accepting that theories from greats such as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and the Sophists, which have been studied for hundreds and thousands of years, have found (or infiltrated) their way onto the internet- like everything else in this world. Except, these theories and strategies are, in a sense, evolutionizing? They are being rearranged, reapplied, and transformed. The old rhetoric of persuasion has grown some new arms that encourage self-expression, participation and collaboration.

Gurak, gets down to the fingers of some of these new arms, expressing that these new aspects include, speech, reach, anonymity and interactivity, each having pros and cons as follows:

Speed- oral and casual style but can get repetitive and redundant
Reach- multiple participants in various media and development of communities but no gatekeeping
Anonymity- encourages authorship/ownership but  look out for "flaming"
Interactivity- there's discussion and feedback but has personal privacy issues

Manovich has a more technical/mathematical perspective of new media and the concept of digital rhetoric which entails his questioning of the words "digital" and "interactivity" (honestly.. I just don't really understand what he's getting at..help?)

After Zappen discusses the characteristics of new media he starts getting into the formation of identities and communities, aka the interesting stuff. I find the study of the formation of identities in online spaces and relating them with our real life identities very interesting and compelling because it's so much a part of our lives, it's who we are. And what I'm starting to see is that back in the day rhetoric and persuasion were just used to persuade people into an action or belief, but now, it's almost as if our society is beginning to use (digital) rhetoric to persuade us into who we are, who we should be and how we are supposed to identify ourselves. It's almost creepy.

Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory

James Zappen expresses his thoughts in the shift to the media world and the concept of "digital rhetoric" as something that is so new that challenges arise in societies adaptation to a change a rhetorical tradition that has been around for over 2,000 years. The digital sphere that we surround ourselves with today must be thought of in a different rhetorical sense then has been used in the past. I thought it was interesting that Zappen referenced Laura Gurak, not only because I have read her books on technical communications in several of my classes, but also because her thoughts of ethos, pathos, and logos show that even in a technical world, we need to still have the ability to use that technology to persuade, and show that we are educated on a certain topic.

A really accurate point that I thought he brought up was in his section on Characteristics, Affordances, Constraints. In the social networking world today, we all love the idea of immediacy. We don't, however, realize the ethical issues that that is imposing on society. As Zappen states, they encourage a casual style of writing, but the informality of postings can often encourage redundancy. We have the ability to easily interact with others via social networking, but it makes us now lack personal privacy. I might add to this that with social networking, we also are beginning to lack that social structure that is vital to society. I don't mean this in the sense of knowing what is going on in others lives (we see enough of that online), but more with the idea  that no one knows how to talk to someone in person anymore. We see this awkwardness on Michigan Tech's campus a lot.

Zappen addresses the concern that the digital world is a culture all on it's own now. We can use it to create a call to action, inform people of something, or speak to a specific audience about a specific belief. We no longer need to go to church to speak to others about the religion we believe it - we can create a Facebook group on it! Again, I still think that there is a point in which we are lacking that personal interaction that is necessary.

What is interesting about this whole concept of different digital group identities and participation is that it is so easy now for anyone to explore a different culture. It used to be that you could pick up a textbook about a certain country, but you would not have the real cultural experience and be engulfed in a certain culture until you travel there. Now, you can Skype, Tweet, or Facebook someone in Malaysia and find out exactly what they eat, wear, or how they live (assuming that you can speak their language).

Another ethical issue that we have seen commonly is the different identities that are being formed online and offline. We saw it even today with Te'o's fake Facebook girlfriend. Many of us are a completely different person online than we are speaking to someone face-to-face. This has been posing serious problems with students searching for careers and employers checking social networking websites beforehand.

Not integrated...yet

This first reading seemed to leave me with more question then answers; which I guess is a good way to start of the semester. At the end I may be able to come back to this and feel more confident about what it is talking about, but for now I feel confused. I hope we come back to several of these topics that were only glanced over in this first reading - when I find a topic interesting I prefer to beat it to death when I talk about it.

The first part of the reading made me think about credibility  and more importantly how credibility is established on the internet. I have dealt with this on some level in the past; when I write papers I worry if my professor will find this a credible source is the best example. Usually I find that I get a digital objects credibility from something that is non-digital; whether this is people - is this source peer reviewed? - or other objects - has this paper been published in a book or journal? - but I have a feeling this is not a good way to go about this. Many digital sources probably don't past this test yet that does not mean they should not be credible. I'm not sure on this - this will probably be a topic I will want to explore later on in the semester.

Another thing I'm interested in was the part about anonymity. I have seen it used for good and bad. However  I'm curious about what drives the bad. Flaming, trolls, and just generally those who use the ability to be anonymous on the internet for ill are obviously in audience, but why? The writing claims that it is to express strong emotions but I don't think it's just that. I try to stay away from trolls but from what I've seen there seems to be an idea of power at play there. Also I wonder if what trolls and flamers do is rhetoric. Is it persuasion or the use of force? On the one hand I'm curious (on the other hand I don't think I'm strong enough to try and collect the data).

Identity and it's part in digital rhetoric also sounds very interesting, especially how this identity could further ones ethos in different rhetorical situations. Could one gain ethos on the internet that one does not have in other settings? I do think that is true. However, this also brings me back to the idea of credibility. I'm not sure if I want to ask if this ethos is false because I don't think I could say what is a true ethos but I do wonder how a digital ethos is different then other ethos.

On an overall note this did leave me with another question; what is the opposite of digital? Is it just non-digital? Physical?

Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory

Well, this reading was really fuzzy for me. Perhaps my brain isn't focused enough or I'm thinking about this the wrong way. What I'll start with is what I found interesting. Again, I like how this author positions digital rhetoric as something that is being "reconceived and reconfigured". I think the best definitions are those that keep changing and evolving as time and technology itself changes. The author also talked about "opportunities for creating individual identities". This is especially interesting to me because I know it's true. There are so many outlets in the digital sphere that I could mold an identity for myself. For example, if I wanted to be seen as a photographer, I could take a lot of photos and post them to Facebook or Flickr, and comment about technical terms relating to photography. If I wanted to position myself as a poet or a serious writer, I need only post poetry and follow poetic groups, post to poetry sites, etc. With all this ability to create personal identities, there's also an ability to create entire social communities. When someone creates a website, a blog, a Facebook page, etc., the public can "like" it and follow it, creating a community.

With so much freedom, however, credibility has to be questioned. Zappen brings up ethos. Earlier, he says, "you are who you pretend to be". I think this is very true, especially in a digital sphere where there is so much anonymity. Just because I have a photography blog and post a lot of photos, am I a photographer? Do I know enough information about photography to be considered a reliable source of information? Perhaps I am just taking a point and shoot camera around and throwing out words like "f-stop", "shutter speed", and "aperture". How would my readers (if they aren't knowledgeable in the subject themselves) know if I am lying? The internet is great because you can be who you want to be, and not have anything tied to your offline life if you so choose. However, that is the very component that makes the internet, and digital rhetorics, so dangerous. There are so many examples within social media of people pretending to be one thing, such as a teenage boy, in order to persuade another (a teen girl) to share information and intimate details they would not share offline.

Another really interesting component of this piece is when he quotes another, saying, "... those who are more active offline are more active online, and vice-versa." I'm not sure if I agree with this statement. People can get sucked into the internet, creating an alternate ego that is "better" than their reality. These people are likely to spend much more time online than offline. On the reverse, people that are more active outdoors and that are social offline, I think, are less likely to spend a lot of time online. Perhaps I misunderstood the quote, but that's what I believe to be true. Zappen also says that our social interactions online are a "complex negotiation between various versions of our online and our real selves", indicating that the two are, in fact, different. This brings me to question how someone can separate themselves into two people for two different mediums. Then again, I am sure that I do it. I am more outgoing online than I am in person, and I am more bold as well. However, I take on more leadership offline than online. Maybe that's the whole point of this article? That digital rhetorics involves alternate personalities, used to persuade people in different ways whether it's online or offline discourse?

I also enjoyed how the "good and bad" sides of the internet affect digital rhetorics. The article makes the point that yes, the internet does allow for more discussion and feedback on people's work and the flowing of good ideas back and forth, but it also allows for more "intrusions upon personal privacy". I believe digital rhetorics is the same concept. We can be influenced by online spaces to do a deed, such as donate money to a charity or send support to our troops over seas. However, going back to ethos, how do we know that we are not being persuaded by a thief? Someone who posts photos of young, starving children in Africa, but takes all the donations received and pockets them? The article goes on to say that new media can be customized to a particular goal, manipulated to something new, and can be updated or scaled based on the needs of the users. This relates to digital rhetorics, I think, in that the media can be changed, altered toward the author's desire, and can be interpreted in several different ways based on the message.

Digital Rhetoric

Only a few years ago, the world was a place of technological ignorance. People did not know how the computer worked - or how many people went in to making every hardware and software component work just right. They knew that the box with a screen and square box next to it did what they needed it to do - and they didn't care how it did it.

Today, things have changed a little. We live in a sphere of different technological knowledge levels. Older generations may still think of the little box with a screen as a mystery - whereas younger generations grew up with it around and know exactly how it works. As Elizabeth Losh discusses, this has proved both to be a very useful phenomenon, and also an extremely daunting one.

Careers, educational experiences, and entire lives are revolving around technology now. With the internet in particular, we do not know what is credible and what isn't anymore. I have found through various discussions that the primary reason for this is accessibility. A 10-year-old can write a blog about the desert and someone  across the world could believe it's a reporter from National Geographic - they wouldn't know the difference.

This shift to new forms of media and information is not something that is avoidable either. As Losh discusses, if you want to succeed in the workplace today, you have to be up to speed when it comes to the digital age. It used to be that academic intelligence would guarantee wealth - now it is how well you can operate a computer or smartphone. That same 10-year-old with a blog could be better at navigating a tablet than someone with a doctorate degree and 30 years experience in the field.

Digital Rhetoric

From what I've come to understand of rhetoric it is a type of communication that is persuades a person about a type of discourse. Discourse is anything that needs to be responded to; from how we run our government to what a group of friends decide to eat tonight. Rhetoric can be found both in speech, in art, even how buildings are laid out; I always felt that our campus with our many types of buildings was a good example of the different ways architecture and engineering could persuade you to use a building in a certain way or act a certain way in that space.

The term digital brings to mind technology such as email, blogs, videogames, ebooks, and microsoft documents. Basically anything that would not exist without the computer technology that we have today. I've come to have a new understanding of the digital object verses the physical object due to my work in the archives; where we digitize documents but still realize something is lost if we don't have the original.

So combining the two would mean looking at how people respond to discourse and try to persuade people to respond to discourse in a digital space or using digital objects. Specifically this means understanding how different people understand digital objects and respond to them. I think it also means understanding what a digital object communicates besides what is being said or written.

Welcome to Digital Rhetorics!

Hello and Welcome to Digital Rhetorics!

Please post about your name choice and how it changes ot stays the same in the various digital spaces you inhabit.