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.