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.
Excellent point about privacy and communication. How does the digital sphere influence our epistemology, or the way we know what we know/how we approach an understanding of what it is to understand?
ReplyDeleteThe jury is still out on whether or not Te'o made up the girlfriend.