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.