Overview

Digital Rhetoric is the application of compelling communication tools to the portrayal of information as encoded messages. These communication tools are malleable from traditional forms of discourse to contemporary ones. But, although there is a syncretism between the origin of rhetoric and its present-day use, digital media formats require a greater interdisciplinary skill by the rhetorician. This is due to the fact that digital platforms creates space for the interplay between mediums. Therefore, Digital Rhetoric is applicable to multiple forms of media.

Defining Terms

Rhetoric

Perhaps the most commonly agreed upon definition of Rhetoric is synonymous with Aristotle’s On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, the “art of persuasion,” but this definition tends to imply the use of manipulation tactics with some sort of malicious intent or political gain. Although Rhetoric is a tool that can be used for these purposes, the definition used in the field of Digital Rhetoric has more to do with “knowledge production and meaning-making, not just as a mechanism for persuasion” (Eyman 17). It is persuasive communication, yes, but only in its use of whatever “meaning” is “persuasive enough… to be used” (Burke 173). Rhetoric is the craft of molding reality. In other words, a successful rhetorician will use the symbols of communication to create meaning that then influences the thoughts and actions of her audience. Rhetoric– as a tool for enacting control– is not a direct form of unethical manipulation, but more of a way to shape society and influence reality.

Furthermore, In A Rhetoric of Motives, Kenneth Burke writes, “Wherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric. And wherever there is ‘meaning,’ there is ‘persuasion.’ Food, eaten and digested, is not rhetorical. But in the meaning of food there is much rhetoric”. “By this route,” he continues, “something of the rhetorical motive comes to lurk in every ‘meaning,’” (172-173). In response, Eyman posits that “If nearly all acts of communication engage rhetorical practice,” then, “the rhetoric-as-method can be applied to all communication events” (12-13). With this reasoning, Rhetoric is no longer an immoral mechanism of coercion, but an inherent aspect of human interaction.

The effectiveness of rhetoric relies greatly on the author’s understanding of her audience. In digital spaces, this also requires an understanding of multiple mediums, so as to accommodate various audiences. Rhetoric, then, is the adaptation of persuasive elements to a wide range of media platforms, to create meaning for the audience. This meaning will result in an encoded message, compelling enough to then influence the thoughts and actions of said audience.

Digital

Technically speaking, Digital refers to the selection of distinct data points from the unbroken spectrum that is reality, to provide an estimation that is less accurate, but easier to read. In this regard, the opposite of Digital is analog, which is relatively more difficult to read, because it provides all of the infinite ‘in-between’ points of the data set. Take, for example, the difference between a digital and an analog clock. An analog clock provides a continuous range of times– because time itself is continuous. A Digital clock rounds to the nearest hour and minute.

However, non-computerized Digital systems bleed into the computerized by way of translation from traditional to contemporary media formats. Therefore, applicably speaking, analog is “based on the principles of similarity, proportion, and resemblance. Digital… operates through coded differences” (Eyman 79). By highlighting only the major breaks or changes in continuity– only the vital or ‘important’ bits of information– digital systems are providing a curated form of message delivery that is not only easier on the eye, but also provides a more efficient means by which information is communicated. Digital technologies are not representative of either new or old media, but rather are the apparatus that both new and old forms of communication– rhetoric– are combined.

Text

In Writing for the Web: Composing, Coding, and Constructing Websites, J. D. Applen writes that written language is “arrested in time” and therefore can be preserved, reread, edited, etc., and that it also allows us to “move on to other things” because we no longer depend on memory. However, Plato believed that written language is lacking in a certain characteristic that exists in oral communication. “Written words, however elegant and specific,” writes Applen, “just sit there on the page,” meaning that written language cannot be interacted with, do not allow for the exchange of ideas, and depend too much on interpretation (4).

Before the Greeks began writing things down around 2500 years ago, the maintenance of knowledge depended solely on their memory. At the time of its conception, written language was not accepted by everyone. In Walter Ong’s Orality and Literacy, he writes about Plato’s Phaedrus, in which Socrates criticizes the remediation of oral speech into writing. “Writing,” Ong paraphrases, “is inhuman, pretending to establish outside the mind what in reality can be only in the mind” (78). Plato also writes about the destruction of memory and the weakness of mind that will occur in response to the increased reliance on writing. But perhaps Plato’s strongest argument against writing is that of its unresponsive, noninteractive, and defenseless nature.

If you ask a person to explain his or her statement, you can get an explanation; if you ask a text, you get back nothing except the same, often stupid, words which called for your question in the first place… the written word cannot defend itself as the natural spoken word can: real speech and thought always exist essentially in a context of give-and-take between real persons.

(Ong 78)

“The ‘message’ of any medium or technology,” writes McLuhan, in his book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man,“is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs” (8). In other words, the interpretation of the medium, as opposed to the text itself, introduces a change in behavior and response in society. Just as Rhetoric is adaptable to the audience, and therefore to the medium, Text can be found in many different readable features in various modes of expression. Similarly, Douglas Eyman’s definition is quite similar to that which he gave Rhetoric, in that it has to do with purpose and context, which are important factors in the consideration of the audience. Like Rhetoric, text is directly connected to “social action and social forces” (Eyman 22). For the purposes of Digital Rhetoric, the most useful definition of text is one that implies that the success of the text relies on the writer’s rhetorical ability to adapt to her audience, by way of medium-multiplicity.

Contrary to Plato’s argument, interactivity is possible with writing, and might even be improved, with the introduction of digital spaces. However, it all depends entirely on the writer’s rhetorical ability to sway the reader. In the case of writing, the meaning of the text alone is not enough. This is why the context and medium is a vital consideration in the creation of text.

Defining Digital Rhetoric

Digital Rhetoric is the employment of compelling communication tools to the portrayal of information as encoded messages. These communication tools are malleable from traditional forms of discourse to contemporary ones. Therefore, Digital Rhetoric is applicable to multiple forms of media. But, although there is a syncretism between the origin of rhetoric and its present-day use, digital media formats require a greater interdisciplinary skill by the rhetorician. This is due to the fact that digital platforms create space for the interplay between mediums.

Therefore, Digital Rhetoric is the application of rhetorical practices– as the art of inciting meaning, and action– to digital systems– as a personalized and appealing version of information. “The digital then,” writes Eyman, “both as a new form of production enabled by information and communication technologies and as a reference to the human history of written communication… provides a bridge between textual production (broadly defined to include multimedia) and rhetoric” (20). Digital Rhetoric builds upon past communication technologies, and evolves over time, and adapts between individuals and communities, to suit the preferences of its chosen audience.

Applications of Digital Rhetoric

Digital Rhetoric has the potential to shape the values of society, and drastically influence outcomes. In The Language of New Media, Lev Manovich points out that “Traditionally, texts encoded human knowledge and memory, instructed, inspired, convinced, and seduced their readers to adopt new ideas, new ways of interpreting the world, new ideologies. In short, the printed word was linked to the art of rhetoric” (76-77).

Plato did not believe that a writer could influence her reader in the same way a speaker influences their listener, but a successful rhetorician is able to manipulate any medium to their advantage. A website, for example, has the unique characteristic of multiplicity and an unprecedented level of personalization, that the developer utilizes with regard to the user. It “persuades each user that it is worthy of use, based on design, usability, and accessibility.” Digital text “provides a whole new realm of rhetorical objects,” creating the framework for a new level of “intersubjectivity” between author and audience (Eyman 22-24).