{"id":263,"date":"2024-12-18T19:31:25","date_gmt":"2024-12-18T19:31:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/books.chrisfriend.us\/3080\/?post_type=chapter&p=263"},"modified":"2025-01-09T00:41:23","modified_gmt":"2025-01-09T00:41:23","slug":"digital-rhetoric-2","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/books.chrisfriend.us\/3080\/chapter\/digital-rhetoric-2\/","title":{"raw":"Digital Rhetoric","rendered":"Digital Rhetoric"},"content":{"raw":"

\"\"Overview<\/h1>\r\n[pb_glossary id=\"153\"]Digital Rhetoric[\/pb_glossary] 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.\r\n

Defining Terms<\/h1>\r\n

Rhetoric<\/h2>\r\nPerhaps the most commonly agreed upon definition of [pb_glossary id=\"273\"]Rhetoric[\/pb_glossary] is synonymous with Aristotle\u2019s On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, the \u201cart of persuasion,\u201d 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 \u201cknowledge production and meaning-making, not just as a mechanism for persuasion\u201d (Eyman 17). It is persuasive communication, yes, but only in its use of whatever \u201cmeaning\u201d is \u201cpersuasive enough\u2026 to be used\u201d (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\u2013 as a tool for enacting control\u2013 is not a direct form of unethical manipulation, but more of a way to shape society and influence reality.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, In A Rhetoric of Motives, Kenneth Burke writes, \u201cWherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric. And wherever there is \u2018meaning,\u2019 there is \u2018persuasion.\u2019 Food, eaten and digested, is not rhetorical. But in the meaning of food there is much rhetoric\u201d. \u201cBy this route,\u201d he continues, \u201csomething of the rhetorical motive comes to lurk in every \u2018meaning,\u2019\u201d (172-173). In response, Eyman posits that \u201cIf nearly all acts of communication engage rhetorical practice,\u201d then, \u201cthe rhetoric-as-method can be applied to all communication events\u201d (12-13). With this reasoning, Rhetoric is no longer an immoral mechanism of coercion, but an inherent aspect of human interaction.\r\n\r\nThe effectiveness of rhetoric relies greatly on the author\u2019s 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.\r\n
\r\n

Review Question<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

What makes rhetoric persuasive to the audience?<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

Digital<\/h2>\r\nTechnically speaking, [pb_glossary id=\"46\"]Digital[\/pb_glossary] 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 \u2018in-between\u2019 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\u2013 because time itself is continuous. A Digital clock rounds to the nearest hour and minute.\r\n\r\nHowever, non-computerized Digital systems bleed into the computerized by way of translation from traditional to contemporary media formats. Therefore, applicably speaking, analog is \u201cbased on the principles of similarity, proportion, and resemblance. Digital\u2026 operates through coded differences\u201d (Eyman 79). By highlighting only the major breaks or changes in continuity\u2013 only the vital or \u2018important\u2019 bits of information\u2013 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\u2013 rhetoric\u2013 are combined.\r\n
\r\n

Review Question<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

What is the difference between Digital and Analog?<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

Text<\/h2>\r\nIn Writing for the Web: Composing, Coding, and Constructing Websites, J. D. Applen writes that written language is \u201carrested in time\u201d and therefore can be preserved, reread, edited, etc., and that it also allows us to \u201cmove on to other things\u201d because we no longer depend on memory. However, Plato believed that written language is lacking in a certain characteristic that exists in oral communication. \u201cWritten words, however elegant and specific,\u201d writes Applen, \u201cjust sit there on the page,\u201d meaning that written language cannot be interacted with, do not allow for the exchange of ideas, and depend too much on interpretation (4).\r\n\r\nBefore 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\u2019s Orality and Literacy, he writes about Plato\u2019s Phaedrus, in which Socrates criticizes the remediation of oral speech into writing. \u201cWriting,\u201d Ong paraphrases, \u201cis inhuman, pretending to establish outside the mind what in reality can be only in the mind\u201d (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\u2019s strongest argument against writing is that of its unresponsive, noninteractive, and defenseless nature.\r\n
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\u2026 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.\r\n\r\n(Ong 78)<\/blockquote>\r\n\u201cThe \u2018message\u2019 of any medium or technology,\u201d writes McLuhan, in his book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man,\u201cis the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs\u201d (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, [pb_glossary id=\"279\"]Text[\/pb_glossary] can be found in many different readable features in various modes of expression. Similarly, Douglas Eyman\u2019s 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 \u201csocial action and social forces\u201d (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\u2019s rhetorical ability to adapt to her audience, by way of medium-multiplicity.\r\n\r\nContrary to Plato\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.\r\n
\r\n

Review Question<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

Why is context and medium important in the creation of text, with regard to the audience?<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

Defining Digital Rhetoric<\/h1>\r\nDigital 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.\r\n\r\nTherefore, Digital Rhetoric is the application of rhetorical practices\u2013 as the art of inciting meaning, and action\u2013 to digital systems\u2013 as a personalized and appealing version of information. \u201cThe digital then,\u201d writes Eyman, \u201cboth as a new form of production enabled by information and communication technologies and as a reference to the human history of written communication\u2026 provides a bridge between textual production (broadly defined to include multimedia) and rhetoric\u201d (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.\r\n
\r\n

Review Question<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n\r\nWhat is the importance of interdisciplinarity in the success of a rhetorician?\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

Applications of Digital Rhetoric<\/h1>\r\nDigital 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 \u201cTraditionally, 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\u201d (76-77).\r\n\r\nPlato 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 \u201cpersuades each user that it is worthy of use, based on design, usability, and accessibility.\u201d Digital text \u201cprovides a whole new realm of rhetorical objects,\u201d creating the framework for a new level of \u201cintersubjectivity\u201d between author and audience (Eyman 22-24).\r\n
\r\n

Review Question<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

Do you agree or disagree with Plato\u2019s argument? Explain your reasoning.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n

Discussion Questions<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n\r\nIn what ways does Rhetoric influence the thoughts and actions of the audience?\r\n\r\nWhy is Digital Rhetoric important, with regard to present-day technology?\r\n\r\nHow might digital systems employ rhetorical tools to influence the audience?\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"

\"\"Overview<\/h1>\n

Digital Rhetoric<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Defining Terms<\/h1>\n

Rhetoric<\/h2>\n

Perhaps the most commonly agreed upon definition of Rhetoric<\/a> is synonymous with Aristotle\u2019s On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, the \u201cart of persuasion,\u201d 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 \u201cknowledge production and meaning-making, not just as a mechanism for persuasion\u201d (Eyman 17). It is persuasive communication, yes, but only in its use of whatever \u201cmeaning\u201d is \u201cpersuasive enough\u2026 to be used\u201d (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\u2013 as a tool for enacting control\u2013 is not a direct form of unethical manipulation, but more of a way to shape society and influence reality.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, In A Rhetoric of Motives, Kenneth Burke writes, \u201cWherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric. And wherever there is \u2018meaning,\u2019 there is \u2018persuasion.\u2019 Food, eaten and digested, is not rhetorical. But in the meaning of food there is much rhetoric\u201d. \u201cBy this route,\u201d he continues, \u201csomething of the rhetorical motive comes to lurk in every \u2018meaning,\u2019\u201d (172-173). In response, Eyman posits that \u201cIf nearly all acts of communication engage rhetorical practice,\u201d then, \u201cthe rhetoric-as-method can be applied to all communication events\u201d (12-13). With this reasoning, Rhetoric is no longer an immoral mechanism of coercion, but an inherent aspect of human interaction.<\/p>\n

The effectiveness of rhetoric relies greatly on the author\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Review Question<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

What makes rhetoric persuasive to the audience?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Digital<\/h2>\n

Technically speaking, Digital<\/a> 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 \u2018in-between\u2019 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\u2013 because time itself is continuous. A Digital clock rounds to the nearest hour and minute.<\/p>\n

However, non-computerized Digital systems bleed into the computerized by way of translation from traditional to contemporary media formats. Therefore, applicably speaking, analog is \u201cbased on the principles of similarity, proportion, and resemblance. Digital\u2026 operates through coded differences\u201d (Eyman 79). By highlighting only the major breaks or changes in continuity\u2013 only the vital or \u2018important\u2019 bits of information\u2013 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\u2013 rhetoric\u2013 are combined.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Review Question<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

What is the difference between Digital and Analog?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Text<\/h2>\n

In Writing for the Web: Composing, Coding, and Constructing Websites, J. D. Applen writes that written language is \u201carrested in time\u201d and therefore can be preserved, reread, edited, etc., and that it also allows us to \u201cmove on to other things\u201d because we no longer depend on memory. However, Plato believed that written language is lacking in a certain characteristic that exists in oral communication. \u201cWritten words, however elegant and specific,\u201d writes Applen, \u201cjust sit there on the page,\u201d meaning that written language cannot be interacted with, do not allow for the exchange of ideas, and depend too much on interpretation (4).<\/p>\n

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\u2019s Orality and Literacy, he writes about Plato\u2019s Phaedrus, in which Socrates criticizes the remediation of oral speech into writing. \u201cWriting,\u201d Ong paraphrases, \u201cis inhuman, pretending to establish outside the mind what in reality can be only in the mind\u201d (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\u2019s strongest argument against writing is that of its unresponsive, noninteractive, and defenseless nature.<\/p>\n

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\u2026 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.<\/p>\n

(Ong 78)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cThe \u2018message\u2019 of any medium or technology,\u201d writes McLuhan, in his book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man,\u201cis the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs\u201d (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<\/a> can be found in many different readable features in various modes of expression. Similarly, Douglas Eyman\u2019s 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 \u201csocial action and social forces\u201d (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\u2019s rhetorical ability to adapt to her audience, by way of medium-multiplicity.<\/p>\n

Contrary to Plato\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Review Question<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

Why is context and medium important in the creation of text, with regard to the audience?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Defining Digital Rhetoric<\/h1>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Therefore, Digital Rhetoric is the application of rhetorical practices\u2013 as the art of inciting meaning, and action\u2013 to digital systems\u2013 as a personalized and appealing version of information. \u201cThe digital then,\u201d writes Eyman, \u201cboth as a new form of production enabled by information and communication technologies and as a reference to the human history of written communication\u2026 provides a bridge between textual production (broadly defined to include multimedia) and rhetoric\u201d (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.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Review Question<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

\n

What is the importance of interdisciplinarity in the success of a rhetorician?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Applications of Digital Rhetoric<\/h1>\n

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 \u201cTraditionally, 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\u201d (76-77).<\/p>\n

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 \u201cpersuades each user that it is worthy of use, based on design, usability, and accessibility.\u201d Digital text \u201cprovides a whole new realm of rhetorical objects,\u201d creating the framework for a new level of \u201cintersubjectivity\u201d between author and audience (Eyman 22-24).<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Review Question<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

Do you agree or disagree with Plato\u2019s argument? Explain your reasoning.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

Discussion Questions<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

\n

In what ways does Rhetoric influence the thoughts and actions of the audience?<\/p>\n

Why is Digital Rhetoric important, with regard to present-day technology?<\/p>\n

How might digital systems employ rhetorical tools to influence the audience?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

definition<\/span>