Texts and Technologies

Post #1

Feenberg, A.(2009). Critical theory of communication technology: Introduction to the special section. The Information Society, 25: 1-7. doi: 10.1080/01972240802701535

Critical Theory of Communication Technology

In this introduction to the special section of The Information Society, Feenberg addresses the question of to what extent (if any) do communication technologies contribute to democracy. He begins by explaining the tendency of technologies to stabilize “after an initial period during which many differing configurations compete” after which their “social and political implications finally become clear” (p. 1). The implications of the internet, however, are still unclear despite decades of development and debates over, Feenberg argues, illustrate that the Internet is not a finished work.

Before framing his methodological approach, Feenberg provides an historical overview of the debates surrounding the Internet. Early excitement over the potential benefits of the Internet foreshadowed it as a generator of gender and social equality and promoter of democracy. Early optimism was followed by “widespread skepticism” (p. 2) in the 1990s as a detractor of democracy. According to Feenberg, criticism has focused on the digital divide, further separation of the classes, and social segregation that reinforces prejudices. Others point to the market nature that situates the Internet as little more than an online mall, while still others foreground surveillance and data tracking.

The most significant of critiques, according to Feenberg, “challenges the ability of the Internet to support real human communication and therefore human community” (p. 2). This view supposes that computer-mediated discourse lacks depth and wit, leaving people disoriented and disconnected from “reality as human beings have always known it” (p.2).

Feenberg argues that these arguments are unproductive as they dismiss possibilities for online community that contribute to increased democracy. To illustrate the potential of the Internet, Feenberg establishes its uniqueness by contrasting it with other communication technologies—primarily the TV. The main difference, he explains, is that technology is a method of broadcasting wherein only one perspective is afforded. The Internet, however, is the first technology to mediate small-group activity that allows for all group members to participate, and criticisms of the Internet’s ability to support human communication unfairly compare the trivial, everyday discussions to polished face-to-face interactions. 

To support his argument that “political usages of the Internet are instances of a much broader phenomenon” that has value for democracy (p. 4), Feenberg applies a constructivist approach by identifying different versions of the Internet’s identity (e.g., education, business, and entertainment) and choosing the one that seems most appropriate: a communicative space. The Internet, he argues “is dominated not by business but by users whose free communication prevails in cyberspace” (p. 5). According to him, communities form around spaces of “virtual social interaction” where this free communication happens. 

Feenberg concludes that these online communities are indicative of a larger democratic Internet phenomenon, the implications of which are only beginning to emerge as the technology remains in flux. These implications, he further explains, are changing the sphere of traditional politics, enabling communities of users to develop adequate representation and open discussion. The networks created in these communities challenge previous geographical boundaries  and use the Internet to coordinate their demands for representation. In this way, “agency in the technical sphere is on the rise” (p. 6) and creating a medium for democracy that overcomes the passivity of broadcasting.

Feenberg’s argument is interesting in light of our conversations regarding technological advancements that allow for mass and self-production of texts and the value we assign to those texts. While some in class have argued that the urbanity of text generated on the internet has little to offer, Feenberg counters that these are representative of discussions that would have previously occurred face to face in coffee houses and of which we have no record. The primary difference is that these discussions enable more and diverse participants to become involved in such discussions.

This article not only contributes a new perspective for our class discussions on the value of everyday texts but it also helps situate my research on online discussion boards. Considering discussion boards as a place that should promote community building and thereby contribute to democracy gives me an initial approach for my project.

ENGL 821: Blog #2

Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory

Zappen, J.P. (2005). Digital rhetoric: Toward an integrated theory. Technical Communication

Quarterly, 14(3): 319-325. Retrieved from http://homepages.rpi.edu/~zappenj/Vita/DigitalRhetoric2005.pdf

In this literature review, Zappen analyzes digital rhetorical theory scholarship, concluding that is “an amalgam of discrete components rather than a complete and integrated theory” (p. 323). To illustrate how the research has explored both the functions and reconfigurations of traditional rhetoric in digital spaces, he organizes the components into three categories: Strategies of Self Expression and Collaboration; Characteristics, Affordances, and Constraints; and Formation of Identities and Communities.

Strategies of Self Expression and Collaboration

Zappen acknowledges how applications of traditional strategies of persuasion (ethos, pathos, and logos) have been used to analyze communication decisions such as Lotus Marketplace’s Clipper Chip (p. 320). He then cites scholars such as Warnick, Welch, and himself, who argue for an expanded notion of rhetoric that considers “opportunities for reader participation and interactivity” that contribute to a “unity of purpose not through direct appeals or explicit arguments” (p. 320). An expanded notion of rhetoric, then, is one that acknowledges a multitude of purposes besides persuasion.

Characteristics, Affordances, and Restraints

Some researchers, according to Zappen, have identified basic characteristics of digital rhetoric. Specifically, Gurak identifies these as speed, reach, anonymity, and interactivity, but as Zappen points out, they function as both affordances and constraints. Although they converge with our own experiences, they also create challenges. Zappen points to Manovich’s challenging of “digital” and “interactivity” as meaningful terminology and Fagerjord’s emphasis on the communicative aspects of these characteristics that call for a need to consider both the author’s choices and the reader’s selection and semiosis. Such consideration, Zappen claims, foregrounds questions about the author-reader relationship and the processes by which they “work together to achieve self-expression or creative collaboration” (p. 321-322).

The Formation of Identities and Communities

Zappen connects the extended concept of rhetorical purposes for self-expression to the exploration of “individual and group identities and participation and collaboration for the purpose of building communities of shared interest” (p. 322). This further extension of the purpose, he argues, provides context and meaning for “interactivity.” He cites Turkle’s explanation of identity formation through the interactions of our multiple selves—both our real and online selves—and further explains that these identities are often formed through the interactions that “encompass not only our selves as authors, but also our own and others’ selves as readers” (p. 322). In this way, traditional rhetorical conceptions of ethos are complicated by computer-mediated constructions of identity.

Zappen’s article is a useful resource for students interested in understanding digital rhetoric and the how scholars have both appropriated and extended traditional rhetoric in digital media discourse. The article is a bit dated, however, and Zappen’s identification of the “discrete components” are a bit unclear. Furthermore, he fails to develop his claim that developing a digital rhetorical theory “has the potential to contribute to the larger body of rhetorical theory and criticism and the rhetoric of science and technology in particular” (p. 323). As such, students should use it as a departure point for investigating more current perspectives such as Prior et al. and Porter.

ENGLISH 821:

Blog #1

Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric

Porter, J. E. (2009). Recovering delivery for digital rhetoric. Computers and composition, 26, 

          207-224. doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2009.09.004

In this article, J.E. Porter presents a retheorized notion of delivery “designed for the distinctive rhetorical dynamics of Internet-based communication” (p. 207-208). Internet-based communication, he argues, is itself not a well-defined object, consisting of a hodgepodge of media, technologies, spaces, genres, and distributions (p. 208). He organizes his argument into two sections: 1) a historical overview of delivery to situate it as techne, or art, and 2) a five-part theoretical framework for delivery. 

In the historical overview, Porter cites various rhetoricians’ treatment of delivery, highlighting specifically Aristotle, Cicero, Quintillian, Christine de Pisan, and Elizabeth Eisenestein. His discussion of delivery prompts discussion of technology as a means of delivery, moving from the invention of the printing press to the advancement of digital communication. By defining rhetoric as “the art of creating discourse . . . to achieve a desired end for some audience,” Porter  is able to focus on the techne  of digital rhetoric that includes both productive knowledge and technical knowledge.

Having established the importance of delivery, Porter then presents the common topics (koinoi topoi) of an aggregated retheorized concept of delivery for digital communication:

Body/Identity: Porter explains that the body does not disappear in virtual space, rather it is constructed differently. Emoticons, avatars, and videos, for example, recover the visual and speaking body and generate questions of representation in regards to race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity (p. 208, 212-213).

Distribution/Circulation: Choice of method for distribution contributes to the success of the communication (p. 214). As such, considerations must be made regarding technological publishing options for “reproducing, distributing, and circulating digital information” (p. 208).

Access/Accessiblity: Porter distinguishes access as pertaining to the necessary software, hardware, and connectivity and accessibility as the level of connectedness of one group of people. The goal of writing for accessibility, he argues, is to ensure that all people, including those with disabilities, are able to both consume and produce digital engagement (p. 216).

Interaction/Interactivity: Porter positions interaction as a how humans engage interfaces to perform actions and how “humans engage other humans through computer-mediated spaces” (p. 217). The true potential of digital communication, he argues, is realized when users become co-producers of the communication (p. 218).

Economics: All writing, Porter posits, exists in economic systems of value, exchange, and capital (p. 218). Digital writing changes the economics of rhetoric and foregrounds questions of intellectual property, ownership, and rights to writing as well as credit, payment, and labor.

Porter’s aggregated theory of delivery for digital discourse is valuable for both students and scholars of rhetoric and composition, especially students in this course. Because he coordinates the common topics of previous scholarship (Porter et al, Selfe, Hawisher, De Voss, and Haraway, to name a few), students can get a quick historical overview and current perspectives on the positioning of delivery as a rhetorical canon. Additionally, Porter provides us with a heuristic for understanding how the choices of delivery influence the production, design, and reception of writing in a digital age.