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.