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.