Overall Reflection: Week 3

I particularly enjoyed this week's readings. The focus on audience and the multitude of perspectives on how many audiences can/do exist in a person's rhetoric was intriguing. Many of the authors discussed audiences as not mere passive receivers but instead as active participants helping to shape the rhetor and his/her rhetoric. I especially liked the parlor and reception scene that was discussed in "Chapter 6: Poststructuralism, Social Constructionism, and Audience as a Community." Long gone is the reliability and truth of the traditional speaking model (sender-message-receiver), instead replaced by the idea that there is a relationship between rhetor and audience as joint coordinators of rhetoric. I find this especially important when trying to understand the influences of rhetoric, the consequences of a message, and the construction of realities. To study these elements of communication as strictly the responsibility of the rhetor is inadequate and ineffective.

Following this idea, is the intriguing concept "discourse community." In "Chapter 7: Composing the Discourse Community" this concept is outlined as a multifaceted, fluid group comprised of communication forums, rules, expectations, and texts. I am interested in the distinction of this community from culture. The author states "This discourse community is not, however, the same as culture; this discourse community is unstable, changing, dynamic-it is turbulent, chaotic system that nevertheless operates with some kind of regularity" (p. 107). While I understand the differentiation between the two, I wonder: Can a discourse community have a culture? Without reading additional pieces focusing on the discourse community, my immediate answer would be yes. How can any community exist without a culture? But, the author takes pains to differentiate between the two. Thus, I am curious as to whether he/she would conclude that a culture does exist within every discourse community. Also, how is this discourse community different from what Gerry Philipsen calls a speech community? In his Speech Codes theory, he asserts that where there is discourse there is a speech community. Within this community, there is a culture comprised of rules for speaking. Although he does not use the term "forum" he does insinuate that each community has rules and expectations for where a speech act can occur or what type of speech can occur in different places. It seems that there are similarities between Philipsen's speech community and the idea of discourse community. I would like to explore this further as the semester progresses.

Finally, "Chapter 8: The Ethical Implications of a Social Vision of Audience" has sparked some personal interest. The author writes "To write is to enter into a cooperative relationship with another: it always requires securing the cooperation of the audience, who is only a passive receptor if we choose to regard him or her as such" (p. 119). I wonder how this idea of cooperation extends to digital writing. In other words, when one writes on a community forum is he/she performing an act that begins a cooperative relationship with an audience that is unknown. Technology, such as the Internet, has provided a highway that is open to all travelers whether or not their presence is known. It can allow others to read the writings of others (such as an entry to a community forum) and not announce he/his presence. While I understand that writers of print media cannot be certain of their audience either, I think that technology has permitted the anonymity of audience to become more prominent. I am unable to articulate this thought any further but it is something that I would like to explore further especially in regards to my interest in activist forums. To be a cooperative audience implies a certain morale from the reader and the rhetor and I'm not sure I am convinced that this relationship exists with every speech act.

Overall, the readings for this week were thought-provoking. I found that many of the readings can be applied to my own interest in digital rhetoric for marginalized groups and activist communities.