Blog from Outside Source: Week 8?

While I would not consider this site a blog, per se, it is defintely an outside source that has sparked my interest. The U.S. Department of State has created an "Opinion Space." On the homepage it explains the space as a place where "Every participant chooses a "point of view" on a global opinion map. Your position is not based on geography or predetermined categories, but on similarity of opinion: those who agree on basic issues are neighbors, those who are far apart have agreed to disagree. You can instantly see where you stand in relation to other participants; by reviewing their comments, you help the community highlight the most insightful ideas." I find this space extremely interesting in that it is creating a certain ideology about the United States, relevant issues, community and what it means to be a participant within society. Also, it seems as if the space requires the participant to choose one point of view and does not allow multiple viewpoints so is it really a place for dialogue or a space for diatribes? I have yet to sign in to this space because I am wary as to the "freedom" it really allows. Perhaps this is a result of discussing and reading about too many conspiracy theories. But, if the aforementioned mission statement does prove to be true, it would seem as if this is a 21st century public forum. But, I wonder, what does one do with the information they retrieve within the opinion space? The mission statement alludes to the idea that the opinion space is a community and/or an assistor in creating communities. What communities are being created? Sure opinions from disparate perspectives are allowed, but what good does it do? I always struggle with the "now, what" question. Now, that I have posted my opinion within the online forum, now, what? Is it enough to simply state my views and carry on with life or should there be more to the experience? I think these are questions that ever person participating in similar forums must ask himself/herself. Without the answer to this question, one wonders why participate at all. The answers also illustrate the expectations that one holds about the experience he/she has within the digital sphere.

Reflecting on the Week: Delivery: Week 7

As the end of the semester approaches too quickly, I am thinking about my final projects. For this class, I am wrestling with the idea of digital activism, digital rhetoric, and specifically digital delivery. I becoming increasingly interested in the idea of digital delivery of online activists. In what ways does rhetoric function in the digital sphere for online activists that might differ from offline advocates? How is the body employed for social change online? These are a few of the beginning questions that I am mulling over in my mind. I hope to gain some clarity in the direction I want to take over the next few weeks. Until then...

Delivery: Specific Blog: Week 7

In this week's readings, I was particulary interested in Porter's notion of a theory about digital delivery. While his chief aim is not to explictly create a new ditial theory, per se, his compilation of various research regarding delivery and its relationship with delivery serves as a type of theoretical foundation for scholars interested in the topic.
With the inception of the Internet, and the continual increase of the Internet's possibilities, the subject of delivery in an online setting is becoming pertinent to understanding the impact of technology on human interaction. Porter states "It achieves status as a true art when it is taught and practiced as a form of knowledge involving a critical understanding of the purposes and effects of the art on audiences and the practical know-how to achieve those effects in new discursive situations" (p.210). In other words, as scholars, we must cease neglecting the study of Aristotle's canon as well as resist the urge to perceive delivery as inherently connected to the physical, "real-life" realm of reality. Instead, it is time that we take a closer look at the ways in which rhetoric functions, specifically delivery, in an online setting. Do the traditional views of delivery transfer to the digital sphere or is it necessary to completely erase what we think we know about delivery and rhetoric and start anew?
It is my argument that similar to activism we must force ourselves away from the tendency to compare actions offline with communication online. While I am not advocating for a complete ignorance of the theoretical foundations and knowledge that have shaped our understanding of offline human interaction, I am stating that we must resist the urge to employ the same definitions and meanings of human interaction in a face to face, offline setting when attempting to understand the interaction that takes place within the digital realm. "Real-life" and virtual reality are separate realities and worlds, thus, the knowledge sought and discovered about both should be independent of the other.
One element of human interaction that should be separated from its "real-life" counterpart is delivery online versus offline. Digital delivery is an important area to understand in that our society is continually being bombarded by the omnipresence of the digital sphere. Our lives and interactions are increasingly dependent upon our ability to interact and exist with other individuals through a technological screen. As Porter explains in discussing the emergence of the printing press, "The technological shift from scribal to print culture was not a mere technical or instrumental shift from one form of delivering knowledge to another. The new form of delivery changed knowledge itself; it changed the parameters, procedures, and locus for what constituted religious truth and scientific knowledge; it changed who had the right to create, promote, and distribute knowledge, giving power to a wider range of voices" (p. 210). This statement can be applied to the current trend of technological interaction. We are seeing a shift from traditional face to face interaction within a public setting to the more typical experience of individual conversations through the modality of digitized communication. Therefore, the individual experiencing this shift must negotiate his/her role in the changing form of communication, the implications of such on his/her views of interaction, and the consequences not only on the self but also on the larger society.
The increase of possibilities on the Internet raises a multitude of questions. First, how does one present the self visually on the Internet? Users of the Internet are more technologically savvy than ever before. Avatars, symbols, icons, and a variety of other forms of the visualized body are displayed in the digital sphere as representations of the self. Instead of worrying about physical dress and appearance, people are now focusing their attention on the impression they make online. Does my avatar represent me? Does it represent who I want to be? If I use too many emoticons do I seem overly emotional or silly? The questions about impression management online and the complications of digital delivery is a prevalent issue that continues to haunt users and researchers. In order to full understand the impact of the Internet on human interaction and the way rhetoric functions within the digital sphere, scholars must dedicate themselves to this area of study. We must ask questions of influence, complication; we must force ourselves to see the disadvantages and advantages of technology on humanity; and we must seek to educate the masses about the information that we discover in hopes of helping people make responsibile social decisions.

Outside Blog: Week 6: Reflection

This week for my outside blog blog I am going to write about my frustration with being unable to easily find a blog that I want to read. While this might be unprecedented and not follow the assignment instructions exactly, I am frustrated and would like to share that frustration.

First, I cannot, for the life of me, find a blog relating to digital activism. I venture to the suggested sites, look for a search box, type in "digital activism blog" or some similar request, and patiently wait. No fail, everytime, the suggested site takes me to some blog that has nothing to do with digital activism, technology and advocacy, or anything remotely related to this topic. Why, oh why, can I not find a blog that I want to read? Where have all the blogs gone? Seriously, in an age where technology is abundant, evolving, and ommipresent why do I feel an extreme annoyance at my inability to find a suitable reading on the Internet? I have tried a multitude of websites, I have attempted to enter different search terms, I have ventured to areas of the Internet I did not expect, but to no avail. Please help.

I think the difficulty of finding a blog of my choosing says something about the vastness of the Internet, the dominance of cyberspace, and the inevitable uncertainty that is inherent to the digital sphere. I would think that with so many possibilities that the Internet allows that I would not be experiencing such immense frustration. Apparently, I am incorrect in this naive thought. What does a gal have to do to read an interesting blog, or in fact an uninteresting blog, about technology and advocacy??

That is all I can say for today. I am too frustrated at technology and must part ways with it for the time being. Until tomorrow...

Reflection: Week 6: Invention

This week I found the readings to be a bit difficult to decipher. I found myself reading and rereading the texts in hopes of understanding the author's overall argument. I am still confused as to the debate between hermeneutics and rhetoric. Furthermore, I am interested in the how the English department differs in their understanding of rhetoric as a concept from the Communication department. I would really appreciate any clarification to this point. Obviously, there has to be a difference or the departments would not continue to be separated, correct? A naive thought, I'm sure.

Finally, I am feeling as if this class is becoming quite disconnected because of its online format. I am not sure how we go about fixing this problem, but I would like to explore some options if anyone is interested. However, I am not sure anyone reads this blog besides Anne and myself. Anyone out there???

Specific Post: Week 6: Invention

From this week's readings, I was particularly intrigued by Wark's idea of individuals as hackers of abstraction as well as Lyon's argument about rhetorical production versus rhetorical interpretation. The following blog is a closer look at these two pieces, the questions that arise in response, and the role each might play in my research endeavors.

Wark presents the idea of people as hackers or abstraction. He writes, "We are the hackers of abstraction. We produce new concepts, new perceptions, new sensations, hacked out of raw data" (p. 212). Following this line of thought, is the concept of social constructionism. Social construction is the idea that humans create their realities; no one reality exists universal to all, but instead realities are comprised of subjective experiences individually created, maintained, and reinforced. Wark's idea of the "hacker class" is reflective of this ideology in that each person's subjectivity creates a social reality dependent upon the conscious of its rhetor. Wark argues, "Whether we come to represent ourselves as researchers or authors, artists or biologists, chemists or musicians, philosophers or programmers, each of these subjectivities is but a fragment of a class still becoming, bit by bit, aware or itself as such" (p. 212). Thus, the hacker class is continually evolving. He further presents the intriquing thought that these new (albeit "newer) ideas constrain and control their creators. In a sense, the ideas become independent while the creators are forced into dependency. Furthermore, within society is a dominant class that has the tendency and power to coerce the nondominant into accepting their ideals, or ideas of abstraction, despite the latter's unwillingness and undesirablity to do so. Too often, however, new ideas become obsolete as the status quo is pushed once again to the forefront as the accepted and ideal way of existing. In this regard, the powerful stay dominant and the disempowered continued to be dominated. Wark's claim of invention's tendency to become a concept of privilege and a tool for maintaining the existing social hiearchy deserves thoughtful attention. In particular, how does this idea relate to the omnipresence of technology within the 21st century public sphere? I would like to explore this idea of the invention of ideas becoming a tool of dominance further in the future. I am unsure as of yet how I will utilized Wark's idea, but find the claim fascinating and useful in some (albet undetermined) fashion.

Finally, Lyon's contention with postmodernity studies in regards to rhetorical invention sparks a personal interest. I tend to do research that would be consider to fall under the postmodern realm and Lyon's claim that these types of studies privilege interpretation over production is interesting. I have yet to fully comprehend the argument that Lyon is making, but have enough of a sufficient understanding that I can ask a few questions. First, why must it be an either/or argument. Lyon posits that areas such as postmodernity focus too much on the textuality of rhetoric, the interpretive existence of the text, and the deconstruction of the extant text. She states, "the ancient concept has only
become more problematic, especially postl11odern theory's suspicion of
agency, origins, form, and progress, and its emphasis on multiple discourses,
deconstruction, irony, fragmentation" (p. 37). I agree with Lyon in her assessments of the arguments set forth by Gadamer and Mailloux. I do not think that either are complete. To separate interpretation of communication from the actual production of communication, as suggested by Gadamer, is limiting. Furthermore, to privilege the interpretation of a text over the rhetorical production of the text is to constrain oneself as well. Lyon, in explaining Mailloux's perspective, states "Hermeneutics deals with interpretation focused on texts, and rhetoric deals with figuration and
persuasion directed at audiences" (p. 42). I am confused as to how it is possible to separate the two. As I understand, rhetoric involves both the invention aspect as well as interpretation. To focus on one and not the other is to limit oneself to the understanding of the rhetor and his/her rhetoric. I am going to end my discussion of Lyon unfinished. I recognize that there is more to say on this point, but feel as if I would benefit from a closer examination of the different perspectives that she presents. Her article is dense and thus to provide a thoughtful response requires multiple readings and careful deliberation. There is somethin about this piece that I find relevant and beneficial to my studies that focus on how marginalized people employ rhetoric to create, maintain, and reinforce their communities; however, I am still trying to discover the link between Lyon's piece and this facet of my area of study. I hope that I am better able to articulate my thoughts on this connection in the future.

Overall Blog: Week 6: Invention

Invention is one of the five canons that has long been contested and continues to be discussed for its naure and purpose within rhetoric. Lauer focuses on these sometimes contentious debates over a vast amount of time. As she notes, invention often functions as the beginning of the rhetorical process. The canon assists in understanding the rhetorical choices one makes, identifying the direction of various ideas, and can helps elucidate the rhetorical situation for the rhetor. Lauer explains "These purposes entail different epistemologies and inve ntional strategies.
T hey also imply somewhar differenr conceprions of rhe composing
process and of its originating acts. For example, if invention's purpose
is to locate arguments to support a thesis, the composing process
would likely begin with an existing thesis. If invention's purpose is
to reach new insights. the process would li kely begin with questions" (p.3).

Hawhee further discusess the debate about invention. She explains that two schools of thought exist on the purpose of invention as an element of the rhetorical process. "The distinction between these two perspectives hinges on issues of cxtcriority and interiority: the discovery model presents a subject that looks outside itself to "find" arguments, and the creative model assumes that thc subjcct need only look inside itself for things to say" (p. 16). She continues the conversation by introducing the issue of subjectivity in regards to invention. Postmodern studies, for example, contest commonly held perceptions of the rhetor as an independent entity protected from the influences of anything outside the realm of the self. Throughout the chapter, Hawhee continues to explore alternative perspectives of subjectivity and discourse in an attempt to understand the disparate viewpoints on the issue of invention.

Wark presents an interesting picture of invention. In this piece, he approaches the concept of invention as a possession of the human mind, wrought with possibilities and potentialities, but vulnerable to the privileged perspective of the society's dominant. As humans, we are all hackers. Hackers of ideas and information, creators of consciousness and reality. Yet, the fruits of our hacking labors can be challenged, minimalized, or forced into oblivion if the privileged group desires it to be so. Thus, from this perspective, the existence of the ability to invent within the human conscious is not guaranteed but is instead at the mercy of the masses.

Finally, Lyon discusses the issue of rhetorical scholars, particularly those studying postmodernity, as problematic to the continued existence of Aristotle's five canons such as invention. She argues, "Rhetoric becomes a strategic
approach to reading texts, not a praxis or poesis" (p. 36). She further posits that by focusing on the interpretation of texts instead of the production of rhetoric, rhetoric becomes diminished in terms of its relationship with invention and is defined by a scholar's ability to interpret a text instead of a study about the invention of the rhetorical action.

Overall, what can be gleaned from these readings is the idea that there are a multitude of perspectives about the meaning of invention, invention's purpose and function within rhetorical studies, and the implications for these perspectives on rhetorical scholarship.