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.