RRB 2

1/23/20

Reading: The Digital: Rhetoric Behind and Beyond the Screen

Boyle, Brown, and Ceraso take an interesting approach to defining what is digital. Instead of limiting digital to a specific category, they believe it to be this omnipresent figure that is no longer confined to devices, but is an “embodied condition through which most of our basic processes operate” (252). I like how they acknowledge the dramatic impact that digital works have taken on the human mind. I agree that they approach technology as a common feature of modern existence. Many governments like Canada and Australia have begun to approach internet connection as a resource like water and electricity. I think this is a modern view that improves the condition of living for many individuals by offering access to knowledge of any subject, online communities, and rapidly changing trends. Digital objects have become as incolous as shoes. It’s just expected and normal for one to have access to some gadgets that can access the internet. I think the authors of this piece treat digital objects as a necessary part of life instead of just a potential useful object like the author of the Digital Rhetoric book. They acknowledge that almost everyone has had or will have contact with a digital device so affirming its ubiquitous nature will help open up the field of study. 

This might not be very related to the prompt, but I still want to talk about it. So the authors kind of allude to the notion that it’s impossible to avoid the use of digital devices and digital rhetoric, which I see the point of. We come into contact with advertisements of a digital rhetoric nature everywhere (think of electronic billboards and flashing neon signs, I count that in with digital rhetoric) but even as the pervasiveness of technology grows, I think people are also getting better at ignoring the message and effects. So while advertisers will continue to manipulate their screens and infomercials to bring attention to their message, consumers will become more steadfast in their ability to pay no mind to it. So then this leads advertisers to find even more obnoxious ways of getting the consumers attention. It’s kind of like a cycle in my mind.  

As for my definition of rhetoric, well, to be honest I’m not sure. I think Eyeman’s definition is too limited, but I think Boyle and the others’ definition is too much! I think acknowledging it as a resource is on the right track, but saying that it is “too late to single out the digital as being a thing we can point at and whose fate we can easily determine” is a bit much. Can one not perform tests on what kind of rhetoric (digital or print) seems to be more memorable or resonate better with an individual? Can we come up with more studies about the effects of screen time, especially since babies and toddlers are growing up with the presence of screens? I think we can definitely measure the effects of digitizing rhetoric. So anyways, if I had to define digital rhetoric, it would be along the lines of translating language through a device in order to construct a verbal or auditory experience that can be manipulated by the consumer. I know it’s rough, but at least it doesn’t define the materials that have to be used (because I definitely agree with the point of the typewriter being the first word processor; I found that fascinating!) Nor am I defining what the user/creator must know or have in order to be a credible producer of digital rhetoric. So even a child with little to no formal training of rhetoric can still manufacture a piece of digital rhetoric.