ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
I found the articles for this week extremely engaging, and as someone who continues to develop interest in digital rhetoric and technical communication, I found them helpful in continuing to establish themes and subject-areas of study within the field. Michael Warner’s piece, “Publics and Counter Publics,” while dense, is extremely beneficial to me as a scholar and a teacher. I am teaching ENG 145: Writing in the Academic Disciplines this semester and their first project is a public argument. The assignment calls for the composition of a polemic for the class or opinion editorial for The Vidette, ISU’s student newspaper, or another public forum, possibly digital, in which they wish to publish (even if they do not submit their work for publication). Of course, I want the students to consider rhetorical concepts such as purpose and audience, but Warner’s article has given me so much to think about in terms of how I present the idea of the public argument in the composition classroom with consideration to what a public really is and how publics function in society. I drew a similar connection to “Kairos and the Public Sphere” by David Sheridan, et al. I was thinking as I was reading how to present the different perspectives of Kairos to a class such as my 145 class, for I think they would enjoy discussing the different perceptions of Kairos. Basically, I think the discussion would be more fruitful than the discussions in my 101 or 101.10 classes where I introduce Kairos as a more the “opportune moment.” In expanding the Kairos conversation, students might find more comfort in this assignment as they choose the type of argumentative strategy and the public forum in which to pursue publication. James J. Brown’s work from Ethical Programs also gave me a great deal to think about concerning the ethical implications of digital communities, something which I hope to learn more about as this semester continues. I am glad that these readings are not only enhancing my work as a scholar within the field of rhetoric and composition, but that I am also able to draw parallels to the work I am doing in the composition classroom. Moreover, these ideas are informing my pedagogy, which, in turn, makes me a more engaging, innovative instructor. I mentioned above that Warner’s work was dense, and I stand by my assertion; however, I did appreciate the numerical layout of the different points which define a public. Sheridan et al. and Brown were easier reading, but the ideas presented within were no less enlightening. While I was perusing Brown’s work, I could not help but think of the singer James Brown, due to the similarities in their names. So, to borrow a well-known song lyric from “the Godfather of Soul” James Brown, I feel like now is the time to “Say It Loud”: I think I am a Digital Rhetoric/Technical Communication Scholar. And it feels good to be finding my place in the field of Rhetoric and Composition studies!
0 Comments
ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE.
After the first week of Technology and English Studies, which explores the field of composition and rhetoric studies known as Digital Rhetoric, I thought to myself: "This stuff is so interesting, does anything else even matter?" Of course, I was being facetious. As a first-year PhD student, and a student who had not taken a class in 4 years, I have remained open-minded to the different areas of composition and rhetoric studies to find my niche within the discipline. So, my comment from above does carry a great deal of weight in that I feel a though my interests have narrowed a bit, for now. As a student new to digital rhetoric, I am glad that the readings for this week grounded many of the terms that we will be using in discussion of the different theories, methods, and practices associated with digital rhetoric scholarship. I found interest in the updating the rhetorical canon of delivery to digital delivery in the article “Digital Rhetoric and Public Discourse,” by Laura J. Gurak and Smiljana Antonijevic, specifically in how “digital technologies provide new rhetorical forums where speaker and audience come together without regard for physical distance. Still, delivery does not disappear in cyberspace but rather changes form, developing into digital delivery” (525). I drew a connection between digital delivery as posited by Gurak and Antonijevic to the rhetorical situation as explained by Lloyd Biter, a rhetorician who Douglas Eyman draws upon a great deal in the second chapter of his book Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice. Eyman’s second chapter focuses on the digital rhetorical theory from both a historical perspective and a methodological perspective, and uses “three key elements: exigence, audience, and constraints” of Bitzer’s rhetorical situation to construct a digital rhetorical theoretical methodology. The connection I found was in thinking about how specific exigences, different audiences, and established constraints affect digital delivery and how this shapes our identity. One of the themes I discovered in all of the writings thus far is that many of them focus on identity in some way, such as the separation of the physical identity and the digital identity, or conversely, the meshing of these identities together. I appreciated Hess drawing on Kenneth Burke to form the idea of “technological unconscious consubstantiality” (that is a mouthful) and agree with the author in highlighting identification, not identity. As I worked through these readings, I identified a few of my novice interests in digital rhetoric, of which I hope to explore more this semester. I am interested in how taking part in digital communities forms our identity; I am interested in how digital rhetoric created by digital communities reshapes, reforms, redefines larger social and historical concepts; I am interested in the implications of a pedagogy informed by digital rhetorical methodologies on the composition classroom. Considering the unfortunate reality of the current political landscape of America, it is inspiring to know that early digital rhetoric scholarship was rooted in a discussion around the implications of technology on American politics. |
Charles WoodsPhD student focusing on Rhetoric, Composition, and Technical Communication at Illinois State University. Archives
October 2019
Categories |