First off I acknowledge that Shauf wrote her article in 2001. Since then, the internet has changed drastically. I'm a bit biased, as I've grown up using the internet for most of my life and have spent most of my life online. This is mostly due to the fact that technology today is extremely invasive in our real lives. Its starting to be problemtic to escape from email, Facebook, etc. as new devices and technology are created to deliver information and send communication to anyone with a phone or computer at any moment of the day.
It might be because of the invasive nature of technology in my everyday life that I fail to fully understand Shauf's argument. What I took away from the article was that there was a type of rhetoric missing, but it felt like she avoided explaining what the rhetoric was exactly. It sounds like she wants people to create arguments with video, GIFs, audio clips, etc. to move an audience to do something (or react to something). Isn't this what most web sites already do now? Some try to sell you things, others try to keep you informed or debunk myths/gossip, others try to provide you with cheap entertaiment, and the list goes on. Perhaps my best example would be the TedTalks channel on Youtube that brings a speaker onstage to talk about something important to the speaker. The speaker usually uses videos, pictures, and audio to help keep the audience engaged with their presentation. Therefore, isn't this part of the missing rhetoric Shauf is talking about? The speaker has credibility (logos) because they are experts on their topic. They usually find ways to make their speech humorous which usually helps them win over the audiences trust (pathos). Lastly, the speaker places a value on the thing they are talking about and conveys why the audience needs to care about the topic (ethos).
I'm sorry if I'm too confused, or hung up on this. Shauf sounds overly critical of technology and I'm wondering if I don't understand what her idea of rhetoric is, or if I'm thinking too narrowly. Is she saying there needs to be a place on the internet where people, for example, get on Skype and throw questions and arguments back at each other like Socrates and Gorgias did in our other reading? Except in the modern digital rhetoric they're allowed to throw GIFs and sound files to help with their arguments instead of simply talking back and forth?
Shaynna - I think perhaps you are conflating rhetoric and technology. They are not one and the same, although writing is a technological act. What Shauf is talking about is the way we USE technology, not whether it is "good" or "bad." (Those are not often useful descriptors when you are thinking about rhetoric.) Rather, what she is suggesting is that we need to think of all the ways we can use technology rhetorically, and pushing us to think consciously about our rhetorical style. I think she's asking for mindfulness.
ReplyDeleteO.k., though, I chose the reading, so does someone else have other thoughts?
Shaynna - I think perhaps you are conflating rhetoric and technology. They are not one and the same, although writing is a technological act. What Shauf is talking about is the way we USE technology, not whether it is "good" or "bad." (Those are not often useful descriptors when you are thinking about rhetoric.) Rather, what she is suggesting is that we need to think of all the ways we can use technology rhetorically, and pushing us to think consciously about our rhetorical style. I think she's asking for mindfulness.
ReplyDeleteO.k., though, I chose the reading, so does someone else have other thoughts?
I read the article in the same way as Michelle. I don't think she was being critical of technology at all. I think she was being critical of the way people -specifically her students- were failing to use technology in a persuasive manner. I really liked what you had to say about the Ted Talks, Shayna. I think that Shauf would be pleased with the way speakers are using technology to make arguments in that way. For me, Ted Talks are very convincing and very persuasive because of the visual and technological tools that Ted Talkers take advantage of. It's probably worth it to study Ted Talks to get at the ways these speakers are able to do what they do. Most of them have an excellent understanding of digital rhetoric and multi-modal writing.
ReplyDeleteWhen you talked about technology, I honestly didn't think you were confusing technology with rhetoric. My interpretation was that you were saying that technology was already using rhetoric to get their ideas across to their audience and so you didn't understand the point of us trying to learn rhetoric in this class.
ReplyDeleteIf that's right at all, I'd like to say that I agree to a certain extent, but I'd like to push it further a little bit. I think the reason why we're studying rhetoric and technology is because we're unsure about how to attract our target audience. Sure, websites like Youtube and Facebook acquire an audience, but are they the target audience? And are those websites getting people to behave/act the way that they hope to?
At least those are some of my thoughts :).
Thank you,
Kelly Kinney
Shaynna,
ReplyDeleteAs you likely already know from reading my blog post, I agree with you that technology already serves as a form of rhetoric, just like Kelly just mentioned. I thought the point of this class and the point that Shauf was trying to make was not what technology is lacking in the way of being rhetorical and thus, being persuasive, but to understand how different sources use things like GIFs, video, audio clips, photography and other images to support their arguments and in so doing, be more persuasive. It seemed to me that Shauf was upset with her students because they had a very narrow concept of how technology could be used to be persuasive, like when she mentioned that students would only come up with three different types of multimedia projects. To me, this says that anything we use, anything we show or embed in a technological link of any kind, makes a type of argument, and we need to to be conscientious of that. That's what I gathered from this and it sounds like you were on a similar path.
Cheers,
Patrick Carroll