Week 13: The Available Means of Persuasion

In Sheridan’s, Ridolfo’s, and Michel’s work The Available Means of Persuasion, each scholar is arguing for an advancement and rhetorical movement of kairos in scholarly fields and writing composition classes. In their work they articulate the many spheres that kairos manipulates itself - and how it is embedded rhetorically in multimodal platforms. They state that their book is about how “kairotic inventiveness changes in the context of multimodality” (10). They utilize the definition of kairos as praxis - specifically when theory is immersed as action in a particular situation. They begin their argument by addressing that their viewpoint is successful from the position of networks in the realm of  production - reproduction - and distribution - which includes “human and non-human actors” (11). Chapter One engages this argument by discussing the importance of kairos in the public sphere and how it is incorporated by deciding what “rhetorical action is appropriate” and being aware of the rhetorical options in the given moment (21).

Chapter Two discusses the avenues of multimodal rhetoric and how it embedded itself in the argument of kairos. Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel affirm that a digital divide exists in new media and the consumption of information that is “one way” - while some platforms that favor old meda can still have purpose and rhetorical agency. This argument crafts the position that cultural interest changes technology to be more accessible...giving up assets that were unique to the old media platform. This public interest that arises shapes the kairos of the developer to engage a large amount of the public, but also loses the serious user of the original product - which sacrifices specialty in favor of massive interests from the public at large.

Chapter Three engages in the subject of public rhetoric, kairotic expansion, and concerns about kairotic moments. The discussion of circulation, production, and “selling” of the multimodel product is evident in Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel’s argument in the sense that they are trying to discuss the kairotic factors related to production and reproduction. Much of the examples used in Chapter Three (Ridolfo’s documentary film, screenwriter Terence Winter) expose the knowledge of one’s audience, expectation, and insight into the medium itself to be embraced by the public (55). The expansion of kairos produces the awareness of the “aristotelian triangle” - which then becomes larger (9 points of articulation) in account of Burke’s ratio, which is very similar in nature to his Scene-Act-Agency- Ratios. The essence of Chapter Three is steeped in how there is a kairotic struggle in “choosing among available possibilities” - as well as awareness of the web of factors that craft kairos - audience, purpose, exigency, mode, genre, media…

In Chapter Four I found an insightful and revealing argument in how a rhetorical argument is shaped and modified through rhetorical velocity. This definition is utilized as the way “rhetors strategize about the potential recomposition and redistribution of a text” (79). Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel look at how rhetorical velocity recomposses a textual object while also looking at the format that it was remixed in and how it altered the message. They spend some considerable time looking at Negative Appropriation with photographer David Hume Kennerly and his family photo session with Dick Cheney. This discussion reveals that the creator of the product does not have rhetorical control over how the construct is remixed, sampled, or interpreted. This discussion was very interesting involving its assessment into the kairotic moment - which could be beneficial or offer a hinderance politically.

Chapter Five discusses how kairos can function in the writing classroom and how it can engage and expand current traditional writing practices that engage students. Delivery of writing products can engage and expand from just the traditional walls of the classroom and expand in a way that can be linked to “public-sphere participation...ethical and political...circulate ideas, information, opinions…[to] deliberate on the issues of the day” (109). The chart that compares classroom and public texts on page 111 exposes the purpose of writing assignments and how they match up in the traditional manner for a teacher-based audience who reads student writing versus a pubic-based audience that is familiar with the content of the work.

Chapters 6,7, and 8 are interesting in that they reference the pedagogy of multimodality and look at public rhetorical moves that are interesting for the composition classroom. While these were insightful chapters, I did not find them completely relevant to the overall argument being made by the scholars.

In Chapter 9, (like in Chapter 4) - Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel argue for an activist mode of rhetorical analysis that gets students involved - meaning that it is not good enough to be aware, but that they must be willing to get engaged with the public and work out the knowledge that has been attained.

Question: What are the ethical/moral implications in teaching the political avenues of kairos and its influence from the point of view of a rhetor to a student body? Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel assert that a rhetor should “make time” if there is not an opportune moment to persuade - but what message might that be sending? How can the avenues and methods of rhetorical velocity with a political slant be taught for ethical means?

In reading about the public spheres of kairos - I am intrigued by how this research can be implemented into the core curriculum at a high school. While not just appropriate for an English class, this seems important for a Humanities based class - maybe even History, Art, or Science in the sense that it is asking for awareness as well as action that evokes an audience.

Blog Post 10 / For Week 11

While reading Safiya Umoja Noble’s book Algorithms Of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, I took note specifically of her thesis and desired outcome through her writing. She articulates that “algorithmically driven data failures that are specific to people of color and women...are fundamental to what [she has] coined algorithmic oppression” (4). She then discusses as one aspect of her thesis for the book being to investigate the corporate structures and “willful neglect...profit...that makes money from racism and sexism” (5). While Noble dives deeper into the racist structures of Google search engine and coding structures, she utilizes the text as a platform to discuss and peel away the layers that make up the hegemonic structures of online content and culture.

In Chapter One, A Society, Searching - Noble reveals that the public masses that use the internet need “algorithmic literacy” - they must be able to critique computer coding programs and have a tool box for understanding how they work. She also argues for users to be critical of results that pop up on search engines since misrepresentation is bound to happen online. In Chapter One Noble touches upon topics of A.I and the lack of human agency, sexualized key words (which is expanded upon later in the book), and problematic search results that aid a racist anti-black agenda. She also moves into aspects of the monopoly of Google and advertisements that dominate search engines.

In Chapter Two, Searching For Black Girls, Noble begins to dissect the question as to who is responsible for the hateful and racist search results in Google. She articulates the question, “If Google software engineers are not responsible for the design of their algorithms, then who is?” (66). Her notion that a search of “black girls” brings up searches for “sex” and “porn” drives her study to reveal that people of color are underemployed at the tech giants: “Not only are African Americans underemployed at Google, Facebook, Snapchat...but jobs that could employ the expertise of people who understand the ramifications of racist and sexist stereotyping and misrepresentation...are nonexistent” (70). Noble looks into the stereotyping of women in online search engines and reveals the bias and racist notions that fuel online search content. She displays the male gaze of online content with the “understanding” that the top search results are of public opinion.

In Chapter Three, Searching for People and Communities, Noble looks to the 2015 attack of Dylann Roof on unsuspecting African American Christian Worshipers at a Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina. She uses this attack to reveal the bias that Roof discovered online about “black on white crime” and how biased the news was that he discovered. Noble reveals that more accessibility to accurate news should have depicted that “white on white crime as well as black on black crime” was more prevalent then what he found.

Chapter Four, Searching for Protections From Search Engines, Noble reveals the immortality of content and searches on the internet. She makes the notion that revenge porn as well as blackmail content destructively prohibits women from furthering their careers if private content is released online. Noble asks the question “What does it mean that one’s past is always determining one’s future because the internet never forgets?” She reveals that the public is more concerned with taking down information than celebrity or public figures.  A startling statistic that she produces mentions that “less than 5%...of 220,000 requests made to Google to remove links to online information concern....high profile public figures...95% of requests come from everyday members of public” (130). She incorporates this argument into digitization and contextualization awareness to promote a future of privacy and equality.

Chapters Five and Six, The Future of Knowledge in the Public, and The Future of Information Culture -  Noble looks at “problems in classifying people” through an occurrence at Dartmouth/ She maintains that the public needs “search engine alternatives, united with public-interest journalism...to ensure the public has access to the highest quality of information…” (152). In Chapter Six, public policy is utilized to showcase how algorithms may change in the future, especially as demographic of the Silicon Valley do not change in any type of diverse ways.

The two chapters that I find most poignant are Chapters 1 and 2 -Noble creates the crux of her argument in the stance that if Google can do nothing to fix the racist culture in it’s search engines (42), then who will? Who will redirect the searches to portray socially conscious results that are not click bait?  She also asks the question “cui bono” - meaning “who benefits”? If the internet is a tool for advancement and technology, who holds the power to shape it?

My Question: (From Chapters 1 and 2)

What does society do when the hegemonic “powers that be” are the code writers of our algorithms? How do we combat a  digital racist agenda that promotes bigotry and hate speech?

While students are the digital natives using technology and creating content as they see fit, they are also the ones who are going to be passing down their “expertise” to the next generation of coders. As Noble describes, search engines are the equivalent to the wild wild west - no barriers or structures exist. Since Google has constructed itself as a monopoly, we must entrust coders who are able to fight against the destructive culture that shapes online communities.

Reflective Post # 2

 




After viewing the syllabus and looking closer at my blog posts/notes, it seems that the second half of this semester has definitely been more integrated to the workings and functions of what digital rhetoric “is made of” - and what I mean by that is what digital constructs do in the realm of rhetoric.

After Serafini’s Reading the Visual, the aspect of interfaces, digital manipulation, and technology crafted in a medium to be altered really began to fascinate me (I’ll speak to this more for my final project). What does boggle my mind is rhetorical moves and notions in networks and software. While I understand the concepts, the idea of rhetoric in code and the shifting of dynamic online content (Remixing digital cultures) is somewhat vast for me to fully grapple with. For example, the readings for weeks 8 and 9 are large and abstract in nature (Chun, Haas, Wood & Smith), which reminds me why I did not go into engineering.



But what I am curious about is the aspect of altering digital content that has systematically been created for purposes of manipulation.  I am intrigued by Ridolfo and Devoss concept of rhetorical velocity and how it dispatches new media content from constructs that already exist. With this in mind, I have to reference the impact of analogue technologies on digital components and how those have shaped our understanding of online interfaces. My ability to interact with the physical interfaces that exist in society has positioned me to comprehend the digital spheres that I experience online - and each construct/interface builds upon the one that came before it.




With this in mind, for my final project I want to look at rhetorical velocity in online culture, either in images or music - and discuss the aspect of future 3rd parties that participate in reconstruction/re-comprehension (remix culture) through digital means. As a fan of music on vinyl records, a part of me wants to unearth and dig deep into influential jazz musicians who unknowingly birthed soundscapes - that today have become the foundation for rap and hip hop. These soundtracks that were originally recorded on acetate have become digital mp3 files that now influence the club scene, are remixed into dj culture, and are “chopped” up for new uses and interpretation for the next generation of musicians. While this is just the brainstorm of my initial ideas for my project, I looked into some alterations that have digital roots for inspiration. Below I have two links. One is of the original dial up sound from the AOL system. The next link is that same sound, but placed at a reduced speed, giving it a chilling effect for a haunted house. It is with this concept of manipulation that I want to place my project around.

DIAL UP INTERNET: Audio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSRG0TqxLWc


DIAL UP INTERNET Reduced Speed Audio:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF2v32xCD0Y

Blog Post 9 For Week 10

I read this weeks articles a bit out of order, but focused on Danielle Nicole Devoss’ work first. I looked at English Studies and Intellectual Property: Copyright, Creativity, and the Commons first which utilized the idea that intellectual property poses on copyright laws in the US. Devoss articulates her thesis as analyzing  “[...] copyright issues in a world where most writing happens digitally, and more and more writing requires composers to draw on multiple media[...]” (204). She discusses the ethical dilemma of teaching students how to they situate themselves in the “copyright system” where authorship, fair use, and remixing as well as piracy exist on mutliple levels. Her questions that she poses mainly confront digital authorship and its involvement after being accessed through the classroom.

It seemed like the next logical  article was the digital script Devoss did with Ridolfo - Composing For Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity And Delivery. This is an interesting concept in the light that “rhetorical velocity” is particular to creating media (text, webtext, sound, image, word, ect) that “anticipate[s] and strategizes[s] future third-party remixing…” - this notion immediately brings to my mind the concept of the analog vinyl record. While in the late 1960’s the funk and soul records were scratched and used as  break-beats for hip hop in the Bronx of New York, it became a second as well as third party tool for “remixing” and sampling  - essentially becoming the foundation for what rap music is today. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, record companies intentionally released “scratch” records that were made so that they could be remixed (re-appropriated) on purpose - giving the dj intent to remix the sound clips. The definitions that fit into Devoss’ and Ridolfo’s framework seem to occupy this idea as well. 

I then read Devoss’ article with Porter: Why Napster Matters to Writing: File Sharing as a New Ethic of Digital Delivery. They both argue for writing teachers to look at the “Napster moment” as an economic as well as  a rhetorical example for digital publishing. They also urge for teachers to think about digital composition pedagogies that align with digital file sharing practices (delivery) that reveal a new ethic/discussion on plagarism. Porter and Devoss’ example of the copyright war exposed the two different ideologies that separated the the big business from the user/creator. The “contrasting political philosophies” reveal that future teachers must teach a “positive ethic of sharing” (202) - and that this must be implemented into users who share content online. Fines and monetary consequences will not educate the masses, but the rhetorical ques of audience and purpose will.

In Devoss’ article with Jim Ridolfo, Remixing and Reconsidering Rhetorical Velocity, both scholars look at remixing from where they left off in 2009. They look at it through four perspectives: “technological, cultural, legal, and research in scholarship” (61). They look to the future of remixing - specifically as an “act, an object, a methodology, a disruptor, and a vehicle…” by updating where remixing has moved from and to since 2004. Their example of “fake news,” making the cycle of rhetorical velocity tricky is interesting - but they expose the process as to how a meme is proliferated is equal to what rhetorical velocity is trying to accomplish. By looking at timestamps as to how it is constructed, shared, re-tweeted, and posted is a strong example of how images produce involvement from 3rd parties, many times intentionally/deliberately.

In Jenny Edbauer’s Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies, she argues for “public rhetorics/a rhetoric’s publicness” to shift the lines of focus the rhetorical situation to rhetorical ecologies - which ultimately creates rhetoric as a public creation. She begins to breakdown the notion of place: “The contact between two people on a busy street is never simply a matter of those two bodies...the two bodies carry[...] culture[...] social histories” (10). She articulates the rhetorical situation in Austin as a changing character that is moving over to corporate control and climate, while also trying to hold onto its “weirdness.” By looking at all of the “weird” rhetoric that was shaping the community, the rhetorical ecologies expands with every new sign, slogan, or phrase (19) that is added to the phrase. She emphasizes the power of public rhetoric though that which involves engagement and interaction with a local society - which maximizes inclusion and discussion. 

Dustin Edwards’ article, On Circulatory Encounters: The Case for Tactical Rhetorics,  argues for political and dynamic flows of circulation that navigate public discourse and culture. In looking at how circulation studies contains “metis” - or cunning/wily modes through art, that give purpose and allow for discussions on ethics.

Mathieu and George construct Not Going It Alone: Public Writing, Independent Media, and the Circulation of Homeless Advocacy. They ask the forward thinking question: how do we teach, promote, and educate students on creating/circulating meaningful acts of public rhetoric? The examples of the filmed movie Bumfights and coerced manipulation is an engaging framework to view this through, as well as the writing projects in the classroom that engage in discussion about the homeless in the the community. 

My Question:

While I was reading the three articles constructed by Devoss, Ridolfo, and Porter, I began to think about what an ethical lesson for students on constructing their own media content (via-remixing/sampling/interacting as a 3rd party) in the realm of copyright laws might look like. Porter and Devoss do a stellar job opening up the dialogue in our “post-napster” era, but with rhetorical velocity, what message is being sent to students when they convert the meaning of “file sharing” to being interpreted as “ownership” - and is that ok? What do teachers consider when digital plagiarism occurs and the root of finding the source material becomes muddy?

Constructing My Simple Website

Constructing my website was frustrating to say the least. It had its challenges and drawbacks, but I think it works for a simple purpose. After class last week I used the links and used some Google searches and w3schools on how to connect the files and link back and forth between index->page2 and from page2-> index. I also used that to create the css file. I really didn’t understand what that file was doing until I saw that it was specifying the style of page background, the header, and the paragraph to connect both pages together (to look the same). I understood the first page (index) working as a MAIN source for where I wanted my image and link. Getting the link to connect to the second text editor file was confusing, and linking the outside IMDB pages was difficult on the first attempt, but once I figured in class that my original script for the outer link worked, I copied that for the IMDB links on my page2. So I went back to this each time: Click <a href="page2.html"> HERE </a> for my Top 5 Scary Movies! This script allowed me to think about the format for the links that I wanted to connect with each of the pages, but it took a little trial and error before I realized that I’m just changing what is in between the quotation marks to make my link for this work. Then each item ended up connecting. <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1"> Halloween </a> <br> As for the images, the spider web image I found in class I wanted to use, but I could not find where that first image came from, or if it had a copyright on it. I had to locate another image that was available for common use. I did the same with the picture from the cabin in the woods. Overall I’m satisfied with my experience, and have a large amount of respect for html and coding. I don’t think I will be making another website though!

Blog 6 for Week 7

I’m going to go in a somewhat random order here as I read each article differently from how I printed them out (which was in the order they were posted in the syllabus).

I first dove into Gallagher’s The Rhetorical Template which focuses on Web 2.0 and its uses in creating the rhetorical situation through “content” and “form” online. Gallagher positions his article to ask the following questions: “Does the rhetorical situation derive from the situation itself or the rhetor?” He also follows up this question with the perspective of the writer/template creating the “rhetorical discourse” on the web. His look into templates, specifically Facebook’s focus on the profile picture with the use of the overall larger image creates a rhetorical scenario that he unpacks with genre theory and his focused questions he articulates to his students.

I then began to read Arola’s article, The Design of Web 2.0: The Rise of the Template, The Fall of Design (which I realize would have been supportive to read before Gallagher’s article). Arola is arguing for a new process in which Web 2.0 is engaged with by both teachers and students at a design level. She utilizes Myspace and Facebook as key examples of coding and seamless technology, like “the post” - web authorship, and active engagement use of the interface. She inserts her fear, similar to Gallagher, that the interface will become invisible and not questioned in social media circles.

To continue the concept of Interfaces, Selfe & Selfe Jr.’s article The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones establishes the argument that computer use without questioning ties into domination and colonialism - therefore teachers need to expose the relationships between education and technology. They tap into practices of class privilege as well as marginalized voices/demographics that use computers - but are left out of opportunities that uplift communities or create actual engaging/academic experiences that lead to change. They too ask for critical readings of Interfaces as borders - places that leave languages, voices, and experiences behind.

Drucker’s article, Reading Interface, explores Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) as interfaces on the web, but also establishes the metaphor of what is on the screen. She asserts that “As we make a text, we are produced by it as its subject” - concluding that the interface must be manipulated, but that it also alters our experience with the digital content it is interacting with.

Carnegie’s article, Interface as Exordium: The Rhetoric of Interactivity breaks down this concept into three arenas to explore: multi-directionality, manipulability, and presence. Multi-directionality establishes interactivity, very similar to Instant Messaging and social media communication or even Google chat in an email interface. Manipulability focuses on “gadgets” that emphasize manipulating content, forms, and design on a web page with access to deeper levels of online engineering. Presence is associated with the timing and moment of being “present” with another user, or lack of presence that exits with a system or user online.

Buck’s article on The Invisible Interface: MS Word in the Writing Center seemed a bit from the outside of this conversation as it was a case study of a writing tutor with two different students using a digital approach to working on a paper. The case study itself was interesting, as well as the transcribed discussion between tutor and student, but the overall findings did not reveal an emphasis on further implications. With Google docs and sharing docs with other users, this case study may be improved to look at how users can manipulate one doc with two computers.

Wysocki and Jasken write What Should Be an Unforgettable Face...to discuss the aspects of Interface and allowing more accessible interfaces for students and teachers alike.  The invisible interface is made visible - or at least discussed and broken down in this article to expose users, designers, and audience - all in discussion with form and content.

The three articles that I’m going to look at more closely together are Selfe/Selfe Jr., Carnegie, and Arola. These three articles did not apply perfect arguments towards each other, but they do cross-over in the rhetorical discussion about online activity and communities that use that space. While Carnegie breaks down the three primary modes of interactivity, it seems the most effective, or at least skill oriented is Manipulability. She argues that it is defined as “the degree to which users can influence or manipulate the form and content of new media communication…[it is limited to] intellectual engagement…” (168). The engineering aspect of interactivity is similar to what Selfe and Selfe Jr. argue for in the borders that are created through tech literacy. Skill sets are needed, therefore the educational background and teaching is needed to promote avenues for tech literacy.

My question is:

If computers are “learning environments” and areas of “Educational Space” - then the skill sets and process that are needed to manipulate Web 2.0 (design skill sets to manipulate interfaces) must be explicit in the academic setting. How can we create a “technological class” of students that understand code as well as reading interface as a visible medium to interact with?

SELF PORTRAIT

I was talking to my wife about this project. She is currently collaborating with the art teacher at her school on a Humanities Curriculum taking place at the Huntington Library. She discussed with me that they were instructing students to perform contour drawings on each other while writing narratives about the process. She asked if I would like one, while I drew hers. I’m not going to include my drawing of hers here (because it’s pretty horrible…) but this is what she came up with. I like that we both had to keep serious faces for such a silly product - but upon first look at what she drew, I somehow really identified with the white background and the dark lines all connected to showcase my visage. It’s eerily like my face and it’s also completely not.

I thought of cropping her contour line drawing side by side with my favorite comic hero - but I couldn’t get it to work in photoshop - pretty upsetting actually!

I used photoseed to play around with colors, images and frames, but it all seemed bland. I then tried the ‘double exposure’ feature and was really surprised by the results. It seems more fulfilling to me thinking about the misty image of Superman inside of the line contour. While Superman represents a lot of things to me that I won’t mention here - my main reasoning for including is my dad. I must have been in 2nd grade when my dad bought me “The Death of Superman” comic - I remember waking up sick in bed, and having to stay home from school having nothing to do. I woke up, and next to my bed - there was this comic. I’ve followed illustrators, writers, and comic editors since that point of origin in reading comic books. Jim Lee, the illustrator of Superman above, is hands down my favorite pencilier in the graphic novel medium. So while the self portrait might be just two images, the emotional/situational relations create more of an impact for me.