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.