RRB 7 March 26, 2019

Grindr is a fascinating rhetorical artifact to study.  It fits into many of the more general parts of digital rhetoric but is also a unique platform unto itself due to its content and evolution over time.  The rhetoric surrounding it as a digital platform, in particular, is very interesting.    As the reading basically says, all rhetoric and communication is based heavily in context.  That context is key in understanding the arguments made around Grindr.

For many years it seemed that gay sex was a very underground thing.  It was commonly viewed as seedy or dirty and was not something that was openly discussed.  It carried far more of a negative connotation than traditional hetero sex due to the homophobia that was and to a certain degree still is prevalent in society.  This is initially what made Grindr necessary, as gay men needed their own platform to discuss sex since they would not have been accepted in more mainstream platforms.  Unfortunately, this also led to Grindr being labeled seedy or dirty as it focused on gay sex.

This makes its evolution into a more accepted and fully fledged platform interesting.  Looking at the term platform, on the surface it may appear to refer to any type of digital medium that features an exchange of rhetoric.  That also fits the basic definition given by Faris.  However, as the reading says, there is much more to it than that.  The connotations associated with a digital platform grant it a certain level of legitimacy.  In this case that focuses largely on the improved infrastructure on Grindr which built it into a larger and more legitimate looking platform.

This transformation moved along with the societal context that surrounded Grindr.  As homophobia lessened in society at large, gay sex became less taboo, although it is by no means still as acceptable as straight sex.  As such, Grindr also became less taboo.  This follows with Grindr’s improvements in infrastructure, expanding in terms of functions, advertising, and scale.  Grindr may have begun functioning like more of a legitimate platform as a result of the cultural changes, and it also may have inspired further acceptance for gay sex.  Whichever the case, the context surrounding Grindr was a huge part of its transformation into a fully formed digital platform.

By giving gay men a now more mainstream platform on for sex, Grindr became an even more important outlet.  Just as society develops over time so too must digital platforms develop.  As discussed above this can both reflect and influence the changes in mainstream society.  Grindr’s evolution allows for issues within the gay community such as perception, appearance, diversity, etc. to be examined and discussed in the necessary ways as an outlet for the gay community, yet also accessible to more mainstream society.  This is what makes digital platforms so unique and important in today’s world of communication.

RRB 6 3/7/19

I generally enjoy composing things digitally because of the freedom it provides.  Composition as a whole has a good level of freedom depending upon the type of work one is composing.  There may be certain conventions that are generally adhered to when writing an academic paper or a poem or anything else.  However, nothing inherently forces people to follow those norms.  In fact, many of the most successful works defy these norms.  The freedom involved is a positive, as it allows for more diverse works and composers.

Digital composition takes this freedom to a whole new level.  There are entirely new platforms, such as videos and podcasts, to compose with.  These bring with them a new set of conventions, which are still being developed and somehow defied at the same time.  New types of composition that never could have existed before are becoming commonplace, giving composers even more freedom than before.

This has also made composition more accessible than it was before.  Previously anyone could compose something, the problem was distribution.  Somebody could write a brilliant song or short story, but if nobody saw it then it could not have much of an impact beyond the composer.  Now there are systems in place to freely distribute any given type of composition, new or old.  Stories, poems, podcasts, songs, etc all have readily available forms of distribution.  Many of these forms are free and relatively easy to use.  If a composition is good enough it can become popular and spread to more and more people.  There are algorithms and societal factors that play into this as well, but the quality of composition is vital as well.  This model is not without its flaws, but it’s significantly better than the lack of distribution that existed previously.

It also allows new things to be done with previously existing forms of composition.  Something as simple as writing a paper can be done more efficiently.  There are also new ways to format that paper.  Animations or photographs can be added in ways that were not possible before.  There are different sound effects that can be added to audio forms of composition.  All of these possibilities only add to the freedom of composers and therefore improves composition as a whole.

Digital composition is by no means perfect, but nothing is.  Composition is an art, not a science.  There is no set formula to determine what will and will not work.  And as such the more options, platforms, and freedom that can be given to composers, the more the quality of composition should improve.  Digital composition improves all of this, as well as making composition more accessible.  This makes it an overall positive, and a massive step forward in the area of composition.

RRB 5 2/28/19

Wikipedia somehow manages to be both a unique and familiar concept.  The idea of gathering and centralizing knowledge has existed for a long time, as has the idea of crowdsourcing that knowledge.  Libraries and encyclopedias have been the primary sources for this knowledge for many years.  However, the combination of these things with the addition of the internet making it digitized creates a new entity that is not entirely like anything else.

As Vandijck reading discusses, Wikipedia has existed for a surprisingly short amount of time considering how ubiquitous it has become.  It is a word that is deeply associated with internet research and collections of knowledge.  People refer to Wikipedia constantly as one of the easiest ways to quickly research something.  It is often the top result on a Google search.  Along with this ubiquitousness, however, come certain stereotypes that may not be positive.

Vandijck tracks the evolution of Wikipedia over time, from its beginning when it advertised that anyone could edit it to the present day where there are certain qualification needed to edit, both as an individual and based on the sources for their information.  There are complex algorithms as well as human monitors in place to ensure that the information on Wikipedia is as accurate as possible.  This has advanced it from being just a public forum to being a fairly credible source of knowledge.

Despite this advancement the stereotype of Wikipedia as an unreliable source where anyone can make information up persists.  As we discussed in class, teachers commonly tell students not to cite Wikipedia in their research.  This is based on the longstanding conceptions that they have about Wikipedia, as its current form can actually be very useful for research.  This evolution over time and the reluctance by many to accept the rapidness of the evolution is indicative of how much of digital rhetoric is treated.

The other end of Wikipedia is how user-friendly it is.  The primary appeal of Wikipedia is how accessible it is.  If somebody has an internet connection they can access the massive amounts of knowledge that its pages contain, all for free.  There are over 29 million Wikipedia pages in English alone, all of them with their own sources.  It puts the libraries and encyclopedias discussed earlier to shame.  Being at least as accessible to many as a physical library, Wikipedia is able to provide mass amounts of people with mass amounts of information, leveling the playing field and changing the way knowledge as a whole is thought about.

Wikipedia is by no means perfect.  There are still flaws in its algorithms and fact-checking systems.  Its contributors are still those who already have advantages accessing knowledge, namely straight cisgendered white males.  In this sense it does not totally level the playing field when it comes to knowledge.  However, its accessibility for contributors and users as well as the mass collection of knowledge it provides still makes it a valuable and game-changing tool.

RRB 4, 2/12/19

Much of the focus on digital rhetoric, and perhaps rhetoric in general, can often be on the written word.  For most of human history it was significantly easier to communicate with the masses via written as opposed to spoken word.  Even with recent technological enhancements such as the advent of the internet and the study of digital rhetoric, most of the attention still seems to go to social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.  In reality, auditory, or aural, rhetoric is just as, if not more important.  YouTube is the largest social media platform in the world, largely on the strength of its aural attributes.  Podcasts and music streaming services have risen to great prominence as well.  The aural aspect of digital rhetoric is clearly a vital one.

Rice discusses the importance of aural rhetoric in this reading, bringing up many valid points.  Aural rhetoric seems to be defined as rhetoric involving sound and listening rather than visuals or reading.  Citing Ong, he argues that the proliferation of sound may be a greater impact of the recent technological boom than any increase in visual rhetoric.  In my personal experience, he is correct.  From the time I wake up in the morning until the time I go to sleep, there is an almost constant sound in my ears.  Whether it be listening to music or a podcast, listening to discussion in class, or watching TV, there is rarely silence in my life.  I am sure that the same is true for many other people.  The advent of iPods merging into smartphones, as well as a surplus of streaming services, allows us to have sound wherever and whenever.

Aural rhetoric has not only been impacted by the number of options, but also by the technology used to produce the rhetoric.  It has become relatively easy to access recording equipment, giving almost anyone the ability to record and edit a podcast or song in fairly advanced ways.  Technology allows the quality of these recordings, even if they are done on something as simple as a smartphone, to be superb.  This opens up a world of possibilities and leads to even more options in this field.

Besides the increasing populism of aural rhetoric, technology also allows for new things to be done with sound.  The reading discusses the editing, enhancement, and special effects that go into song making today.  It is rare to hear an acoustic rendition of a song anymore when a cacophony of sound can be layered into the background.  Both instruments and digital sound effects have become natural parts of today’s music.  Even the voice of the artist is oftentimes digitally manipulated.  This all has a significant impact on the aural rhetoric as a whole, as the sound produced is what differentiates this branch from visual rhetoric.  In many ways, the words themselves have become less important than the sounds surrounding them.  This, along with the changes in distribution, show the massive effect technology has had on aural rhetoric.

 

RRB 3 2/7/19

One of the most important aspects of rhetoric is the method of delivery.  The words themselves are important, as are the rhetor and the audience.  But the method of delivery can change the entire message.  If a serious policy speech is delivered in the form of a comic strip or written in bubble letters it is much less likely to be taken seriously.  The crafting of a method is also likely to change based on the method of delivery, as certain slang or phrases that are acceptable in one form may not be in another.  The entire reason for a digital rhetoric course to exist is due to the various and ever-changing methods by which rhetoric can be conveyed digitally, making examination of those methods a vital part of this class.

As we discussed in class, typewriters do not necessarily have much functional use.  They are relatively slow, messy, and difficult to use in comparison to simply writing things out.  However, their function may have been a largely stylistic one.  Documents that are typed tend to look more official than those that are written out.  It is also more difficult to alter these documents, which is useful in the case of things like contracts.  I would also say that when typewriters first came about they were probably viewed as the hot new thing and using that thing can often be a status symbol even if they don’t have much functional use.  This is a recurring theme with technology.  The first generation of smartphones were filled with bugs and, in truth, did not do much more than iPods that already existed.  But people still rushed out to buy them because they were the hot new thing.  Owning and using one was an indication of status and sophistication, much as I imagine the typewriter once was.

The more artistic methods of communication discussed (crayons, ink/paint, perhaps even clay) also seem to serve less of a purpose when it comes to efficiency.  Aesthetically, however, they can all be very pleasing.  The purpose of making a message colorful or large or delivered in a unique way is to draw attention to said message.  This is the same reason people use emojis digitally.  They do not serve much of a practical purpose, but they can add color to a message that cannot always be delivered just using words.  However, this is not always appropriate.  As discussed above, some messages are intended to be serious and adding color may take away from that seriousness.  Understanding when and where more artistic messages are valuable is a key part of rhetoric, especially digital rhetoric.

The method of communication also has an impact on the audience.  Certain types of messages and delivery systems make a message more memorable or forgettable.  They may also be trained to view certain messages a certain way.  This is why something typed will generally be viewed as more official, whereas something written in crayon would be taken much less seriously.  Since the goal of rhetoric is to successfully deliver a message to the audience, these differences must always be taken into account.

RRB 2

In the first paragraph of the reading, Brooke says, “Centuries of viewing the canons through the lens of print technology has limited their usefulness.”  This is something they go on to expand upon throughout the reading, making it one of their core ideas.  It is also one of the core ideas in the study of digital rhetoric, especially when studying it through the lens of the rhetorical canons, as we are doing.

Even when studying digital rhetoric, it seems people focus all too often just on the words.  If the only thing that had changed with digital rhetoric was the way words were being delivered to people, it would largely be the same as classical rhetoric and not require a new field of study.  However, there has not simply been a change in delivery, there have been hundreds of changes in delivery, as new platforms emerge.  This has led to changes in the areas of every canon as a result.

Invention has been changed as rhetoricians must now craft their message based on the platform it is being delivered upon as well as the audience it is delivering it to.  A message that could be put in an op-ed on a blog would be entirely different from one that would be posted on Twitter.  Arrangement must also be affected by these differences, as well as what is viewed as an acceptable format on the digital platform of choice.  The same could be said for style, all the way down the language itself being used differently in various digital forums.  Memory must now include the broader digital memory, making it easier to access but more difficult to take the wide range of information in.  And delivery encompasses all the change that was discussed above.  This shows how important it is to expand the classical use of the canons, as Brooke does in this reading.

Many of the factors of digital rhetoric just discussed are influenced by kairos, as discussed in the second reading by Sheridan, Ridolfo, and Michel.  Kairos, as they define it, has to do with the appropriate timing and space for delivering a message.  This is absolutely key, as delivering a great message at a bad time or in the wrong place can mean the message will be ineffective, lost, or even harmful.  For example, writing a piece about how incredible and cool hurricanes are may deliver a good message, but if it is put out in an area where a hurricane has recently caused a major disaster then both the time and place are off and the message will likely end up being harmful.

Kairos becomes especially important in digital rhetoric for many of the reasons discussed above.  With so many platforms, the right place becomes about much more than just the correct geographic location.  As far as time goes, rhetoric evolves so quickly in a digital space that it can be difficult to time a message correctly.  A day or even a few hours often makes a massive difference.  And that is what makes kairos so important in digital rhetoric.

RRB 1

Rhetoric has changed greatly over time, and yet has somehow held true to the basic principles that Aristotle wrote about centuries ago.  Rhetoric is still the ability in a given situation to find the available means of persuasion.  The situations given have changed greatly since Aristotle’s time, and therefore so have the available means of persuasion, but the basis of what rhetoric is has remained constant.  Even as the study of rhetoric continues to evolve certain key principles will always remain.

Bizzell and Herzberg discuss the many different applications that rhetoric can have, and all of those are certainly still apply to everyday life, but they are also widely encompassed within digital rhetoric.  Everything from education to public affairs to debate is conducted digitally in today’s world.  That means that it is important to understand the various forms of rhetoric on their own, which then enables us to view them through a digital lens.  In other words, we must understand rhetoric in general before we can examine digital rhetoric.

One of the many parts of rhetoric that has been greatly affected is, as Bizzell and Herberg put it, “the status of knowledge.”  Never before in human history has so much knowledge been at the fingertips of so many.  With a device that people carry in their pockets we can access more information than was possessed by even the greatest sources of knowledge throughout human history.  Despite this, rhetoric often still shies away from fact and logos and puts a greater emphasis on pathos and ethos.  These too have evolved, as there are many new ways to deliver emotion and beliefs digitally, but logos seems to be the one that has undergone the greatest transformation.  This makes it especially curious that it is often the means of rhetoric that is either forgotten or misused.

The other readings detail how much digital rhetoric on its own has evolved in the relatively short period of time it has existed.  This is tied directly to how much technology has evolved in the last fifty or so years.  One of the reading discusses the Apple II as the first computer they encountered.  While the Apple II was an amazing piece of technology at the time, digital technology has evolved so quickly that even the most basic of smartphones are now capable of doing infinitely more.  It seems as though every few years technology is evolving more than it did over centuries for much of human history.  This rapid evolution means that although the basic principles of rhetoric may remain constant, the digital part of the equation if growing at a rate that is basically impossible to keep up with.  This means scholars need to be constantly staying up to date and evolving themselves to have any chance of keeping up.  It also make digital rhetoric and incredibly fascinating area of study.

Reading Response 12/6/16

Chapter 10 of NOCSUS discusses the shifts in demographics across the United States and the impact it can have on the nonprofit industry.  One of the primary points is that with the growth of immigration in the United Staes as well as the increase in birthrate are leading to a growth of minorities in the United States, primarily Hispanics.

The reason that this change in demographics is important to the nonprofit sector is that it has a direct effect on the groups they are dealing with.  Minorities are disproportionately the groups that are in poverty, and therefore the groups that nonprofits most often deal with.  The fact that the makeup and size of these groups is changing then obviously has an impact 0n the nonprofits that work with them.

Specifically the growth of Hispanics in the United States would mark a change for nonprofits.  It means that nonprofits may need to focus more on putting together programs and marketing that focus on this group.  These would be different than having to work with other minority groups.  They would need to work to taylor themselves to the needs of this group, whatever those needs may be.

The Incite readings also discuss change in society, this time of a social nature.  It discusses how groups that may begin with revolutionary intentions are oftentimes grounded by their need to get funding.  Once groups apply for funding they must fit into more conventional societal norms in order to keep getting funding without upsetting anybody.

While this idea of funding suppressing revolution may be viewed as a negative, it is a necessary evil.  For one, only giving funding to groups that fit certain standards prevents the waste of funding on groups that will end up failing.  While it certainly does hamstring radical groups that could end up doing a lot of good, it can be viewed as the best way to distribute funding efficiently.

It also helps prevent the funding of nonprofits from becoming too politicized.  It is impossible to completely prevent anything from becoming politicized, but if revolutionary groups were given funding then it would mean politicians would support only the groups that were revolutionary towards their side.  This would turn nonprofits into partisan tools to be used for political ends.  Having nonprofits that fit a standard down the middle means they can have support from both sides of the aisle.

The piece certainly makes a good argument that the lack of revolutionary groups prevents much real good from being done since groups are not allowed to try new things or push for any real change.  This is an extremely valid point.  It is really an issue where there are definite pros and cons to both options, and it is a worthy discussion to have in regards to what the role of nonprofits should be.

 

Reading Response 11/15/16

NOCSUS chapter seven discusses the political involvement that nonprofit organizations can and do have.  It discusses the legal limits of what exactly they can do and addresses potential misconceptions surrounding nonprofits’ political involvement.  This is useful in establishing the ground rules for nonprofits.

Political involvement for a nonprofit organization is tricky well beyond the legal guidelines.  It is very important that nonprofits do not become partisan tools used to back a political agenda.  That would only take away from their mission of helping people.

It would be easy for a nonprofit to consistently back one of the political parties that they felt like would help them the most if they were put into power.  That can obviously be beneficial if it works out, but if the party they show an obvious preference for loses then the opposition may cut funding to the nonprofit as punishment.  This could do serious harm to the nonprofit’s ability to do their job.

This is why nonprofits must be very careful with their political involvement.  It is fine for them to lobby for support within the government, as they will not make as many enemies that way and they can get some of the help and funding they need from the government.  But it would be wise for them to avoid campaigning for candidates or outright supporting a certain party.  The risk just is not worth the reward.

Lobbying, which is the primary focus of this piece anyway, can be a good political move for nonprofits.  It appears that for the most part what they do is actual lobbying, not the legalized bribery that many groups use.  Nonprofits attempt to gain support by laying out their cause and explaining why the government should help them.  Because they receive government funding they avoid making large campaign donations in return for support.  Along with being immoral it also falls into the partisan trap discussed earlier.  That is why nonprofits must stick to genuine lobbying.

The reading also discusses how nonprofits must campaign for their specific causes rather than for the public good as a whole.  This can be both a positive and negative.  On the one hand it is harder to gain support for something that only helps a relatively small number of people.  On the other hand a nonprofit’s goal may match up with a certain political agenda, in which case they would be able to receive help for their cause.  Like everything in politics, it is a tricky game to play.

Reading Response 11/3/16

Today’s reading, NOCSUS Chapter 8, discusses the importance of social movements as a way to create change for those who do not have the resources to get more heavily involved in the political process.  It particularly appeals to those who do not have the right to vote or do not have enough money to make a donation to a particular candidate or cause.  Social movements allow everyone to get involved regardless of resources, and thus can appeal more to the masses.

The piece also talks about how social movements can sometimes end up as formal nonprofit organizations, thus making it relevant to our class.  It is easy to see how many of the nonprofits we have talked about or worked with began as social movements. The Community Action Council for example, clearly began with a group of people who wanted to do something about poverty in Lexington.  It eventually evolved into the organization that exists today making real, palpable change.

The video project that my group is working on is something that is designed to facilitate a social movement.  By focusing young people, most of whom are not able to get much more involved in the political process than voting, we are attempting to lead a social movement working towards helping their fellow young people who are living in poverty all around them.  Especially in today’s social age, videos are an extremely valuable tool in leading social movements.

In a way everyone in our class is part of a social movement when it comes to our assistance of nonprofits.  While I am sure most of us want to get more involved in the political process, we do not have the opportunity to do much right now besides inspire social change.  We can do what we are doing by creating public relations material for nonprofit organizations, mostly appealing to those of our generation.  In doing so we can hopefully inspire a social movement, even a small one, aimed towards helping these nonprofits which began as social movements themselves.  It is a cycle of social movement.

A main focus of this reading is past social movements that have brought about great, sweeping change.  Namely the piece focuses on the Civl Rights and Women’s Suffrage movements.  While these are certainly wonderful examples of social movements, it can create an unreal expectation of social movements that may actually discourage people attempting to make social change.

Most social movements do not reach anywhere near the heights of the two named in this piece, so comparing all movements to these two can be disheartening.  If your movement does not create massive national change then you may think it is not doing any good.  It is.  Some social movements may only affect a dozen people, but if that effect is positive then the movement is absolutely worth it.  Not everything has to be as great as the Civil Rights movement, but one can certainly dream about it.