Rhetorical Canons in a Digital Age

It's no secret that I love technical rhetoric. I can lose hours debating the ins and outs of social networking. I enjoy the finer points of web design. I dabble in coding with html or css, spend way too many hours playing video games, write as part of online communities, and always seek ways to drag these influences into the classroom.

While getting my MA, it also wasn't a secret that a large contingency of my institution's English Department were wary--if not altogether hostile--towards the ever-creeping reach of technology. For them, technology was (and is) a thing to be feared. It is complicated and superficial, difficult to master and even more difficult to teach. It changes constantly, while preserving things well beyond when they should expire.

This animosity (understandable as it is), is why I appreciate articles like James E. Porter's "Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric." Because, for Porter, digital writing and rhetoric isn't just about exploring a new, exciting frontier. It's also about recovering classical elements of rhetoric that, once lost, cost women, people of color, and other marginalized identities greatly (211). As the focus of rhetoric instruction shifted from orality and narration to informational writing, certain forms of understanding and relating to the world around us (such as verbal communication, storytelling, cultural connections, and oral memory) were devalued. And (surprise, surprise), the forms of understanding that were still "respectable" were almost exclusively those accessible to white, heterosexual, wealthy men (Welch, 1994).

This, however, is not a discourse on the evils of marginalization. Rather, it's a celebration of Porter's simple but encouraging acknowledgement that--with the continuing growth of digital rhetorics--these types of "knowing" have ample opportunity to reclaim their place.

Online discourse is written discourse, true. But it also carries a lot of the hallmarks of oral language. It is responsive and fluid. It is often community driven. And it's physical presentation (whether its through bodily representations of the communicator or the style and accessibility of the text's platform) plays an incredibly important role, hearkening back to the long subjugated canon of delivery.

House of Leaves... not your typical text experience.

This isn't to say that delivery doesn't matter in print texts. It does. But the delivery styles are almost always standardized. They follow relatively similar formats. They demand a certain approach and expectations from readers. Very few challenge these norms (though texts like Mark Z. Danielewski's House of Leaves do exist). 

But the Internet doesn't fall into such standard categories. Digital writing isn't so much a genre as it is a medium, encapsulating an enormous range of audiences, forums, styles, and purposes. And while technology creates certain barriers of access that still perpetrate existing class lines, it also offers new forms of accessibility to those who had been previously barred. Because of digital writing's aural quality, its' ties to delivery are more readily apparent. And, as Porter explains, "A robust canon of delivery should help us think more productively about how we are writing, and to whom, and lead us to make smarter choices as writers/designers, whether we are producing online information or non-digital information" (211).

Making a Withdrawal - Stepping Away from the Banking Method of Education.

I think I might be in love with Paulo Freire.

He wouldn't be my first academic love (an odd and eclectic category that includes C.S. Lewis, Cicero, and--perhaps most embarrassingly--James Paul Gee). While I would never claim that Freire's style in any way resembles theirs (or that theirs resemble each other's), one thing they do all have in common is their ability to craft beautiful, and elegantly simple prose. They take things I hold dear, and they illuminate them with language that is engaging--sometimes even stunning--and yet still easy to understand. With Lewis, it's Christianity. With Cicero, it's the nature of discourse itself. And with Gee and Freire....it's students.

Freire's exploration of the banking model of education (where students are simply vessels where instructors "deposit" knowledge until they are full) strikes to the core of a lesson I've been slowly learning the more that I teach. The traditional education system is a top-down affair. The teacher is the authority. The students are subjects. As I have told students time and again, the classroom is not a democracy.

But what Freire points out--and what I'm realizing I really believe--is that, however true that is, it's not okay. Or, at the very least, it's a system that needs to be made visible.

So often, instructors of college freshmen lament their "inability" to exercise critical thought. They rail against students caught in the nets of five paragraph essays, stringent page requirements, and the ever cliched transitions of "First....secondly....and in conclusion..." Yet what they don't acknowledge is that, given our current system of education, to expect anything else is ludicrous. As Freire points out:

The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world. The more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them. (73)

In other words, our students spend years learning how to memorize and regurgitate "knowledge" on command. They learn to adapt to a system. And it's especially evident in our "good" students (which, of course, we find en mass in college settings)...because these are the ones who learned how to play the game without making waves. They don't challenge the system, because they've learned that this is something that's frowned upon. They don't question the teacher, because that way leads to danger and stress and bad grades. They have learned to be vessels.

It's a system that I hate, and yet I know I have also done my time as one of of the "well-intentioned bank-clerk teachers who do not realize that they are only serving to dehumanize" (75). I generally am an open book. I wear my emotions on my sleeve, and I'm quick to share my opinions....and when I occupy a position of authority (as I do every day in the classroom), those seemingly harmless opinions become law. And this remains just as true when I walk in with naive ideas of instilling a social justice-esque curriculum, if my means of doing so follows the banking method. Well-intentioned or not, if I simply inform my students of "how the world is," I am part of the problem. "[true humanists] cannot use banking educational methods in the pursuit of liberation, for they would only negate that very pursuit. Nor may a revolutionary society inherit these methods from an oppressor society" (78).

I share my opinions with my class. I feel that, risky as it is, it's more dishonest to pretend to be utterly objective. But I try to remember that "liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transferrals [sic] of information" (79). My job is not to inform my students how they should view the world. My job is to get them to start thinking about it...to start questioning the systems that have been invisible to them and which they've taken for granted.

I might not like the conclusions they come to. But that's the point. Their agreement with me means nothing if I never give them a chance to not.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

Why Discourse?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "discourse" as the following:

1. a. Onward course, process or succession of time, events, actions, etc.
2. a. The act of understanding, by which it passes from premises to consequences; reasoning, thought, ratiocination; the faculty of reasoning, reason, rationality.
    b. Phr. discourse of reason: process or faculty of reasoning.

So what exactly do we (and here I get into a tangled web of who "we" really is...though for the purposes of this blog, I'll say rhetoricians or writing instructors), mean by "discourse" and should we bother teaching it at all?

For James P. Gee, Discourse (capital D inclusive) is more than just the language that is used in a given circumstance; it is also the thoughts, world views, and practices that engender that language. For example, when teachers lament that their students are incapable of writing academically or that they fall prey to the ever infamous "academese," they often are referring to the specific language that gets used in academic genres. Gee's point, however, is that writing doesn't occur in a vacuum. Our students are not unable to write "academically" because of some in-set failing. Our students are unable to write "academically" because they have not been allowed into the very community that uses that form of communication. Language, separated from its true context, becomes forced, false, and little more than an exercise in futility.

This isn't to say that practice doesn't serve a purpose. Of course it does. It's by practicing that we improve in any skill. But viewing language as a discourse is to rhetoric what the whole language approach is to grammar. When we try to separate genres, skill sets, or practices from an appropriate discourse community, we are effectively teaching writing as "prescriptive grammar" (which, for many 'in the know' compositionists has come to be seen as a cardinal sin, as condemnable as murder, thievery, and talking in the theater*). Those assignments have a purpose. They have value. But if our students are incapable of discerning that purpose, it becomes much harder for them to achieve it or to apply it in future situations.

So why discourse? Why do we fight to categorize language and itemize it and contextualize it, knowing that it is amorphous and intrinsically tied to our cultures, our time, and our self-perception?

Writing is communication. With ourselves. With others. It's discovery and thought and our way of seeking to understand and be understood. We study discourse in order to hear and be heard. Inevitably, we will participate in the conversation. We can't not. But we become more effective as we seek to understand the larger picture.

*Yes, it's a bad attempt at a Firefly reference. Please don't sue me.

Before We Reach for the Mute Button...

The recent shock and awe over Miley Cyrus's VMA performance has invoked a lot of strong opinions and vocal protests from a diverse audience. From the news to Twitter to Facebook and back, the reactions have been fast and furious: everything from "Miley can do whatever she wants. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT" to "Is this really what we should be focusing on right now?" to the idea that her scanty outfit and (arguably) outrageous twerking is one of the harbingers of the downfall of civilization.

What happened to our wholesome,
American family values?

Perhaps ironically, a large chunk of the commentary about the event is focusing on the reasons why we shouldn't talk about it. Jezebel had numerous articles speaking out against the slut-shaming* that was happening, defending Cyrus's right as a legal, consenting adult to express her sexuality however she damn well pleases. Meanwhile, enterprising bloggers created a tumblr account devoted to things we should have been paying attention to in Cyrus's stead. And with over 24 hours of non-stop media chatter over the event, more than a few individuals have just about had it. As Toula Foscolos wrote for Huffpost Canada, "Miley's not racist, not a whore, and not your punching bag." Isn't it embarrassing how easily we are caught up in the media hype of pop-culture and titillating, "shock-value" media ploys?

Actually, I'd like to argue that it isn't. At least, not all of it.

Yes, I would prefer it if we (in this case, being the assumed, generalized population of America) were more concerned with world news and the possible threat of a new war. But the fact that we, as an audience, are so obsessed with one twenty-something's performance has a lot to say. About our country. About what we value. And about how that conversation is developing in some fascinating and, I believe, vitally important ways.

For anyone who has been following the "War on Women" over the past few years (okay, centuries, but I'm talking recent legislation), the conversation about women's sexuality, agency, and a push against slut- and victim-shaming is crucial to how we respond to the world around us. As one of my fellow grad students pointed out, it's unlikely that the fallout would have been anything near as absolute if the offender had been, say, Drake or Kanye. Little has been said about Robin Thicke's participation in the duet, except in relation to Cyrus's agency. After all, boys will be boys.

The conversation has also raised up the voices of women of color, as in one black woman's response about how, in their rush to defend her right to her sexuality, white feminists completely ignored the blatant misappropriation of black culture, and the objectification of black, female bodies.

Cyrus's performance has also opened up conversations about any number of non-feminist topics, such as The Onion's bitingly comical summary of the interplay of publicity and "news," the objectification of child and teen stars, and a great deal of commentary and criticism about (what else) Americans' obsession with celebrity gossip.

I'll admit, I'm looking forward to waking up and seeing a stream of posts in my newsfeed that have nothing to do with VMAs, twerking, or the Cyrus family. But however much we want the conversation to change, I think it's important to note that it's these exact, uncomfortable, and seemingly-repetitive conversations that are the foundations of social change.

I doubt that Miley Cyrus's performance is going to bring about sweeping reforms in how we view celebrity, women, or race. But I do believe that, whether anyone intended it or not, she has become part of that discourse...and we do ourselves a disservice if we shut that down.