Reading: Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric, Doug Eyman
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv65swm2.5?seq=8
When I think of digital, my first thought does go to anything electronic based, such as computers or cell phones. But, after reading Eyman’s section on digital, I came to understand that the concept of digital does not have to only restrict to electronic. In history, information, human experiences, and stories were recorded without the use of electronic devices. These forms could be through a form of writing or drawings, for example hieroglyphs. And before pens and pencils? The use of fingers would work just fine.
I never would have thought the use of fingers could be listed under “digital”, though it does make sense. This is making me wonder if the use of Sign Language can be digital? As it is a way to share information. Along with this, it really made me wonder what exactly is an analog. I will admit, I have heard it before, but never really understood what exactly it was. With the help of the reading, I now understand that analogs represent waves. An example being radio waves.
Speaking of information, many would have debates on which is better; digital or analog. The list in the article mentions that digital can easily be replicated, transported, and more secure. Of course, each can come with it is own risks. And the debate goes further in electronic vs. text based information storage. But, the text mentions rather than constantly comparing the two, it can work hand in hand when it comes to the work of rhetoric.
I remember that rhetoric forms with new ideas and theories. In my opinion, who is to say that stops when it comes to new forms of digital? If it is as wide as the text makes it, then new ideas and theories can develop from anywhere and from anytime frame. Restricting one form seems silly, since it would cut of possible conversations.
Leave a Reply