Defining “Digital Rhetoric”
In the first two paragraphs of Chapter One, “Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric,” of his book, Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice, Douglas Eyman wrestles with the urge to define the phrase “digital rhetoric.” He writes that he would rather avoid defining it, quoting Patricia Sullivan and James E. Porter: “defining a concept is a limiting activity; trying to establish a common meaning can have the effect of excluding enriching diversities.” Furthermore, defining “digital rhetoric” becomes even more complex when the phrase is split into its terms, “digital” and “rhetoric.”
Defining “Rhetoric”
Eyman argues that “digital rhetoric” is rooted in “rhetoric.” He writes that rhetoric “… can be structured as a kind of meta-discipline.” He goes on to quote from Kenneth J. Burke’s Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method, “Wherever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric. And wherever there is ‘meaning,’ there is ‘persuasion.’”
Eyman posits the simplest definition of “digital rhetoric” is to view it as rhetorical theory being applied to digital texts. However, this definition poses another dilemma, in that it requires a definition for “digital text,” and for “rhetoric” itself.
Eyman’s Writing Style
Although it’s difficult to read Eyman’s writing, after a few times, I found his search for a solution quite entertaining. I say “entertaining” because it feels as though he is writing as the thoughts come to him. He is reluctant to define the concept, but tries to define it anyway. Then, he finds another issue within the definition, only to settle on defining three more words than the ones he began with. I find it amusing.
My Understanding
All jokes aside, I am no expert in the un-established field of “digital rhetoric.” Perhaps, this is why I can relate to Eyman’s struggle with defining the concept– and with his caution. Once I got used to his writing style, I believe I began to understand– if only the basics– the difficulty in defining the phrase. From my understanding, since the definitions of the individual words that make up the phrase, “digital” and “rhetoric,” are, in themselves, not yet solidly encapsulated, “digital rhetoric” becomes a fuzzy, ambiguous abstraction. It makes me curious to learn more.
Leave a Reply