Code Breaking

Introduction

The first time I was ever told about the digital code was when I was in the fourth grade. Once a week, my class would meet with another teacher who would teach us about computers. It functioned the same as gym, art, and music periods. Most of the class was devoted to teaching us to type well (which I still struggle with) with a smaller portion devoted to coding as a concept. From that elementary class, I have a pretty rudimentary but functional understanding of what code is. In terms I can actually understand, code is to computer systems what bricks are to buildings. Code comes together to form whatever systems we use (websites, apps, programs, etc.) in the same way that bricks come together to form our houses and offices.

However, the concept of code being inherently rhetorical was brand new to me, and Juan Torres’ piece has managed to really make me think about that.

Coding? wuzzat?

As a writer, it is easier for me to understand things through the lens of creativity. As a writer, my job is to make others not realize I am doing my job. If someone is reading a story and they are fully aware that they are doing that, then I failed. My goal is for them to see past the written words and to just experience the story I want them to. If I do things right, people won’t realize I’ve done anything at all.

In the same way, a coder’s job is to code so well that nobody using whatever they make ever considers their existence in the first place. The only time I ever think about a coder is when a website does not function properly (in which case I imagine saying unpleasant things to them). In this way, surprisingly enough, writing code becomes strikingly similar to writing anything else. Therefore, it is no surprise that rhetoric inherently becomes a part of the process.

Rhetoric?

What sets coding rhetoric apart from almost every other form of rhetoric is the level of knowledge one must have to participate in it. In order to engage in written rhetoric, one must be intimately familiar with the language or alphabet being used. Someone who could not read would be unable to take part in discussions of written rhetoric. In contrast, one can engage with digital rhetoric (and thus with code) without having any understanding of how code works at all. Case in point, me.

I have no idea how coding works. I know vaguely what it looks like, but concepts like different coding languages or anything else relating to it. However, that has never impeded my ability to use the internet and engage with others rhetorically on it.

Ethical concerns?

One must consider though the ethical implications of a majority of people not understanding coding. As Torres puts forth in his piece, is it right to conceal code behind a platform from the audience?

Upon thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that is in fact unethical to conceal anything from an audience. In the same way that ingredients are listed on the snacks we consume, so too should the processing information about the programs we used be public information.

However, making this information public could just be a waste of time considering a majority of people (including me) do not even know how to read code. This widespread ignorance means that the eventual taking advantage of people is inevitable.