While reading “Toward the Rhetorical Study of Code,” I kept coming back to the idea that code isn’t just functional but also communicative. I feel like it’s easy to think of code as something that just works in the background. But this reading challenges that by showing how it can actually shape meaning.
The “Heartbleed” example stood out to me for that reason. It wasn’t just a technical issue; it showed how a small piece of code could unintentionally expose sensitive information. That made it harder to see code as something neutral. Instead, more like something that can “say” or reveal things, even when it’s not supposed to.
The author then moves from digital rhetoric into procedural rhetoric. This helped me start to see the difference between the two. Digital rhetoric seems to focus more broadly on communication in digital spaces. Things like interfaces, platforms, and user interaction. Procedural rhetoric, though, feels more specific. It focuses on how systems and processes guide behavior. Bogost’s idea that arguments can be made through rules, rather than just words or images, really stood out to me because it shifts what we think of as persuasion.
Upon reflection, I don’t see procedural rhetoric as completely separate from digital rhetoric. It feels more like a part of it. Digital rhetoric acts as a broader framework. Procedural rhetoric focuses more on how meaning is created through systems and constraints.
The standard I’m using to make that distinction is where the persuasion is happening. If it’s through language, visuals, or interaction, I see that as digital rhetoric. If it’s through rules or programmed systems that guide behavior, I see that as procedural rhetoric. Even then, they’re hard to fully separate because digital spaces rely on both.
Leave a Reply