Kevin Brock discusses the possible “Code Rhetoric” in his chapter Toward the Rhetorical Study of Code. He takes into account the history of digital rhetoric as well as how different programs can impact discourse. Brock mentions that “there has been a growing amount of scholarship expanding more broadly and deeply our understanding of how digital technology facilitates rhetorical activity across nearly all aspects of our lives” (Brock 17). This hints at the possibility that code can also be a subcategory to digital rhetoric. Systems are set up by computers and are digitally programmed using a backend function all created by the digital technology. So, code must be a form of digital rhetoric.
I have spoken a lot about how digital rhetoric is an “umbrella.” There exist multiple facets to digital rhetoric that expand beyond countless definitions. Visual rhetoric, for example, does not have to be digital, yet can exist within that umbrella while being one of its own. If multiple things make up the foundation that we consider “digital,” how is code not a part of that? Code is an example of digital rhetoric that is inherently technological and computer-based. But what makes it different from the rest? On the basis of computational discourse, code exists as a direct source for communication. As I mentioned before, computer-programming is the “backend” to everything we see on our screens (including this blog post). If we take that away, modern technology does not leave us with much to work with.
Codes not only manufacture what we see, but also function in regard to that rhetoric. Brock mentions the cultural and social concerns surrounding program procedures. This is on par with what digital rhetoric itself can provide. Hackers, in this sense, can be considered digital rhetoricians if they go in and create or alter codes. They have the literacies necessary for this task, and can manufacture their own form of rhetoric through that programming. Code is both an outlet for communication and its own subcategory of digital rhetoric.
Leave a Reply