In this essay by Steve Holmes, details a new (or as he puts it, unorthodox) definition of digital rhetoric. Truthfully, I found it a bit hard to follow, but that’s likely because I had a different idea of what the essay was about upon looking at the title. I had figured it would be a bit less research-heavy in terms of the amount of scholars and lean more towards app data. Holmes even writes: “Despite his simple definition, Fogg’s work can be confusing for rhetoricians because he makes no concerted effort to explain why nonconscious behavioral prompts should be rhetorical in the first place.” Reading this made me feel a bit better about being so confused when reading the opening paragraphs of this article.
Another topic Holmes brings up later on into the essay is the term hexis. He draws on Aristotle to define the term as “(i.e., habit, state, disposition, bodily comportment). Hexeis (plural) guide phronesis and rhetorical practice through various ethical forms of social and environmental affectivity.” He also uses Aristotle to include ethos and how the pair of terms go hand-in-hand when it comes to digital rhetoric. He follows up with “Ethos and hexis confirm that Fogg is not incorrect in arguing for habit’s important role in digital rhetoric.” Essentially, Holmes is saying that our repetitive phone habits aren’t just random actions—they actually build our daily character over time. Overall, even though the dense academic jargon threw me off at first, the connection makes total sense. Our tech isn’t just a tool—it’s actively shaping who we are every day.
Leave a Reply