The reading on Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric focused on what the digital means. When I think of what “digital” means, my thoughts go to electronic devices. However, after reading Eyman’s digital rhetoric section, I realized that the digital concept is not limited to just electronics. Historically, information, human experiences, and stories were recorded without electronic tools. These records could be writing, drawings, or even symbols like hieroglyphs. Also, before pens and pencils, humans used their fingers as a method of communication. I never considered fingers part of the digital realm, but it makes sense when you think about people who use sign language to communicate. Additionally, the concept of an analog always seemed vague, though I’d heard it mentioned before. In addition to this reading, I now understand that analog refers to continuous signals, like radio waves.
The article also discussed the ongoing debate between digital and analog, mainly regarding which is better. Digital systems are often easier to replicate, transport, and secure, but each approach has challenges. This debate extends to comparing electronic and text-based methods of storing information. Instead of endlessly comparing the two, it can work hand in hand when it comes to the work of rhetoric. I learned that rhetoric evolved from new ideas and theories. This process shouldn’t stop with the emergence of new forms of digital media. If the digital span is as broad as the text suggests, new ideas and theories can come from any time and place. Lastly, limiting ourselves to just one form of communication seems counterproductive, as it would cut off valuable opportunities for dialogue. Allowing ourselves to explore the many different ways to communicate can broaden everyone’s spectrum of digital experiences.
Leave a Reply