To view our visual course map, please follow this link http://prezi.com/61kbjmlph5fn/present/?auth_key=vo7t8nm&follow=exnlq40di6zf&kw=present-61kbjmlph5fn&rc=ref-139266292
Throughout the semester we have visited many concepts that have contributed to our understanding of digital space and to our examination of the evolution of digital literacy. To complete our semester of exploring different areas that exist within the Internet, we have read an abundance of new material that has shown us how the Internet has evolved into an entity that is constantly changing and redefining itself. Within our new sphere of knowledge, we have progressed from times of Aristotle, where we examined the origins and importance of rhetoric, and as a result have witnessed the transformation of the art of persuasion to a new, incentivized goal among writers, even now in 2015.
We continued with our work in what is now classified as new media, unpacking this new idea using web 1.0 and 2.0, analysis of how different mediums affect our behavior, new forms of language, cyberculture, memes, cyborgs, trolls and hacktavists, and the National Security Association. Using these different aspects of digital space and online culture, we now have a basic understanding of how digital rhetoric works in all spaces, and why it is crucial to our use of the Internet, as it becomes our main source of technology and media outlets.
At the beginning of this semester, we delved into the five canons of rhetoric, originally established in Classical Greece. The first of the five canons is Invention/Creation which is synonymous with “logos”. This idea of logos deals only with what a writer says rather than how he or she says it. Invention encapsulates the persuasive element of rhetoric. Even Aristotle associated the salience of rhetoric primarily with invention, saying rhetoric is "discovering the best available means of persuasion".
The second canon, Arrangement, is defined as the order of one’s speech or writing with the intention to best persuade his or her audience. The five tenets of arrangements are: introduction, statement of facts, division, proof, refutation and conclusion. Style is defined as the aesthetic qualities, often the eloquence of speech or writing. While invention is the “what” of rhetoric, style is the how. While we might commonly associate style as a superficial aspect of rhetoric, it is invaluable to language. To “ornament,” for instance (an aspect of style) in the classical era, meant to best match diction to purpose. Memory concerns the literal memorization of a speech or text and additionally includes the psychological methods of preparing to communicate or perform. For the performing aspect, Memory is also tied to kairos, or sensitivity to the context in which one may communicate.
Delivery, the last of the five canons of rhetoric, concerns itself, as does style, with how something is said, rather than what is said: the province of Invention. The Greek word for delivery is "hypokrisis" or "acting," and rhetoric has borrowed from that art a studied attention to vocal training and to the use of gestures. Delivery originally referred to oral rhetoric at use in a public context, but can be viewed more broadly as that aspect of rhetoric that concerns the public presentation of discourse, oral or written. In either case, Delivery has much to do with how one establishes ethos and appeals to the audience through pathos. In this sense, Delivery is complementary to Invention, which is more strictly concerned with logos.
Delivery, the fifth canon of rhetoric, can directly relate to this concept of what we now refer to as new media. Delivery speaks to the presentation and medium that content is displayed. Within the parameters of new media, information is displayed in different ways, using new mediums to broaden content and the delivery of such works. Web 1.0 originally served the coders of the world. There was little room for people who were not fluent in coding to exercise any use of the software. People could not interact with each other online like in Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is broadly defined as the ability of users to interact with each other, contribute content or share ideas. Web 2.0 is defined by its ever changing and progressing modes of technology, like new apps being invented specifically for smart phones like Instagram. Other popular Web 2.0 apps are social media platforms, for example Facebook and Twitter.
New Media is as the amorphous, ever changing state of the internet and technology as well. In fact, the definition of new media changes daily, and will continue to do so. On a broader level than Web 2.0, new media encapsulates the meaning of our evolving technological advancements and the platforms through which we advance it; the machine improves, but only at the rate through which humans improve them. Web 2.0 has created a more user-friendly, interactive, and hands-on experience for the typical Internet participant. This has shown those who are not coders how to do quite amazing things with the use of technology that was not available to them during the web 1.0 era. The newspaper is no longer the most fascinating thing to find on the Internet, no thanks to Web 1.0. However, just with the creation and enhancement of the Internet, users have found new mediums to portray many types of information that lie within the Internet or real life material.
In Marshall McLuhan’s Medium is the Message, he shows the ordinary person how different mediums can affect his or her cognition. As old and new content are created and recreated through the Internet and onto different mediums, the way in which they are portrayed affects the typical human mind and the behavioral aspects of such. In this case, he argues that the way in which content is displayed or where it is placed is more important than the actual substance itself. In other words, “the what is more important than the how.” McLuhan’s book also shows that through the new mediums that are being created on a daily basis, we must become adaptable to these new mediums as they are thrown at us, even as our minds are adjusting behaviorally. Since different mediums affect the way that our minds process, it also affects our consciousness as human beings. Within new methods of placing content in different areas, the mediums in which these works are proposed change the way that human consciousness works fundamentally.
The shift in consciousness as a result of new mediums, speaks to the concept of secondary orality. Secondary orality, where ideas that were once spoken from memory, now becomes part of a bigger world behind new technology and mediums. This also includes literacy, which was created as a result of the adaptation to pen and paper. The idea of secondary orality moves from a print based culture to an electric network of immediacy, where people are able to do things on their own. This creates the idea of web 2.0, while also getting different content across new media. In this case, people do not have to be in one place to gather certain information, whereas in the time of Aristotle, it was necessary to be where he was in order to hear his words and try to remember the relevant pieces. Secondary orality has dramatically changed the way that people communicate and obtain information that they need across different mediums and outlets, mostly on the Internet. In receiving useful news and material using online mediums and outlets, people must have access to the Internet. Those who cannot get onto the Internet due to lack of access or resources become victims of what is called the digital divide.
In Nayar’s textbook argument about how online culture mirrors real life, he discusses many different ideas that he sees as relevant in the blossoming of online culture. In this, he discusses the digital divide. The digital divide is a concept that is inherent in the clashing of cultures, spaces, and social classes. Another component that Nayar lists as a repercussion of the emersion of Web 2.0 is Cybercultures. Cybercultures are the consequence of shared beliefs, artifacts, structures, language, and values converging in digital space. Cybercultures have material consequences; real culture informs cybercultures and cybercultures inform real culture. Cybercultures are inextricably linked to culture because they essentially have remained consistent with culture in real time, yet have found a new medium to communicate across. Memes are an example of convergence in digital space, demonstrate how real culture and cyberculture inform one another, and show that cybercultures have implications in real life.
Susan Blackmore argues that memes are a form of information waiting to be replicated. In her article, she states that “the information that gets copied is called the replicator-and this idea is demonstrated in memes that go viral-they are bits of information that either succeed in getting copied, or do not” (Blackmore). Memes are often seen as funny or witty or cute, and as a result replicated and transformed into other memes. The digital world has solidified memes as a part of our language, but through the examination of memes such as “Thug Cat”, these memes that we see as entertainment might be more harmful than previously thought. “Thug Cat” is a meme that echoes racist ideals and that we think may perpetuate such thinking in real life. As a result, one must examine the convergence of online culture and real life culture and recognize that one informs the other.
The bridge between memes and trolls is the viral aspect of their existence. Replication in both memes and in trolls ensures their success. In addition, memes and trolls need recognition in order to survive. Trolls fit a specific identity Online that is uniforms across the cyberculture. They are anonymous tricksters who make snarky comments, misrepresent information, or bombard users with the same post over and over again in order to incite a reaction from the specific target community. Once the identity of a troll is established,a troll can navigate to the locations to find troll activity. These sites, such as sports pages, political forums, Youtube, religious sites and many other locations promise a high response rate and as a result are popular for trolling. These sites are common popular with trolls because they feed off of others’ anger, so high traffic, high opinion pages provide the perfect demographic for such interactions.
Trolls fit the cyberculture definition in that they have a common language. This often consists of poor spelling, profanity, the use of all capital letters, and change of pronouns across sentences. This type of language is indicative of troll’s rhetorical applications. One could say that both trolls and those who create memes, “do it for the lulz”. Trolls are a cyberculture of their own that compels participation across the internet. Trolls often do it for the lulz, but once issues of social justice and programming enter the equation, the term becomes hacktivist.
A Hacktivist is a computer hacker whose activity is aimed at promoting a social or political cause. We see hacktivists coming together to form cybercultures like Anonymous, where individuals act independently of others in what they target, but also gain momentum and recognition by acting under the Anonymous umbrella. Anonymous also connects hacktivists with shared values under a common structure in digital space. Often times the target of hacktivists will be a political issues, such as the occupy movement, or public figures who have poignant opinions and are vocal about them. Some notable examples of hacktivists are the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange and the man who unveiled the NSA, Edward Snowden. Both of these men are seen as patriots by some, and traitors by others. Yet like trolls and memes, the proliferation of these ideas and actions could become fatal. Across these topics self regulation is what keeps hacktivists, like those who identify with Anonymous, from going too far. Or inversely, self regulation is what does not stop them from going too far; “the Rise of the chaotic good or evil” is a presence within these Cybercultures (Rob Corman).
Within these connections across the course material, we have learned a tremendous amount about what lies within the Internet. Everything we have studied in the past three months has shown us how online culture works in ways that we had not previously known. We have dived into the world of online cultures and seen what lies there. In doing so, we have looked at all of the consequences that each category of the Internet holds. With a better understanding of the depth and cultures that the Internet holds. We have also shown the relationship between each concept that we have synthesized this year, and connected them together to create a comprehensive map of the way we fit the semester together through units and readings.
Throughout the semester we have visited many concepts that have contributed to our understanding of digital space and to our examination of the evolution of digital literacy. To complete our semester of exploring different areas that exist within the Internet, we have read an abundance of new material that has shown us how the Internet has evolved into an entity that is constantly changing and redefining itself. Within our new sphere of knowledge, we have progressed from times of Aristotle, where we examined the origins and importance of rhetoric, and as a result have witnessed the transformation of the art of persuasion to a new, incentivized goal among writers, even now in 2015.
We continued with our work in what is now classified as new media, unpacking this new idea using web 1.0 and 2.0, analysis of how different mediums affect our behavior, new forms of language, cyberculture, memes, cyborgs, trolls and hacktavists, and the National Security Association. Using these different aspects of digital space and online culture, we now have a basic understanding of how digital rhetoric works in all spaces, and why it is crucial to our use of the Internet, as it becomes our main source of technology and media outlets.
At the beginning of this semester, we delved into the five canons of rhetoric, originally established in Classical Greece. The first of the five canons is Invention/Creation which is synonymous with “logos”. This idea of logos deals only with what a writer says rather than how he or she says it. Invention encapsulates the persuasive element of rhetoric. Even Aristotle associated the salience of rhetoric primarily with invention, saying rhetoric is "discovering the best available means of persuasion".
The second canon, Arrangement, is defined as the order of one’s speech or writing with the intention to best persuade his or her audience. The five tenets of arrangements are: introduction, statement of facts, division, proof, refutation and conclusion. Style is defined as the aesthetic qualities, often the eloquence of speech or writing. While invention is the “what” of rhetoric, style is the how. While we might commonly associate style as a superficial aspect of rhetoric, it is invaluable to language. To “ornament,” for instance (an aspect of style) in the classical era, meant to best match diction to purpose. Memory concerns the literal memorization of a speech or text and additionally includes the psychological methods of preparing to communicate or perform. For the performing aspect, Memory is also tied to kairos, or sensitivity to the context in which one may communicate.
Delivery, the last of the five canons of rhetoric, concerns itself, as does style, with how something is said, rather than what is said: the province of Invention. The Greek word for delivery is "hypokrisis" or "acting," and rhetoric has borrowed from that art a studied attention to vocal training and to the use of gestures. Delivery originally referred to oral rhetoric at use in a public context, but can be viewed more broadly as that aspect of rhetoric that concerns the public presentation of discourse, oral or written. In either case, Delivery has much to do with how one establishes ethos and appeals to the audience through pathos. In this sense, Delivery is complementary to Invention, which is more strictly concerned with logos.
Delivery, the fifth canon of rhetoric, can directly relate to this concept of what we now refer to as new media. Delivery speaks to the presentation and medium that content is displayed. Within the parameters of new media, information is displayed in different ways, using new mediums to broaden content and the delivery of such works. Web 1.0 originally served the coders of the world. There was little room for people who were not fluent in coding to exercise any use of the software. People could not interact with each other online like in Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is broadly defined as the ability of users to interact with each other, contribute content or share ideas. Web 2.0 is defined by its ever changing and progressing modes of technology, like new apps being invented specifically for smart phones like Instagram. Other popular Web 2.0 apps are social media platforms, for example Facebook and Twitter.
New Media is as the amorphous, ever changing state of the internet and technology as well. In fact, the definition of new media changes daily, and will continue to do so. On a broader level than Web 2.0, new media encapsulates the meaning of our evolving technological advancements and the platforms through which we advance it; the machine improves, but only at the rate through which humans improve them. Web 2.0 has created a more user-friendly, interactive, and hands-on experience for the typical Internet participant. This has shown those who are not coders how to do quite amazing things with the use of technology that was not available to them during the web 1.0 era. The newspaper is no longer the most fascinating thing to find on the Internet, no thanks to Web 1.0. However, just with the creation and enhancement of the Internet, users have found new mediums to portray many types of information that lie within the Internet or real life material.
In Marshall McLuhan’s Medium is the Message, he shows the ordinary person how different mediums can affect his or her cognition. As old and new content are created and recreated through the Internet and onto different mediums, the way in which they are portrayed affects the typical human mind and the behavioral aspects of such. In this case, he argues that the way in which content is displayed or where it is placed is more important than the actual substance itself. In other words, “the what is more important than the how.” McLuhan’s book also shows that through the new mediums that are being created on a daily basis, we must become adaptable to these new mediums as they are thrown at us, even as our minds are adjusting behaviorally. Since different mediums affect the way that our minds process, it also affects our consciousness as human beings. Within new methods of placing content in different areas, the mediums in which these works are proposed change the way that human consciousness works fundamentally.
The shift in consciousness as a result of new mediums, speaks to the concept of secondary orality. Secondary orality, where ideas that were once spoken from memory, now becomes part of a bigger world behind new technology and mediums. This also includes literacy, which was created as a result of the adaptation to pen and paper. The idea of secondary orality moves from a print based culture to an electric network of immediacy, where people are able to do things on their own. This creates the idea of web 2.0, while also getting different content across new media. In this case, people do not have to be in one place to gather certain information, whereas in the time of Aristotle, it was necessary to be where he was in order to hear his words and try to remember the relevant pieces. Secondary orality has dramatically changed the way that people communicate and obtain information that they need across different mediums and outlets, mostly on the Internet. In receiving useful news and material using online mediums and outlets, people must have access to the Internet. Those who cannot get onto the Internet due to lack of access or resources become victims of what is called the digital divide.
In Nayar’s textbook argument about how online culture mirrors real life, he discusses many different ideas that he sees as relevant in the blossoming of online culture. In this, he discusses the digital divide. The digital divide is a concept that is inherent in the clashing of cultures, spaces, and social classes. Another component that Nayar lists as a repercussion of the emersion of Web 2.0 is Cybercultures. Cybercultures are the consequence of shared beliefs, artifacts, structures, language, and values converging in digital space. Cybercultures have material consequences; real culture informs cybercultures and cybercultures inform real culture. Cybercultures are inextricably linked to culture because they essentially have remained consistent with culture in real time, yet have found a new medium to communicate across. Memes are an example of convergence in digital space, demonstrate how real culture and cyberculture inform one another, and show that cybercultures have implications in real life.
Susan Blackmore argues that memes are a form of information waiting to be replicated. In her article, she states that “the information that gets copied is called the replicator-and this idea is demonstrated in memes that go viral-they are bits of information that either succeed in getting copied, or do not” (Blackmore). Memes are often seen as funny or witty or cute, and as a result replicated and transformed into other memes. The digital world has solidified memes as a part of our language, but through the examination of memes such as “Thug Cat”, these memes that we see as entertainment might be more harmful than previously thought. “Thug Cat” is a meme that echoes racist ideals and that we think may perpetuate such thinking in real life. As a result, one must examine the convergence of online culture and real life culture and recognize that one informs the other.
The bridge between memes and trolls is the viral aspect of their existence. Replication in both memes and in trolls ensures their success. In addition, memes and trolls need recognition in order to survive. Trolls fit a specific identity Online that is uniforms across the cyberculture. They are anonymous tricksters who make snarky comments, misrepresent information, or bombard users with the same post over and over again in order to incite a reaction from the specific target community. Once the identity of a troll is established,a troll can navigate to the locations to find troll activity. These sites, such as sports pages, political forums, Youtube, religious sites and many other locations promise a high response rate and as a result are popular for trolling. These sites are common popular with trolls because they feed off of others’ anger, so high traffic, high opinion pages provide the perfect demographic for such interactions.
Trolls fit the cyberculture definition in that they have a common language. This often consists of poor spelling, profanity, the use of all capital letters, and change of pronouns across sentences. This type of language is indicative of troll’s rhetorical applications. One could say that both trolls and those who create memes, “do it for the lulz”. Trolls are a cyberculture of their own that compels participation across the internet. Trolls often do it for the lulz, but once issues of social justice and programming enter the equation, the term becomes hacktivist.
A Hacktivist is a computer hacker whose activity is aimed at promoting a social or political cause. We see hacktivists coming together to form cybercultures like Anonymous, where individuals act independently of others in what they target, but also gain momentum and recognition by acting under the Anonymous umbrella. Anonymous also connects hacktivists with shared values under a common structure in digital space. Often times the target of hacktivists will be a political issues, such as the occupy movement, or public figures who have poignant opinions and are vocal about them. Some notable examples of hacktivists are the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange and the man who unveiled the NSA, Edward Snowden. Both of these men are seen as patriots by some, and traitors by others. Yet like trolls and memes, the proliferation of these ideas and actions could become fatal. Across these topics self regulation is what keeps hacktivists, like those who identify with Anonymous, from going too far. Or inversely, self regulation is what does not stop them from going too far; “the Rise of the chaotic good or evil” is a presence within these Cybercultures (Rob Corman).
Within these connections across the course material, we have learned a tremendous amount about what lies within the Internet. Everything we have studied in the past three months has shown us how online culture works in ways that we had not previously known. We have dived into the world of online cultures and seen what lies there. In doing so, we have looked at all of the consequences that each category of the Internet holds. With a better understanding of the depth and cultures that the Internet holds. We have also shown the relationship between each concept that we have synthesized this year, and connected them together to create a comprehensive map of the way we fit the semester together through units and readings.