Blog 1

In the book “Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric”, authors Sonja K. Foss, Karen A. Foss and Robert Trapp describe rhetoric as, “the human use of symbols to communicate”(1). I think they are saying rhetoric is the use of words by humans to communicate a message.

First, Foss, Foss, and Trapp describe humans as the only animals capable of communication by arbitrary symbols. The arbitrary symbols humans use are words. Although not all words are arbitrary, many are. One of the examples the book uses to describe arbitrary words is the word kitchen.  In our culture we have learned the word “kitchen’ is where we cook our food. In other cultures a different word is used to communicate kitchen, making the word arbitrary.

Next, Foss et al., explain the difference between signs and symbols.  They describe when signs and symbols are used as rhetoric. The example that clarified the differences for me is the tree.  A tree is not a symbol; however, a Christmas tree is a symbol to Christians around the world.  An important part of the readings is that the symbol does not have the same meaning to everyone. Miscommunication occurs because everyone has their own ideas of what certain symbols represent.

 One digital culture I participate in is Facebook. Just about everything about my Facebook page is rhetorical. I choose who my friends are, what each friend can see, and what ways I want myself represented on the page. Within the Facebook realm “Colette” is different (more reserved and abbreviated). An important reason for this is the ability for others to access my information. I do not want the wrong message to be communicated about me, so I control all aspects of my digital persona.

Within the culture of Facebook, the word “friend” is jargon used to describe people that are allowed to view ones page, most of these viewers are not friends at all. For example, on my Facebook page I have more family than friends, but all are considered to be my Facebook friends. To some, the pre-Facebook meaning of the word, “friend” creates a need to accumulate as many Facebook friends as possible in order to communicate they are popular and accepted.  This idea is false in that anyone can accept people to be friends even when one does not know the other person.

Works Cited: 

"Digital Cultures - Digital Diversity | Cultural Politics." Cultural Politics | Cultural Politics. 2011. Web. 04 Jan. 2011. <http://culturalpolitics.net/digital_cultures>.

Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. "Chapter 1." Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 1991. 1-15. Print.

Blog 2

According to Andy Carvin author of, Mind the Gap: The Digital Divide as the Civil Rights Issue of the New Millennium the digital divide is “the ever-growing gap between those people and communities who have access to information technology and those who do not.” In other words, people with access to digital technology have an advantage over those without. The digital divide is in all communities of people, not just within the United States. Importantly, by having access to technology one has access to better education, which leads to better jobs. This snowball effect is what Carvin is describing as the “most important civil rights issue.” Historically, there has been a divide between the have and have-nots; in this case, the divide is digital technology.

Conversely, Mark Warschauer argues a “critique of the notion of a digital divide is necessary to fully inform and unleash efforts to use technology to promote social inclusion.” In essence, Warschauer is stating that different terminology to describe the digital divide is necessary so that a digital fix is not implied. Regardless of terminology, there is a divide between haves and have-nots.

The office metaphor is interesting in an anthropological way. In most societies, the dominant social class is the target audience, whether in language or visual rhetoric. In the article, Politics of the Interface Selfe and Selfe describe the user interface of a computer having a male dominated appeal. In addition, Selfe and Selfe states, software in general is catering to English-speakers. These points are not surprising since white English speaking males are the dominate class in America. 

One can carry the Selfe and Selfe office comparison over to different software. In the computer gaming world the interfaces will vary for the target age group and audience ability. An example of this is on a Disney gaming website one would see an interface designed for a young age group and their perceived computer skills. On the other hand, the World of Warcraft gaming site has a more provocative interface in order to target an older and more experienced audience.

Works Cited:

Carvin, Andy. "1's and 0's: Mind the Gap: The Digital Divide as the Civil Rights Issue of the New

Millennium." Information Today, Inc. 2000. Web. 05 Jan. 2011. <http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/Jan00/carvin.htm>.

Selfe, and Selfe. Politics of the Interface. 1994. 485-88

Warschauer, Mark. "Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide." First Monday 7.7 (2002). Firstmonday.org. 01 July 2002. Web. 5 Jan. 2011. <http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/967/888>.