Exordium: Social networking sites are difficult to avoid. Virtually every media outlet uses networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook to connect with their tech-savvy audience. The use of these forums drastically changes the classical approach to the canon of delivery in rhetorical discourse. Ancient Greek rhetors traditionally utilized the major components of delivery by oral presentation and argumentation. The technology of Ancient Greece is vastly different than the technology of modern times. Aristotle, Cicero, Plato, and all the other key players in societal development of Ancient Greece would, undoubtedly, be astounded by virtually everything produced by Apple. They certainly would gawk at the availability of argument and the loss of rhetoric’s sanctity in academia and society. Technology changes and along with it, the audiences receive information and arguments much differently. Technology—and more notably, social networking sites—change the way delivery is received in contemporary rhetoric.
Narrative: The fundamental make up of arguments are codified by Cicero in the five canons. The five canons are composed of invention, style, arrangement, memory, and delivery. Social networking sites and technology as a whole impede on the classical structure of these canons. Contemporary rhetoricians use technology and social networking sites to invent arguments, devise a style based off examples and computed advice, arrange an argument from a computed template, save and store the data and information, and deliver their arguments in an entirely different way than ancient rhetoricians. The delivery of arguments is an inescapable routine on social networking sites. Routinely on Facebook, contributors update their statuses with their latest “epiphanies” regarding anything from the habits of their pet to the state of the political climate. Arguments are easy to access. The simple accessibility to arguments often leads to convoluted distinction between true, academic argumentation and uninformed banters. Delivery entails a few strokes of the keyboard and a click of the mouse and the entire world is instantly connected to yet another argument—informed or idiotic.
Partition: Delivery of arguments has changed. The severity of its change and its positive or negative implications are debatable, but one thing is certain: the instant access to global communication changes the way the canon of delivery is presented.
Peroration: The change and development of delivery is imminent. As more social networking sites are created and more people join the popular ones in existence, more arguments will be formed, more statements will be made, more beliefs will be strengthened, and more people will be informed. The clarity and value of arguments are lost in the overwhelming capacity of information. Contemporary “rhetoricians” forming arguments and posting them to various Facebook walls typically do not follow a structure. These alleged “arguments” are biased opinions that rarely provide the ethos, pathos, and logos needed to take a believable stance on an issue. Forming arguments on social networking sites is not necessarily a bad thing. An important concept to take into consideration before posting argumentative rants is the canon of delivery and the awareness of the global audience. An effective rhetor is constantly reminded of its audience, purpose, and occasion as well as the five canons—especially the media used for the delivery of an argument. Develop arguments for the world to see, but approach with caution and knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ah, it is true, great minds do think alike. We both wrote about the topics we picked for our paper. Even though we are focusing on different cannons the issue of technologies influence will play a huge part in our papers. I look forward to sharing research. . . well maybe not that far but editing each others rough drafts will be interesting. Nice, well written post, as always.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like your paper will be really interesting. A lot of people in the Mass Comm dept have tossed around the idea of doing features or other news stories on basically this same idea (although, of course, not quite so defined and in depth). I think something to consider would be (as you mentioned the status updates) how it often limits the length of your argument (I can't remember for sure, but I was thinking a status update is limited to 144 characters??). Does this limitation strengthen or diminish the argument?
ReplyDeleteHmm that's a really good point, Randi. I'll have to look into that. Personally, I think it diminishes the argument because the larger arguments are difficult to completely explain in the limited amount of characters.
ReplyDelete