Al Gore's Athenian age of democracy

First, it was great that the IText authors chose to outline the various ways in which various frameworks can be utilized in IText research. For my project specifically, it is nice to see design employed as a key rhetorical element in composition: “Rhetoric is design art (Kaufer and Butler, Rhetoric), a goal-directed activity similar to engineering and architecture in its regard for practical effects in the future and in its need to be socially responsible and ethical” (p. 271). Later in the piece, the authors argue that in order to “design rhetorically effective documents and systems for their production, access, support, and distribution, we need to understand how people make sense of these new forms and practices” (p. 281). They then ask, “What aspects of design can promote both efficient meaning-making for the purposes at hand and the deep understanding required for reflection and thought?” (p. 281). This question is really important, in that it asks us, as writers and compositionists, how we can best make use of the rhetorical means available. This is what we do, and this is what we teach.

In addition, the authors point out the importance of both the visual and verbal in texts. The fact that visual communication is, as they say, “a basic form of human communication, dating back before written language,” should be enough to convince us as teachers to go beyond the five-paragraph essay. IText asks us to revisit the ways in which we have communicated and composed communicative texts in the past, and then decide which modes and media are most appropriate for the rhetorical situations we encounter in the present.

Yancy’s discussion of intertextuality and remediation is also quite interesting, especially considering the IText piece (and vice versa). She proposes that we teach a model of composition that is rooted in “circulation of composition, canons of rhetoric, and deicity of technology” (pp. 311-312). To complicate this model of composition, Yancy discusses remediation (in context with circulation): “We create the new in the context of the old and based on the model of the old” (p. 313). To consider intellectual property rights and copyright alongside Yancy’s statement throws me a bit. What I create is essentially a remediation of what’s already been created, but just a bit different? It makes sense, but I guess what’s really confusing is the “just a bit different” part. Have I simply rearranged the ideas of others as part of my rhetorical moves and thus created something “new” but still old? Rather than the ideas themselves, is it the design of the composition that is new and created by me?

And...

Yancy then discusses how delivery of a text changes according to the technology involved: “what a shift in the means of delivery does is bring invention and arrangement into a new relationship with each other” (p. 317). The interface of the text offers certain affordances and constraints that the writer/composer must work with and around. It seems that Yancy (and the IText group) want us to (re)consider the importance of delivery/distribution of texts. In an academic world where so often the final artifact is the keeper of meaning, things like delivery, production, and distribution are conveniently forgotten. The way a text is produced, delivered, and distributed can greatly affect the meanings interpreted and received. As John put it, “Shit doesn’t just emerge”, and rightly so. Meaning doesn’t just flow from the textual artifact, but is created in an ongoing negotiation between author, reader, and the means of production, distribution, and delivery. Not to mention an other factors that could influence interpretation of meaning. Technology? Social class?

As Selfe put it, we so often assume that “when we don’t have to pay attention to machines, we remain free to focus on the theory and practice of language, the stuff of real intellectual and social concern” (p. 413). Those who fall into that trap and assume we can ignore machines (technology) and become enlightened are greatly misguided. Language itself is a technology, and yet that has become so transparent that we’ve forgotten to notice. But we can thank the government for getting us back on track and focusing on technology to save us from a life of illiteracy. (Please note my sarcasm.) As Al Gore said, “ I see a new Athenian age of democracy forged in the fora the GII will create....” (Selfe 426). Maybe a democracy for those lucky enough to have access to it, but not for the rest of us.