Lunsford, Ede, and Zappen

Lunsford and Ede take on the "task of eschewing the false distinctions that have been drawn persistently between classical and modern rhetoric" and "building instead on their powerful similarities" (49). As someone who has, throughout the semester, struggled to reconcile classical and modern rhetoric, I found this reading particularly helpful. They point out distinctions typically drawn between classical and modern rhetoric (man being either a rational or symbol-using animal, emphasis on logos versus emphasis on pathos, the either antagonistic or cooperative nature of the rhetor-audience relationship, and the ultimate goal of either persuasion or communication). These are certainly distinctions that I myself have attempted to make — perhaps not in as nicely distilled a form as they are presented here — but I appreciate the way Lunsford and Ede find common ground in these "false" distinctions. In both classical and modern rhetoric, man is a language-using animal, there is a dynamic interplay of some kind between audience and rhetor, and rhetoric has the potential for application to numerous fields. I wonder, though, if these similarities aren't too simple. I agree, though, that to separate Aristotle's writings from their context within his overall philosophy may be what leads to such unnecessary distinctions (which I might even call binaries).

Similarly, Zappen brings Aristotelian ideas of persuasion into the digital realm and discusses how "traditional rhetoric might be extended and transformed into a comprehensive theory of digital rhetoric" (319). It's an interesting thought experiment to apply logos, pathos, and ethos to online debates, and I'm intrigued by Zappen's discussion of Fogg's rethinking of the computer as a "persuasive technology" (320). I think of the so-called "cult of Mac" and the ways in which a new MacBook itself seems brimming with productive possibilities or an iPad feels like a stepping stone into a higher social strata just by virtue of its being. I wonder, though, how much we can ascribe persuasion to the computer (or whatever technology) itself and not to the designer or the marketer of that product. I may be misreading Zappen here, but I wonder where each of these pieces might fit into a Burkeian ratio. I also think there is something to Zappen's discussion of the creation of identities and communities; he is discussing in terms of digital rhetoric what Richards and Weaver did in extending rhetoric to include conversation and community. The bottom line, I think, is that it is not only persuasion at play in digital spaces, but conversation. 

One personal caveat, though: In my experience, I have to wonder if theorists like Zappen aren't too naive about online communications. I wonder what Zappen would do with internet trolls and the rampant negativity, homophobia, racism, etc. of YouTube and blog comments. Just something to think about...