spaces blurred

At first glance, Lunsford and Ede’s table 2 seemed just as simplistic as the table they negate; however, after further reviewing, I understand the need to break it down in this way. It seems adequate to agree with these distinctions, but in light of Zappan, the distinction garnered by modern rhetoric doesn’t hold.

“Classical is to oral, as Modern is to print.” Now we must redefine the print age in terms of digital access; Books are now digital, letters digital, speeches are accessed digitally. The components of print and oral are blurred through the digital space that affords all symbols, visuals, written texts, and verbal.

In terms of the field today, lacking any “systematic, generally accepted theory to inform current practice,” I’m not sure I agree with this hold heartedly. Yes, the field is fragmented, but does this also mean there are no systems for these fragments. Modern rhetoric has to contend with so many new ways of knowing. Are we not using the classical rhetoric to ground this new rhetoric? Zappan offers plenty examples of this work? Is this not a system to understand the practice? We make distinctions through the system of knowing the old and then knowing anew.

Even to this end of collaborative work mentioned above, there is a clear difference in terms of rhetor and audience. Zappan acknowledges this in the form of anonymity. If we simplify space in terms of oral, print, and digital, the rhetor has clearly changed in modern rhetoric. We especially find this difficult when teaching our students to research online: who wrote this text? Is it credible? In another instance, there is no way of knowing who the rhetor is or how many, because of the interactivity allowed through digital spaces.

What has not changed is the constraint of access. Though this constraint is less apparent (political, ceremonial: elite thinkers, like that of classical oral and print) in terms of who can produce and gain knowledge, access is still a fundamental issue as it relates to who can successfully use digital spaces for both persuasion and communication.