Rhetorical Currents and Conversations Toward Meaning by Falana Thomas, Yazmin Lazcano, and Sean Doran

After reading Mikhail Bakhtin's Marxism and the Philosophy of Rhetoric, we decided to engage in an interactive conversation to discuss the problems of defining rhetoric through the use of language. The foundation of our conversation is based on the following question:

"Does the philosophy of human language complicate how we define and understand rhetoric?"

Yazmin:

The moment in the reading where I sensed a strong connection between the ideas being presented and my working understanding of rhetoric was in Bakhtin’s discussion of words. The connection between the word, according to Bakhtin, and my sense of the nature of rhetoric thus far, came about specifically in his discussion of the word as a neutral sign: “Every other kind of semiotic material is specialized for some particular field of ideological creativity. Each field possesses its own ideological material and formulates signs and symbols specific to itself and not applicable in other fields….A word, in contrast, is neutral with respect to any specific ideological function. It can carry out ideological functions of any kind—scientific, aesthetic, ethical, religious” (Bizzell and Herzberg 1213). As our encyclopedic text this semester, The Rhetorical Tradition attests, we may find sections linking rhetoric to the fields of science, literature, ethics, and religion—in this sense, rhetoric may be said to be neutral in the way that Bakhtin describes the word being neutral.

From this position of neutrality however, enters the role of audience and historical situation. Bakhtin states, “Orientation of the word toward the addressee has an extremely high significance. In point of fact, word is a two-sided act. It is determined equally by whose word it is and for whom it is meant. As word, it is precisely the product of the reciprocal relationship between speaker and listener, addresser and addressee. Each and every word expresses the ‘one’ in relation to the ‘other.’ I give myself verbal shape from another’s point of view, ultimately, from the point of view of the community from which I belong” (1215). Bakhtin then goes on to state that “A word is a bridge thrown between myself and another. If one end of the bridge depends on me, then the other depends on my addressee” (1215).

So this is my attempt to build a bridge with Sean and Falana on one level, with Dr. Morton and the rest of the students in our rhetorical theory course on another, and with the entire web universe on yet another. From my understanding, Bakhtin’s ideas as contained in his essay encourage a combination meta-response and sociological point of view as the approach to take in order to take verbal shape here. This is quite an exercise because it requires that I be very aware of how I am situated in relation to Sean, Falana, the course, the requirements of the assignment, to name only a few considerations of this particular social context. So, in effect, my attempt was to demonstrate my understanding of the role of rhetoric within the cluster of ideas in Bakhtin’s essay in a way that both Sean and Falana could question, respond, and /or critique. My understanding of how we decided to frame our reading response dictated the verbal shape of my utterance.

Sean:

Yazmin, I truly appreciate the fact that you have addressed your response in a fashion that takes into consideration not only myself, but my fellow peers as well. I often use the expression, "Put yourself in my shoes," and from a rhetorical perspective, you seem to do exactly that. You are building a rhetorical bridge that is attempting to create both self-understanding and universal communication. Your approach is effective and enlightening.

Falana:

Without any type of specialized background, we know that language, especially English, is complicated. It's one of the most difficult languages to learn, there are several spellings of one word, and that one word could have numerous meanings. Add in the elements of philosophy and rhetoric and you have an entire college course on your hands…but I digress.

Mikail Bakhtin, author of "Marxism and the Philosophy of Language", believed "that the true basis of linguistics is the study of utterances, of speech acts ….but the structural descriptions (of linguistics) do not explain the way language is actually used (1208). In short, the technical analysis of the language would not explain why specific words were used to communicate a thought.

At first Bakhtin explains the ideology of signs, which we also learned about with John Locke, and how signs "reflect or refract another reality" (1211). He also focuses on how context plays an important role in language. Even without Bakhtin's thoughts on context, classical rhetoricians indirectly refer to context and its importance by addressing things such as style and delivery and when and how to address people. If context wasn't important, I believe rhetoric would not be as complex as it is.

Understanding semiotics complicates understanding because a sign or symbol that represents something must first be understood by another in order for "understanding" to begin. Humans must be "organized socially" in order for any of this to begin. If semiotics falls under the umbrella of "human language" then that automatically adds in another level to rhetoric.

"Any utterance, no matter how weighty and complete….is only a moment in the continuous process of verbal communication" (1221).

With language, regardless of "what" was said and "how" it was said, it is only relevant within the context and time at which the utterance was used. In regards to rhetoric, it explains how different oratorical techniques are used when speaking to an audience of a political campaign, or to an audience in a legal setting.

Sean:

Falana, your analysis of context is quite interesting. In my opinion, so many oratorical practices are taken out of context this day and age, so a deep analysis and understanding of context is key in developing one's comprehension of rheoric. Societal and cultural traits also complicate the ever-evolving world of rhetorical theory. Semiotics, as described by you, also must be considered from the standpoint of speaker and listerner. Bakhtin's descriptions of the use of words may explain why people who are attempting to learn and immerse themselves in a foreign language have trouble learning how to speak contextually and effectively in a rhetorical setting.

Yazmin:

Falana, your response made me think about context and the classical figures in rhetoric you mentioned. From Bakhtin’s essay, “Each situation, fixed and sustained by social custom, commands a particular kind of organization of audience and, hence, a particular repertoire of little behavior genres. The behavioral genre fits everywhere into the channel of social intercourse assigned to it and functions as an ideological reflection of its type, structure, goal, and social composition” (1223). This quote and the readings we had from the classical period make me wonder what Bakhtin would say about our reading of their context-specific work from our context-specific time. It makes me think about reading-response theory and what it says about the role of readers in infusing meaning to a text written in a different time. Maybe the methodology he suggests works to describe how to approach both a synchronous and asynchronous speaker, listener, addresser and addressee relationship.

Sean:

When I look back at the studies of our rhetorical theory class, I am constantly reminded of the various discussions that have taken place in an attempt to define rhetoric. In Part I of Bakhtin’s Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, he writes, “Everything ideological possesses meaning: it represents, depicts, or stands for something lying outside itself. In other words, it is a sign. Without signs, there is no ideology.” (1210) These writings are eerily reminiscent of the theories and writings of John Locke. Locke’s emphasis upon language reflects how words serve as the signs of human ideas. Bakhtin also places an importance on the word and how it “is wholly absorbed in its function of being a sign.” (1213) The distinct variations of the world of signs, through the use of language, have helped to shape the ambiguous and ever-frustrating “definition” of rhetoric. There is definitely an important need to interpret and understand the source and context of language when trying to interpret meaning.

In Part II of Bakhtin’s Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, the attention shifts toward a focus on verbal interaction. The interesting descriptions of verbal interaction make me think of the importance of analyzing the speaker and listener in a conversation. The bulk of the rhetorical theory readings, along with the associated class discussions, have shed some light on the nature of language and verbal interaction. I will be the first to admit that I have, at times, become lost in the robust readings and vastly intellectual discussions that have taken place in our virtual classroom. Perhaps, as Bakhtin points out, I should seek to gain a better understanding and increase my knowledge of “each person’s inner world” and “social audience that comprises the environment in which reasons, motives, values, and so on are fashioned.” (1215) I found this quote to be so poignant because it takes into consideration social individuality and context.

As students, we all have the luxury of being imbedded in the realm of higher learning, and we are all sharing the same rhetorical theory texts. Also, we all get to pick the brain of our professor to gain better insight into the world of rhetoric. Yet, we all seem to have our own interpretations/definitions of rhetoric itself. The unique language we use, combined with our unique social and cultural backgrounds, fuels the ambiguity that surrounds our current study of rhetoric. Bakhtin’s writings help to explain why the use of language has enshrouded rhetorical theory and subsequently created a mysterious definition that seems to be at our fingertips, but not quite in our complete grasp. In my opinion, the Digital Age and the expansion of mass communication practices will only create more problems in gaining such a set-in-stone definition of rhetoric. However, in the end, maybe this is a good thing. The versatility of rhetoric, and its ability to spill over into an array of fields, has further solidified its importance.

Yazmin:

Sean, I would like to respond to your observations about the fact that while we all use the same text and are in the same class led by the same professor, we all have a unique understanding of the ideas in the course because of, as you point out, our “unique social and cultural backgrounds.” I found your admission about sometimes becoming lost in the reading and the online class discussions authentic and powerful—especially as it relates to our topic in this conversation: making meaning from verbal interaction. I have been lost both in the texts and in the discussions this semester, too. After reading Bakhtin, I wonder how I fit in with the notion of “addressee” at various levels, but including the standpoint of the texts and of our class context. Bakhtin does state, (and I now see how this relates to my questions to Falana): “specific class and specific era are limits that the ideal of addressee cannot go beyond” (1215). Framing your response with Bakhtin’s claims, namely, “that situation shapes the utterance, dictating that it sound one way and not another—like a demand or request, insistence on one’s rights or a plea for mercy, in a style flowery or plain, in a confident or hesitant manner, and so on” (1215), is so interesting because of the bridge that you are building with Falana, myself, and the potentially the rest of the class. I certainly have been illuminated by thinking about our responses, and this specific conversation on rhetoric and Bakhtin, in these terms.

Exploring the Concepts of Social Knowledge and Ideographs: A Rhetorical Standpoint

This week, I chose to read Thomas Farrell's "Knowledge, Consensus, and Rhetorical Theory" essay. This essay explores the concept of "social knowledge" and how it shapes society and rhetoric as a whole. I also chose to read Michael Calvin McGee's "The Ideograph: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology" essay. This essay explores the concept of an "ideograph" and the unique influence that it has on society. Both essays are linked in regard to the societal implications and theories set forth in each. The writings contained in each essay are quite robust, and both essays take strong analytical and philosophical approaches in their broad views. While reading each essay, I pinpointed several passages and quotes that I found to be extremely poignant. The following is a list of passages and quotes taken from each essay. I would like to give some personal perspective and analysis on each of the writings contained on the list. It is worthy to note that these quotes were chosen because of the fact that each one forced to me think more deeply about the arguments and theories presented in each essay.


The following passages and quotes were taken from Thomas Farrell's "Knowledge, Consensus, and Rhetorical Theory" essay:

• “Now if all knowledge must rest upon some sort of human consensus and presume some functional connection with human knowers, then it may be logically asked: What functional characterization of knowledge is appropriate to the art of rhetoric? In the argument that follows, I refer to a kind of knowledge which must be assumed if rhetorical discourse is to function effectively. I call this knowledge ‘social knowledge’ and define it as follows:

Social knowledge comprises conceptions of symbolic relationships among problems, persons, interests, and actions, which imply (when accepted) certain notions of preferable public behavior. (142)

Personal Analysis:The notion of "social knowledge", as defined by Farrell, can be applied to almost any societal situation. My interpretation stems from the notion that everything (e.g. people, cultures, customs, etc.), in a given society, is intertwined. The term "common sense" comes to my mind. These inherent, almost unspoken, rules and characteristics of society often seem to be overlooked and inadvertently ignored. I whole-heartedly agree with Farrell in his statement that stresses a need to consider "social knowledge" for the sake of understanding and utilizing rhetorical discourse. With this understanding, one will be able to adapt and function successfully in his or her own societal realm.

• “Not only does social knowledge provide a context of relevance for artistic proof in collective inference making; it also establishes social precedents for future attributions of consensus in situations which have yet to be encountered.” (147)

Personal Analysis:For me, this quote brings to mind the evolution of technological rhetoric. In the mid 90s, when internet technology first came to life, a new way of thinking, living, and learning started to spawn. With this new technology, a communication medium was formed and people had to adjust accordingly. However, the power of social knowledge, and its grip on communication practices, helped people to make the transition to the new medium. This already-established knowledge served as a strong precedent for the powers that regulated such a powerful and viral form of communication.

• “Social knowledge, as a characteristic which is actively attributed to persons, must necessarily partake in the active dimension of the rhetorical process itself.” (150)

Personal Analysis:This statement blatantly states that there needs to be interaction between social knowledge and rhetoric. A successful rhetorician will constantly need to be aware of his or her surroundings, and adapt accordingly. However, the ever-changing world that we live in will often hinder the need to practice and convey effective rhetoric. Thus, with an evolving environment of social knowledge, a true rhetorician will educate oneself to the fullest extent in order to understand society's changes.


The following passages and quotes were taken from Michael Calvin McGee's "The Ideograph: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology" essay:

• “The end product of the state’s insistence on some degree of conformity in behavior and belief, I suggest, is a rhetoric of control, a system of persuasion presumed to be effective on the whole community. We make a rhetoric of war to persuade us of war’s necessity , but then forget that it is a rhetoric–and regard negative popular judgments of it as unpatriotic cowardice.” (428)

Personal Analysis:This passage is incredibly poignant when we consider the time we live in. The rhetoric of war seems to be omnipresent this day and age. After September 11th, the ideals of patriotism enveloped the hearts and minds of the American people, as seen in the patriotic rhetoric following that tragic day. Soon thereafter, the power of war rhetoric raged throughout the country and the world. In my opinion this rhetoric was used, by the powers that be, in an attempt to control and persuade the hearts and minds of the American people, and the people of the world, to justify the courses of action that were taken as a result of the attacks on the US. Obviously, the discussion, proposal, and actual act of war are volatile issues that have the potential of tearing a country apart. In this instance, I am of the opinion that the power of rhetoric has failed to control and persuade a great many people. In essence, the political war rhetoric of the last seven years has created a split in the United States. Thus, the rhetoric of war will rage on until a resolution is eventually found. The notion of "unpatriotic cowardice" is not as prominent in the context of modern-day society.

• “An ideograph, however, is always understood in its relation to another; it is defined tautologically by using other terms in its cluster. If we accept that there are three or four or however many possible meanings for ‘equality,’ each with a currency and legitimacy, we distort the nature of the ideological dispute by ignoring the fact that ‘equality’ is made meaningful, not within the clash of multiple usages, but rather in its relationship with ‘freedom.’” (434)

Personal Analysis:This is where much of the confusion comes in when studying rhetorical discourse. There are so many usages and combinations of rhetorical entities, such as McGee's "ideographs", that it makes for a somewhat convoluted perspective. McGee does an excellent job of describing "ideographs" as a community's path to understanding the norms of ideology. People must understand context, and the effect that it has on interpretation and meaning. Also, people must be able to sift through varying ideologies that are influenced by societies of the world. Then, a person will be able to understand the rhetorical relationships that are formed between these so-called "ideographs".


Works Cited:

• Lucaites, John Louis, Celeste Michelle Condit and Sally Caudill, eds. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. New York and London: Guilford Press, 1999. 127-151, 425-440 .

Ars dictaminis

I am attempting to write a letter as it would have been written between 1150 to 1350 C.E. Because of my lack knowledge for the vernacular of the times (i.e. Latin), please treat my modern-day English as suffice for the exercise. The letter will be composed of a student, or pupil, writing his teacher in regards to various ideals that pertain to the acquisition of knowledge. I will be using Dr. Deborah Morton, Ph.D., as the recipient of the letter, and I will be using myself (Sean Doran) as the letter-writer, or dictator, of the letter. Feel free to comment on the letter itself. I will be very thankful if I can get any useful feedback and/or suggestions about the approach I used in writing the letter. Also, please keep in mind that the ideas I present and propose within the letter are reflective of a possible correspondence between a teacher and his/her pupil taking place in Medieval Times.


ca. 1135

To Deborah Morton, by divine grace resplendent in Ciceronian Charm, Sean Doran, inferior to his devoted learning, expresses the servitude of a sincere heart,

Being of a sound and educated mind, you have strived in your teachings of rhetoric to enlighten my devoted, grateful, and intellectual soul. Your professional ethos has been established by your journey through various universities, and your hard work and dedication has been rewarded with the attainment of a noble and just profession. This recognition, on my behalf, of your ever-lasting devotion to the pedagogical forces brought about in our universities will never waver.

I, being your lowly pupil and unworthy of being held in the same regard as yourself, have decided to write to you to express my concern for the growing need of spreading the ideals of Scholasticism. In recent times, there has been a partial reconciliation between Christian theology and secular teachings. Both of these pursuits are crucial in the attainment of wisdom and truth. As educators and students who are constantly trying to reach the pinnacle of intellectualism, I feel as though we have an obligation to focus upon the ideals of theology, but we must also restore the classical teachings of such notables as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. The recent discoveries of classical Greek writings, through Arab and Jewish sources, can be utilized to establish an influx of "new" ideologies. By combining the power of such diverse teachings and knowledge, the entire corpus of intellectualism and pedagogy can become widespread. Theological doctrines and classical interpretations of rhetoric and philosophy can be compared against each of in the pursuit of understanding and intellectual wisdom. Furthermore, as you well know, the study of rhetoric has been held in a lower regard as compared with the study of dialectic. This is a stigma that needs to be changed within the academic system. By placing a greater emphasis on the study of rhetoric through classical texts, new and more practical rhetorical ideologies can be established in academia.


Thus, I propose to institute a new program that will promote and consolidate the theories and teachings of both secular and non-secular philosophies. I am willing to travel to Paris, Oxford, Bologna, and beyond to promote the ideals of this program. Universities must unite and join forces to achieve the type of mass education that is so desired. I implore you to consider this idea as a way of supporting the mass changes that are taking place during this ever-evolving Renaissance Period. With your divine help, studium generales will be filled with a large and diverse collection of newly-devoted intellectual minds that are willing to learn a wide range of subjects. Whether the subject is theology, dialectic, rhetoric, philosophy, medicine, law, math, or science, a conglomeration will take place that will revolutionize the educational system for the greater good.

In conclusion, I thank you for taking your precious time to read my humble letter. I can only hope that a person of your esteemed nature will be able to appreciate and understand my need to address the current nature of the teachings that take place in our newly-created universities.

Sincerely,

Sean Doran, your humble and devoted pupil…


I attempted to create the five parts of a letter according to The Principles of Letter Writing. The parts included: the Salutation, the Securing of Goodwill, the Narration, the Petition, and the Conclusion. The Salutation was taken from "The Salutation of a Pupil to His Teacher" from The Principles of Letter Writing. The abundant acknowledgment of the recipient’s established ethos seeks to solidify the creation of a strong Securing of Goodwill. The Narration and Petition make up the bulk of the body of the letter, followed by a conclusion that further accentuates the “esteemed nature” (Securing of Goodwill) of the recipient. I hope that I successfully organized the letter in a fashion that reflects the implementation of the aforementioned entities.

Computers and Composition Reading Response

After reading through various articles in the Computers and Composition journal, I am going to focus on the writings of Charles Moran in his article “What We Had Hoped For.” The title alone offers the reader an understanding of the technological world that Moran is trying to illustrate. I have noticed over the course of my first semester of graduate school that there seems to be quite a bit of ambivalent sentiments that surround the computers and writing field. Moran describes scholars in the field, especially those writing and working for the Computers and Composition journal, as being “upbeat, optimistic, enthusiastic, and forward-looking.” I would completely agree with this assessment, but it is painfully obvious that there are still many critics in the world who generate pessimistic outlooks toward the technological landscape.

I was intrigued with Moran’s ideas of eliminating the “drudgery” that comes along with the tasks of writing. Let us get something straight. The advents of word processing and computer-related features are highly advantageous for anyone who writes, but this so-called “drudgery” seems to be a byproduct of recent times. Would we even be having a discussion of eliminating “drudgery” thirty years ago? My fascination with writing spawned when I was very little, and has grown as I have matured and gone through various levels of the education hierarchy. I have never viewed writing as being troublesome or tedious. Otherwise, I better start to seriously consider my educational and career choices. When I look back and put things in perspective, I realize that for the longest time, I always used to write everything out by hand. I am only twenty-six years old, but I grew up in a house that didn’t have a computer. The truth is that even if my childhood home did have a computer, I am not completely certain that I would have utilized it back then. It was only in my first year of undergraduate studies that I started using computers for writing purposes. Sometimes I feel as though we are spoiled this day and age. I have so much respect for the writers who had to painstakingly write out everything by hand in the most meticulous of fashions. I view the ideas of eliminating “drudgery” with much apprehension, because in the end, there must always be a need for the writer to have control.


Writing students and teachers of writing, as Moran describes, are being faced with new technological advancements that in effect would replace the teacher with computer review software. Is technology taking too big of a hand in the world of pedagogy? My apprehension is only further solidified when I imagine a world where a computer grades and reviews my writing. No thank you. I do not care how advanced computer logic has become, I still and always will want a human mind to delve into and judge my writing. There are tasks that computers can assist with, but as far as rhetorical analysis, the human mind must be present. Technology, for all its advantages, has also created elements that threaten the very thing that writers hold so dear.

The idea that technology (i.e. word processing) makes better writers out of bad writers does not carry much validity with me. Moran quotes the work of Richard Collier and Clifford Werier, who both write, “Good writers are good writers, no matter how they write – their processes and their products are only minimally tied to the mode of text production, no matter what they say or feel about computers or writing by hand.” This statement resonated with me because I feel that it illustrates the notion of why technology is practical for writing purposes, but at the same time, I feel that it explains the reasoning behind why technology does not improve one’s writing. The “mode of text production” should not benefit the quality of writing because quality is something that is not achieved through technology. Aesthetic quality and convenience is achieved with technology, but rhetorical and analytical quality must reside in the human mind.

Moran’s article goes into detail about the history that surrounds the field and community of computers and writing. The advances that have been made through technology and the effects that they have had on pedagogy have been enormous. In fact, after a three year hiatus from higher education, I made the decision to return to college and further my education. The fact that I am in a technical communication master’s program has helped me to realize a great many things about how pedagogy has transformed over the years. I would have never envisioned myself working in a computer lab when I first started college, but now, I cannot really picture it any other way. The world, along with writers must learn to embrace technology, but it is the responsibility of the writers and teachers of writing to control the landscape of how technology is used for writing purposes.

Kairos Reading Response

The years that I spent pursuing my undergraduate degree, in English, were mainly consumed with reading novels and essays. After looking back in retrospect, I am surprised that I was not exposed more to the world of academic journals. In fact, I cannot remember having been assigned any sort of reading that was directly from an academic journal. I don’t have the best memory in the world, but I am pretty sure that I would have remembered a personal interaction with an academic journal. Is this the norm for most academics? I think not. I would venture to guess that a lot of professors rely heavily on works from academic journals in their teaching practices. This semester is my first semester of graduate school, and during this time, I have become acquainted with many new forms of pedagogy, including the peer-reviewed online journal Kairos. I enjoyed this assignment thoroughly because it differed in comparison from past reading assignments. While I enjoyed reading the past four books, some more than others, I was glad to be able to interact more with Kairos as compared to just reading out of a book. I am also glad that the 10th Anniversary issue was the issue we were assigned to read because it seems to offer more of a broad overview of the history that brought life to this journal. I’ll admit that I was a bit skeptical at first when I found out that the idea and concept of this journal was conceived on the way to a Hootie and the Blowfish concert. Even though I am not a fan of their music, I will give Becky Rickly credit for the fact that she definitely came up with this idea of Kairos at a very unique time and place. Who would have thought that an idea for an online journal that explores the intersections of rhetoric, technology, and pedagogy would have been conceived on the way to such an event? In all seriousness, I have found that some of the best ideas are spawned at the most random of times when one is not expecting it.



I took the advice of the Logging On column and I read Douglas Eyman’s “The Arrow and the Loom” webtext first and foremost. The history that Eyman illustrates for the reader gives a sense of how an idea, with the help of a few dedicated individuals, can turn into a reality. Eyman describes the name Kairos, a Greek word, as having the meaning of “the right moment” or “the opportune”. After gaining an understanding of the context of the name choice for the journal, I feel as though the name encompasses the nature of the journal in a very successful manner. With technological advances, our world is changing at such a rapid pace this day and age, and I feel that there is always a need to evolve with the times. Kairos, not being the first online journal of its kind, offers a communication medium for individual scholars who wish to engage the Computers and Writing field in a new and interactive manner. Eyman also touches on the issues of overall design for the journal in his webtext. While I love the interactivity that webtext has to offer, I must admit that I found some of the navigation in Kairos to be somewhat troubling. While navigating through the journal, I almost felt as if I was missing certain pieces in the webtexts. The utilization of hyperlinks in the writing, combined with the design of the journal itself, made for a disjointed and somewhat frustrating read. I am not saying that I didn’t enjoy the content of the reading, but I am saying that I was not completely satisfied with the navigation. Of course, the authors of the various webtexts have constructed their own mediums for conveying their ideas, and each webtext is unique in its own way. The fact that Kairos allows the author to choose their own environment for writing purposes opens up the possibility of varying navigation methods and features. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what makes Kairos unique. With all this said, Eyman emphasizes the fact that as far as design goes, the Kairos staff will be working on the journal to promote new and improved methods of “higher readability” and “more reliable navigation.”

Tracy Bridgeford’s webtext “Kairotically Speaking: Kairos and the Power of Identity” brought about some very interesting thoughts when dealing with the world of tenure. My knowledge of the Computers and Writing field is growing as this semester goes by, but I am constantly becoming a witness to the uphill battle that scholars in the field are constantly dealing with. Kairos is a prime example of a scholarly publication that is seemingly questioned as such by those “entitled” to pass such judgment. I cannot imagine how frustrating it must be for those ambitious technorhetoricians that must deal with the faults of bureaucracy. The rigorous editorial process, outlined in this issue, that submissions made to Kairos go through should be clear cut evidence that this field is rightfully scholarly in all aspects. The standards of tenure have been in place for many years, but how can those seated in the upper echelon of academia not have a willingness to be more open-minded and optimistic when it comes to passing judgment. Technology is here to stay, period! Once people realize this, I believe that there will be some dramatic changes that will take place in academia. Kairos, and all related rhetoric, writing, and pedagogy will become more recognized as a valid foundation for tenure. Bridgeford states, “Technorhetoricians often spend a good portion of their time educating and convincing their colleagues about the value of digital scholarship.” However, with the work of online journals such as Kairos, I feel as though attitudes will begin to change, because forgive me for saying so, but people cannot be blind forever!

The Praxis section of the journal outlines some very intriguing implementations that the editorial staff is planning to put into place. I love the idea of having an open-access section of the journal, a wiki of sorts, which would help and give suggestions to those interested in using certain digital tools and settings for their scholarly writing. This section would serve as a great reference for anyone in need of guidance when dealing with foreign facets of technology. I am anxious to see how this all shapes out.

In conclusion, with the work Kairos is doing, I hope to see an increase in the number of people citing credible and scholarly electronic sources, especially peer-reviewed online journals like Kairos. The editors and contributors seem to be doing something right because, as Eyman points out, the reader numbers have increased over the years and branched out to include an international audience. The variety of contributors, whether they are graduate students or tenured professionals, offers a friendly world where outsiders are embraced. Jim Kalmbach writes about this friendly world in his webtext “Reading the Archives: Ten Years on Nonlinear (Kairos) History.” Kalmbach states, “Community has enabled Kairos to survive.” This 10th Anniversary issue gave me a better understanding of the practices and ideals that this journal lives by, and for that, I am grateful.

Computers and Writing: The Cyborg Era Reading Response

As someone who has been recently introduced to the field of computers and writing, what have been some of your initial reactions and sentiments toward this new and unfamiliar field?

For the past few months, I have learned many new things about the field of computers and writing. I have always been someone who has embraced new ideas and concepts with an open mind, but there are instances in which I have felt a certain sense of emotional apprehension when it comes to trying something new. Currently, I am twenty-six years old, so if someone had to guess, he or she would probably figure that I have been exposed to the ever-changing world of computers for a long time. Of course, the cultural society in which we live definitely has something to do with this overall assumption. For instance, if I lived in a very poor third world country where technological resources were few and far between, this assumption would obviously not apply. However, since I am a graduate student at Texas State University, and a graduate of the University of Texas, it is safe to assume that my peers picture me as someone who is technically proficient. I mean, let's be honest, I am pursuing a master's degree in technical communication. I am in fact at a point in my life where I rely on computers and technology very heavily. I currently work as a technical writer at a clinical laboratory in Austin. I spend hours upon hours at my computer writing and editing technical documentation including: standard operating procedures, software validations, and assay validations. The rest of my time, when I am not at work, is spent going to graduate school. The little personal time that I have on the weekends is spent amongst friends and my significant other, but Sundays are also spent on the computer, because in fact, I am constantly in need of checking my fantasy football teams. Yes, I did use the plural form of team, and yes, I am a big dork. My reliance on computers for writing and other professional and personal duties has not always been this prominent. In fact, when I started college in 1999, my computer skills were definitely lacking as compared to my fellow peers. It has taken a significant amount of time for me catch up in the rat race that we all take part in, and I am still not where I want to be as far as my technical knowledge is concerned. Anyways, I digress. James Inman's Computers and Writing: The Cyborg Era is a work that differs from the other books we have read thus far. His historical approach to analyzing the field, along with the shared community voices he uses to accentuate the many viewpoints of those involved in the field, offers the reader a unique perspective on a field that is growing with an evolving technological landscape. Inman's concepts that explore the "Cyborg Era" constantly revert back to the idea of "community" when describing those people who work in the computers and writing field. The fact that our class has recently been exposed to all the upcoming call for papers, and the looming conferences that are part of the computers and writing world, make our reading of Inman's book that much more poignant. It's funny to think about how I am barely realizing that there is an academic field that focuses specifically on computers and writing. It is interesting that it took a specific class entitled "Computers and Writing" to make me come to this realization. However, in my academic career I have been directly and indirectly involved in the field. This seems to be the case for many people in today's society. Computers and technolgy are such a dominant force, and people just seem to take these entities for granted. My realization about the existence of the computers and writing field and community has made me come to appreciate this world and all the advantages that it offers.

In chapter 2 of Computers and Writing: The Cyborg Era, Inman focuses on many of the historical aspects that have influenced the computers and writing community. Based on the reading, what are some of your thoughts on the history that surrounds the computers and writing community?

The "Cyborg History" in chapter two offers the reader a brief background that surrrounds the world we are studying. I found the references to the Space Race and the Cold War to be very intriguing. The Space Race was a time when the country and the world listened to a certain rhetoric from world leaders that emphasized the need to win the technological race into the cosmos. The Cold War saw a time in American history when people were genuinely frightful of the new technologies that were being utilized by the dominant military powers of the world, namely Russia and the United States. The term that comes to mind for me is "push-button warfare." I constantly picture Stanley Kubrick's satirical masterpiece Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. This film embodies many aspects about how computers have shaped a paraniod society and a society that at times has been quite apprehensive when considering the uses of computers and technology. Computers and surrounding technologies were growing exponentially during the Cold War, and Inman has made it very clear that our lives have been shaped by the events that took place during this time. I love the fact that Inman references the film Wargames. I found this reference to apply perfectly to the paranoia I described above. This film literally paints a picture of a world where computers have decided the fate of society. For those who haven't seen this film, I won't ruin the details, but it is definitely worth a viewing.





Inman's descriptions of certain philosophies offer the reader an in-depth and thoughful look into the resistance that has overshadowed technology. I have always wondered why certain people exude such a strong resistance to the ideas of technology. During WWII, technology became more prominent than ever. The rise of the Nazi Party and the fact that it embraced and employed technology to wreak genocide over everything in its grasp, gives readers a sense of why the resistance to technology has resonated over time. The Allies were able to use technology in their favor to combat the Axis powers and subsequently win the war. Of course, the Cold War started up shortly thereafter, so people must have had a sense that technological ideas were mostly spawned from elements of warfare and global domination. Can you really blame people for their ambivalent resistance toward technology? I don't think you can blame anyone, but in the end Inman makes a very poignant statement, "Sadly, either direction- whether to adopt and use the technologies available or to resist them-involved making substantial sacrifices, and these are the same problematic options many people face in light of similar influences today."(66) The historical perspective that Inman offers is extremely important because it sheds light on the path that technology has taken to mold the world in which we live. I have always been a history buff, so this chapter touched home on a lot of historical events that I am familiar with. However, Inman was able to articulate how these historical events have shaped the field and community of computers and writing. For that, I am grateful.

In conclusion, I chose to write a blog about Inman's work in the same fashion that he chose to utilize his so-called "community voices". I presented, to myself, one broad question about this new community I have discovered, and then I chose to elaborate on a more specific question of interest in the work, namely the historical examination. Inman might have lost some authorial power with his decision to use such a vast plethora of voices from the computers and writing community, but I still think that he accomplishes his overall goal of having a broad/community voice. In time, I hope to study and better understand the computers and writing field. I think I am on my way.