Rhetoric analysis can be approached in many ways, but for my purposes, I'm going to examine (1) the type of appeal; (2) the author or apparent author; (3) the recipient audience; (4) the medium chosen to deliver the message.
For a more in-depth review of rhetoric, Wikipedia has an excellent entry. Note that although Colin may express skepticism about some aspects of rhetorical theory, Marshal McLuhan was first and foremost a rhetorician. Consider this quote from the Wikipedia entry:
"After studying the persuasive strategies involved in such an array of items in popular culture, McLuhan shifted the focus of his rhetorical analysis and began to consider how communication media themselves impact on us as persuasive, in a manner of speaking. In other words, the communication media as such embody and carry a persuasive dimension. McLuhan uses hyperbole to express this insight when he says 'the medium is the message.'"
When discussing a blog, we must therefore consider (1) the apparent purpose of blog (i.e., to the extent the blog identifies its mission); (2) the primary authorial voice; (3) the audience, which may include an "apparent" audience (for example, Dems on a Democratic website) and the actual audience (anyone who wants to log on); and (4) the blog as a medium of communication and how that affects the message.
Bora Z., who comments frequently as "Coturnix," was kind enough to answer some questions for me about his blogging. He has many blogs. He said that he started blogging mostly to have a safe place to store things in case his computer crashed. Then lots of people started responding, and in his words, "I got validation from other people who I trust." I asked him why he was so interested in our class, and his response was that we were "newbies" who were expressly reacting to and writing about what we were seeing. "This was a unique opportunity to actually see expressed the first thoughts and feeling of people freshly introduced to the medium."
His comments on our class actually support what Colin has been preaching, which that we, at this moment, know more about blogging than most bloggers, new or old:
"It was very interesting to me to see how many people here strongly disliked the political discourse on blogs, hated Kos and Wolcott, loved Coffee and Andrew Sullivan, and had mixed feelings about Vlogs. That is definitely NOT how old bloggers see them. It is refreshing and thought-provoking. Makes me think what I am doing with my blogs and why. How are they perceived. How am I perceived."
So let's dissect one of his blogs. We were first introduced to Bora through Science and Politics. The tag line for the blog (is that what it's called? I guess it is now.) is Red-State Serbian Jewish atheist liberal PhD student with Thesis-writing block and severe blogorrhea trying to understand US politics by making strange connections between science, religion, brain, language and sex.
So the apparent purpose is to help a grad student understand American politics. The real purpose seems to be to help its author connect, foster communities, and as he candidly states, obtain validation. The latest posts are on movies, a favorite blog carnival, and a link to a blogging article. So its actual purpose is not politics.
The authorial voice is Bora, as affected by comments (more on comments in another post). The audience is...anyone who listens? There doesn't seem to be a particular audience prescribed by this blog. Now the fun part, really, is the way in which the blog affects his communications. Almost every entry asks for a response: what do you think? What do you like? What type of blogger are you? Do you want to host a carnival next weekend?
What type of message is this? Not ethical that I see, as Bora doesn't hold himself out as an expert on anything; in fact, his tag line starts out by telling us that he's looking for answers, and then he continually seeks to draw his readers in to answer questions. There may be some logical appeal to his writings, as he calls his blog "Science and Politics," which is a pretty heavy this-is-serious-stuff title. He also links to various articles on blogging and carnivals, so there is some informational items on his blog.
Mostly, however, it seems to have pathos, emotional appeal. In his recent post about movies he talks about the ones he likes: "Don't ask! Even I have no idea what is it about these particular movies that makes me watch them again and again...." Then he asks, "So, what movies do you watch again and again? Can you say why?" All this is emotional rhetoric -- let's talk, let's be friends, you should read this because it's interesting, because I'M interesting. As he says, it's validation, the human need for connection and approval. Because he's blogging, this medium allows him to ask for and receive validation, in the form of comments.
Here's the fascinating and frightening thing about blogging. I am examining the subject as he's sitting in the room. It's hard to remain detached when I picture Bora looking over my shoulder as I'm writing. So I think we're all heavily affected by this medium. I know McLuhan was using hyperbole when he said the medium is the message, but in this case, it can't help but skew the content of the message.
I think some in our class (mean old Marc, our favorite beloved curmudgeon) would scoff at a need for validation as a weakness, as seeking validation from strangers as silliness. I don't agree. I think hopefully we don't need blog-approval to keep functioning in happy, healthy lives. But any time we put ourselves out there in a blog, we know others are going to potentially read and comment on US, on our words. To say we don't care is not to be indifferent, I don't think, but to be rejecting of any messages, good or bad, that come in. It's a decision not to consider the potential response. I don't think it means we don't all need validation in our lives. Or maybe Marc just has a thicker skin than I do, entirely possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Ha! I knew this was going to happen. And I think you nailed it.
It is very interesting how my blogging style changed over time. I used to post almost only long serious essays. Now, those are rare. I have a real-life (or 'offline') parallel:
Every now and then I will go out and have lunch or beer with another grad student or professor, sometimes within a larger group. It is interesting to see who gets invited: those who think highly of each others' research. I have read the scientific papers by that person, and (s)he has read mine. We have established mutual respect on all things scientific. But, when we go out, we can have a beer and not talk about science at all. We can chat about current events, politics, weather, books, movies, our kids, departmental gossip, troubles with Intelligent Design....whatever.
Similarly, I have established a degree of respect and reputation on my blog with my older serious essays. Now, I can post pretty much everything I want, and my (equally serious) blog friends will come over and chat about non-serious stuff. And my blog is not the only one that had undergone such a transformation from serious-only to mish-mash of everything.
Occasionally I write a serious essay even now. There are some very specific topics on which I am assumed to be an "expert" in the blogosphere, so if a media outlet or a blog says something about it and most bloggers are not sure what to think about it, they turn to me. A few months ago, a Creationist used a novel tactic of arguing that the existence of circadian clocks supports Intelligent Design. A prominent science blogger sent me the article by e-mail and, within an hour, I wrote a rebuttal (on Circadiana), which was then spread around many science blogs.
Also, there was recently a media report on a sex-differences study in brain and perception. The report was atrocious, but nobody knew if the scientific paper on which it was based was good or bad. I wrote a line-by-line explanation of the paper, resolving that the media misunderstood a good paper and twisted it for its own ideological purposes. Again, a number of Lefty, science and feminist blogs linked to this.
So, I am allowed to play with memes and carnivals as much as I want (equivalent of having fun at a bar drinking with my colleagues), but if something is important, they know I will get serious and write an expert (and trustworthy) analysis on something I am en expert on.
Now we go to the 'validation' point. That word has many meanings and you have accurately described one (or two?) of them. I do have an offline life - family, friends, colleagues, professors, students, etc. You may have probably sensed that local bloggers think highly of me (that newspaper article about blogging that I linked to today mentions me by name) - which means that I already feel validated.
But I also used that word in a somewhat different sense. Apart from biology/evolution/neuroscience/behavior/chronobiology/physiology I also write a lot about the psychology of political ideology, building on George Lakoff's model (and critiquing it sometimes). I have written more than 60 long posts about this topic. Yet, I am not officially qualified to write about this. I have read a few books, a couple of papers, but I am writing about this mainly as a layperson, yet with a tone of utmost authority. I have always worried about the way the authoritative tone may rub some people wrong - not just Rightwingnuts who don't like the conclusions of my analysis, but also people who DO have the expertise in, for instance, cognitive linguistics or sociology or political science. What I always ask for is validation of my ideas by people who have better education in these matters than I do. I feel uncomfortable that people from the blogosphere come to me as a "Lakoff expert" (alongside "Effect Measure" and "Mixing Memory" blogs). I have been prodded by other bloggers to turn my blog into a book, specifically focusing on these kinds of posts (editing out the memes, carnivals and other fluff). Others have suggested I do more literature research and turn the blog into a serious book on the topic, i.e., not a Blook, but an academic publication. Even people who teach sociology, psychology and anthropology at highly regarded US schools think that my reasoning is sound and I should keep developing it and turn it, eventually, into a book. yet, the whole idea that I can publish a book on a topic I am not officially trained for makes me uneasy so I am still looking for a validation in a form of someone who strongly DISAGREES with me and can show me exactly where I got it wrong. I am afraid that people who tend to read my blog (Lefties) may have a blind eye for some of my errors.
Finally: who reads my blog?
Most science bloggers.
A number of atheist/skeptic bloggers.
A number of Lefty bloggers.
A number of Balkan bloggers.
Lots of North Carolina bloggers (some conservative Republicans there).
A couple of members of my family.
These groups like different types of posts and different types of topics. I do try to "satisfy" all of my readers over a period of time (1-2 weeks), but I will never sit down and write a post "for" the audience unless I personally really care about the topic and really want to write it for my own self. First time I do that, I will quit blogging (or demand a hefty salary!).
You can also see how asking questions of my readers is a relatively new development in my posts. Now I know that I actually have readers and they are not too shy to post a comment or post a rseponse on their own blogs. I would have felt silly if I asked questions a year ago and nobody answered. A year ago, I was yelling into the wilderness, building my "brand" and my reputation. Today, people have appeared out of the wilderness and joined me in a conversation, so it is OK to ask them questions.
First of all, thanks for letting me dissect your blog, and extra thanks for the long, thought-provoking posts. I'm not sure what the "it" is that I nailed?
You also raise a good (valid? ha) point, which is that the validation available on the web is not only personal in nature, but also professional. As you discuss, you have several interests and are an authority of sorts on different topics. If there is enough of a critical mass of like-minded people reading your blog, you can get some good debate going on topics and explore the edges of your conclusions and theories. A type of idea-vetting and professional validation.
Perhaps that has worked for you, but my primary review of that is in the political blogs. I am a lawyer and am very interested in Supreme Court nominees. Most of what I read about Harriet Miers, for example, was villanization or deification. The blogs and their commentors were so busy either tearing her down or propping her up that there was little useful dialogue on her qualifications. I mean, she has had a sellar career by almost any measure, so she must have SOME qualifications to discuss. On the other hand, the conservatives would have us say, well, the President thinks she's okay, so that should be good enough.
Interestingly, with Alito, I did actually find some good analysis on the conservative sites. I think they were confident enough about him to stop yelling and waving their arms and actually start explaining to their constitutents who he is. The liberal sites, in constrast, seem more concerned about finding some way to tear him down. To me, this wasn't very useful because he's at least a strong contender and I'd like to know something about him before I jump on the "I hate him" bandwagon.
But I digress...my point is that I'm interested that you find true professional validation with your blog. As you said, we all gravitate toward those who tell us how great/smart/funny we are, how great our research is.
Again, thanks for your help.
First of all, thanks for letting me dissect your blog, and extra thanks for the long, thought-provoking posts. I'm not sure what the "it" is that I nailed?
You also raise a good (valid? ha) point, which is that the validation available on the web is not only personal in nature, but also professional. As you discuss, you have several interests and are an authority of sorts on different topics. If there is enough of a critical mass of like-minded people reading your blog, you can get some good debate going on topics and explore the edges of your conclusions and theories. A type of idea-vetting and professional validation.
Perhaps that has worked for you, but my primary review of that is in the political blogs. I am a lawyer and am very interested in Supreme Court nominees. Most of what I read about Harriet Miers, for example, was villanization or deification. The blogs and their commentors were so busy either tearing her down or propping her up that there was little useful dialogue on her qualifications. I mean, she has had a sellar career by almost any measure, so she must have SOME qualifications to discuss. On the other hand, the conservatives would have us say, well, the President thinks she's okay, so that should be good enough.
Interestingly, with Alito, I did actually find some good analysis on the conservative sites. I think they were confident enough about him to stop yelling and waving their arms and actually start explaining to their constitutents who he is. The liberal sites, in constrast, seem more concerned about finding some way to tear him down. To me, this wasn't very useful because he's at least a strong contender and I'd like to know something about him before I jump on the "I hate him" bandwagon.
But I digress...my point is that I'm interested that you find true professional validation with your blog. As you said, we all gravitate toward those who tell us how great/smart/funny we are, how great our research is.
Again, thanks for your help.
Post a Comment