Page 332 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 332
What Do We Know about the World?
to the ways that individuals and groups use language to constitute their
social realities [...]. The discourses, of institutions and popular culture,
are rhetorical in the sense that they situate us in our worlds: they shape
our ideas about the ‘way things are’ who we are; where we belong; and
guide what we talk about and what we say (and don’t say).” Worldwide
discussions, of rhetoric, (Burke, 1950, Grassi, 1980, Corder, 1985, Haus-
er 1999, Johnstone, 2007, Skarič, 2007, Mifsud, 2007, Aczél, 2012) re-
discovered those capacities, of rhetoric, which proved that the classical
discipline had more to offer than a set of persuasive techniques; a pack of
discursive tricks; and disciplined genres of mono-logic discourse.
4. Rhetoric and New Media
From the turn of the 21st century, rhetorical theory has been chal-
lenged strongly by the complex system and phenomena of new media. A
communicative culture is being formulated whose currency is informa-
tion and which is characterized by permanent connection, publicity, and
participation. Information and information technologies have created
– as theorists claim – the attention economy (Goldhaber, 1997, Daven-
port-Beck, 2001) in which “the wealth of information means a dearth of
something else: a scarcity of whatever is that information consumes” (Si-
mon, 1971: 40). It is the human attention which communication and in-
formation strive to grasp and compete for. This attention economy op-
erates through “cognitive capitalism” (Crogan and Kinsley, 2012: 3) and
is the natural economy of media-space (Goldhaber, 1997). Although the
attention economy paradigm is being debated with perspectives over a
new vision of the location economy, whereby one’s location is the scarce
resource on which new media applications are built, it determines our
everyday discursive practices when we produce, create, and consume
(“cresume” or “presume”).
When consuming texts, we screen, scan, and browse and try to
be energy-conscious with our attention (Johnson, 2012). Messages
are produced to become noticed. Therefore, they endeavour to elim-
inate this consciousness and to catch and gain attention. The norms,
of message formation, were changed in accordance with the challeng-
es of the attention economy. Writing little, using micro-style, breaking
the rules, and evoking conversation are those principles which seem
to rule our communicative culture. Participating in new media spac-
es needs new competencies and literacies (Hoechsmann-Poyntz, 2012)
in order to be conscious, creative, and communicative concerning con-
vergent media usage.
to the ways that individuals and groups use language to constitute their
social realities [...]. The discourses, of institutions and popular culture,
are rhetorical in the sense that they situate us in our worlds: they shape
our ideas about the ‘way things are’ who we are; where we belong; and
guide what we talk about and what we say (and don’t say).” Worldwide
discussions, of rhetoric, (Burke, 1950, Grassi, 1980, Corder, 1985, Haus-
er 1999, Johnstone, 2007, Skarič, 2007, Mifsud, 2007, Aczél, 2012) re-
discovered those capacities, of rhetoric, which proved that the classical
discipline had more to offer than a set of persuasive techniques; a pack of
discursive tricks; and disciplined genres of mono-logic discourse.
4. Rhetoric and New Media
From the turn of the 21st century, rhetorical theory has been chal-
lenged strongly by the complex system and phenomena of new media. A
communicative culture is being formulated whose currency is informa-
tion and which is characterized by permanent connection, publicity, and
participation. Information and information technologies have created
– as theorists claim – the attention economy (Goldhaber, 1997, Daven-
port-Beck, 2001) in which “the wealth of information means a dearth of
something else: a scarcity of whatever is that information consumes” (Si-
mon, 1971: 40). It is the human attention which communication and in-
formation strive to grasp and compete for. This attention economy op-
erates through “cognitive capitalism” (Crogan and Kinsley, 2012: 3) and
is the natural economy of media-space (Goldhaber, 1997). Although the
attention economy paradigm is being debated with perspectives over a
new vision of the location economy, whereby one’s location is the scarce
resource on which new media applications are built, it determines our
everyday discursive practices when we produce, create, and consume
(“cresume” or “presume”).
When consuming texts, we screen, scan, and browse and try to
be energy-conscious with our attention (Johnson, 2012). Messages
are produced to become noticed. Therefore, they endeavour to elim-
inate this consciousness and to catch and gain attention. The norms,
of message formation, were changed in accordance with the challeng-
es of the attention economy. Writing little, using micro-style, breaking
the rules, and evoking conversation are those principles which seem
to rule our communicative culture. Participating in new media spac-
es needs new competencies and literacies (Hoechsmann-Poyntz, 2012)
in order to be conscious, creative, and communicative concerning con-
vergent media usage.
