As I have indicated in previous posts, I am always looking at research through the lens of my role as a teacher. I am very interested in thinking through the ways a text can be useful as a site of discussion or the ways it can be useful as a way of informing the communication practices that we are practicing.
This week, I am thinking about the ways social media can be brought into the classroom as examples of rhetorical concerns. In particular, I am interested in the ways social media represent both private and public concerns. Social media, in some ways, represent our interest in creating our selves and controlling the ways others perceive us, and in other ways social media has created opportunities for us to engage in public discussions on a scale that theorists are still trying to deal with.
Stephanie Vie’s “In Defense of ‘Slacktivism’” is a great example of rhetorical theory and social media being brought together, and the analysis she provides can be very useful for teaching students about the possibilities and limitations of participating in social media rhetoric. I would be interested in having a unit of class where we looked at Vie’s piece alongside Penny and Dadas’ “(Re)Tweeting in the Service of Protest” because of the ways they conceptualize the types of communication that we can engage in using common social media platforms.
Vie’s piece would also help by providing some ways to talk about memes as serious rhetorical devices. The use of Burke’s concept of identification alongside the theories defining the qualities of memes helps to establish a validity to what students are seeing and producing in their online activities. Vie’s analysis could be useful for helping students see that the ‘share’ function and the ‘like’ button on social media platforms are not meaningless, or they do more than make us feel good—but they allow us to connect and “have the power to impact lasting material change in the world” (Vie). This type of argument highlights the ways language in any form are essential for helping us make and remake our social realities.
Ellen W. Gorsevski seems to be discussing a related idea in Peaceful Persuasion, as she examines the significance of rhetoric and media for social movements. In Chapter 2 of her book, she starts by highlighting the binary of forceful rhetoric and peaceful rhetoric, in which rhetorics of force (violence/war/military) are privileged. Gorsevski goes on to write, “One suggestion here is that if media-savvy rhetorics are used to advantage, peace activists can more fully participate” (20). A better relationship with media, it seems, could result in peaceful rhetorics having a stronger role in public discourse. While Gorsevski is talking about media and controlling appearance, it is also worth thinking about social media in this way. It is not as easy to dismiss rhetorics of peace when such a large population can so easily show their support for a cause. The ease with which people can show their support, to identify with a movement, is worth paying attention to.
My interest in multimodal curriculum overlaps with theories of social media because of the affordances of the web. As I think through the ways social media have been treated in textbooks and by my colleagues. So far, I am not sure we have been fully covering the significance of social media, and there may be many reasons for this—primarily related to the types of writing that have the most social currency.
Do you think there’s also a resistance to writing about social media since authors know the landscape can change so quickly (and publishing takes a long time)? This time issue could harm or limit the social justice theorizing of social media. Attending to such an issue boosts the importance of online academic journals and other platforms that publish material quickly and also highlights how those academic venues need to be valued for their knowledge-making.
I think this is a great point. Yes. And online journals seem to be gaining traction–at least from what I have seen–which is both great and scary. I think that the potential of online journals is great, allowing for new types of publications, better uses of visuals and interactive design, and more. But I also wonder what happens if research moves too quickly. If academics start rushing their research to fit an online model, we are in new territory. The power of established and reputable journals seems to be in the review process. Print journals and peer-review is a slow process that requires a lot of time and consideration. If academics start rushing their research to fit an online model, we are in new territory.