an example of multivocality on YouTube cheryl hazama's assertion that rhetoric is dead steve wexler: practitioner of the rhetorical arts
A different kind of surfing. | As the famous twentieth century theorist Kenneth Burke points out, truth (with a capital “T”) is highly subjective. Burke and Bakhtin, among others, insist that meaning is discerned through social relationships, context, conversation, and ultimately, through a dialectic in one particular time in space. Popular culture is full of potential dialectics that we engage in on a daily basis in order to come to an understanding of something, a truth, perhaps. In Plato’s cave, the shadows of the manufactured objects are what people see as truth, and Plato concludes that there really is no truth—or ultimately that truth exists as it relates to the subject who is viewing it. It is no surprise that some of the most influential theories of our day have been built on the construct that truth is relative. If one derives their account of something experientially, because the world and our sense of the world is in flux, the views that are attained will be mere opinions, and not truth. How do we whittle down information to even form opinions, though? Plato stresses that it is the dialectic that enables us to form our positions and that it is the dialectic, that is, the controversy, and the exchange of arguments and counter-arguments respectively that promotes our advocating of propositions and counter-propositions. As Plato asserts, what people take as truth is nothing more than the shadows of the manufactured objects. And thus, YouTube’s representation of reality is exactly as Plato portrays it in his allegory of the Cave—whatever information is disseminated is expected to be thought of and received as and considered to be valid, even in the face of parody and humor. The existence of YouTube in relation to the traditional classroom is crucial. It is the buffer space between how education once was and how education will be in the near future—it is ultimately helping us gently move towards an age of technological learning. It is evident in our culture that YouTube is a dialectic; it serves as a space that is rhetorical where popular discourse occurs. The site is dynamic in that multiple postings appear consistently and invite multivocality on an ever-changing basis. In this way, there is a collage of conversations surrounding one central text. One of the most intriguing elements of YouTube is the visible Socratic dialogue that happens below each video. In these spaces, a clear rhetorical agenda is present just as one is present in a dialectic. One of the things about YouTube that is so intriguing is the rating system, which allows for users to not only participate in the conversation regarding the information, but also further engage with the author/presenter of the information/video. As a medium, YouTube has changed the way information is consumed, exchanged, commented on, and ultimately disseminated. This shift in the exchange of information holds key insight to the future of traditional education. YouTube has many similarities with the traditional teaching environment in that one voice is privileged in each video space; however, it is vastly different because the multivocality lends itself to the potentiality of several dominant voices through it’s technological construction. Therefore, an analysis of the rhetorical function(s) of YouTube, it’s rhetorical elements, and the trend toward popularity of this rhetorical space will speak to the ways the system of information/education accessibility and dissemination is changing, as well as help predict where this system will go. It is thus crucial to not only integrate sites like YouTube into the composition classroom, but it is paramount that they become a regular part of our pedagogical tools. R. Craig Lefebvre, a well-known sociologist and Ph.D. at Population Services International (PSI), has been analyzing the ways in which technology has invoked a vast change in consumerism, and in particular, how technology influences the health field. In a paper he presented on technology entitled “The New Technology: The Consumer as Participant Rather Than Target Audience”, he analyzes how “social media facilitate[s] collaborations and interactions among others…” and that the new revolution in technology is all about “… using media in new ways, NOT [simply] using new media” (32). He goes on to quote Levy and Stone (2006) in their analysis of the integration of technology and the learning/teaching process. He cites that in this revolution of media and technology, “[w]e confront the blurring of boundaries between creators and audiences – and who decides which is which” (34). YouTube represents the dialectic that blurs the boundary between consumer and participant, between creator and audience, and because of this, it has an array of rhetorical possibilities and consequently there are different rhetorics. This can be drawn even further when discussing the importance of technology in the writing classroom: the world we live in is changing so rapidly and drastically on a daily basis that if we do not enforce and embrace the integration of this medium into the classroom, the chasm between academia and the social realm will deepen and eventually the two will split apart. YouTube is helping bridge the gap in order for both worlds to coexist and compliment each other. Because YouTube has invaded our public sphere so greatly, we must look at the ways in which it influences the college-age generation. How can or should we integrate this medium into the classroom? Better yet, why should we? Lefebvre points out that, “…political campaigns flourish and are decimated by what appears on YouTube” and if we are to consider that the NetGen (which is how these students/people have been identified due to their inter-connectedness with the internet) has the lowest voter registration rates in the country, wouldn’t it be effective to begin utilizing this in order to educate our students (39)? With the popularity of the debates on YouTube, we can conclude that the connection of politics, NetGen and the Internet can be vital to the future of the education system, as well as the country. If we can inspire people to want to learn through a medium they are comfortable with, through something familiar, perhaps we can have a grass-roots movement toward self-propelled education. After all, even Ezra Pound says that,“[r]eal education must ultimately be limited to [people] who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding”, and who wants to herd sheep (brainyquotes.com)? So, why even analyze the different rhetorics or YouTube at all? Steven Mailloux, a professor in the Department of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Southern California, says in an article titled “One Size Doesn’t Fit All” that, “there are different rhetorics …[there are] written, visual, oral, etc”, and within these different rhetorics, there are various genres. For example, according to Mailloux, a whole can have many different parts, and that one can be made up of many (9). On YouTube, any type of visual or oral rhetoric can be found. Because of it’s nature of being a dialectic and thus being rhetorical, we have the opportunity to analyze it’s components and thus analyze its function, along with it’s content. If we are looking to educate our students in new ways, to reach them in ways that relate to them, we have to be open and willing to introduce new topics through new mediums, as well. And since traditionally a dialectic generates something new, we want to see the types of “product” that YouTube can produce. In a clash of ideas, three outcomes are possible: In the first possibility, the clash will give way to a new idea. In the second, one voice can completely overtake the other; or in the third possibility, all the ideas can positively co-exist, which is not a common outcome, yet it does occasionally occur. YouTube is an example of the second contingency where one voice becomes dominant and influences all possible options, as seen in the rating system. Respectively, YouTube is a textual space that has overtaken traditional Internet dialectics and has given way to many new readings of rhetorical devices and strategies. Since the rating system is our tracking device for seeing how successful a certain product is, we can compare it to the way we perceive how successful a classroom can be: are the students/participants engaged in the material? Are they engaged with each other? Is the information reaching them in ways that they can digest? What tools and materials are we using that can blend the popular sphere of fast-paced information reception with academia? At California State University Northridge I have had the privilege of teaching first year composition for the last three semesters. I come across articles and tools on a regular basis for things that are “cutting edge”—things we should consider using (if maybe not today, then in the future) to help our students be engaged. I admit—it’s not just the students I long to help here. I, myself, am part of this Internet generation, and find that shuffling papers and lugging books around distracts me from my purpose, which is to educate and motivate. On numerous occasions I have used YouTube to show students videos from artists, political campaigns, economists, and even show them clips (some purely audible) on theorists from Plato to Zizek. The point is, utilizing this medium has proven helpful in mobilizing the classroom toward a literacy that is visible in a very different way than it ever has been. One author that I have come across is Sven Birkets who has written on digital literacy and technology extensively. In his book entitled The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age , he discusses the considerable shift from print to electronic literacy. He says that, “[w]e now find ourselves at a cultural watershed—as the fundamental process of transmitting information is shifting… from page to screen… the reader of [electronic texts] tends to move across surfaces, skimming from one site to another to the next without allowing the words to resonate inwardly… quantity is elevated over quality… We are experiencing… a loss of depth…swamped by data…we no longer think in [linear terms of wisdom]” (71-72). This shift that Birkets bemoans doesn’t seem so tragic to me. Thinking isn’t (and unless we’re talking about algorithms, has never really been) linear, so why shun this movement that integrates non-linear thinking, the classroom, and the writing process? And since it’s clear that technology is paramount in order to survive and thrive in our time, and since popular culture reflects that, so should the writing classroom. Recently, there was an article that was highlighted on the cover of Newsweek Magazine’s November 26th, 2007’s edition that was entitled "The Future of Reading", written by creator, founder and CEO of Amazon.com, Jeff Bezos. Regarding books and their traditional future, he says, “[b]ooks are the last bastion of analog… Music and video have been digital for a long time, and short-form reading has been digitized, beginning with the early Web. But long-form reading really hasn't." Bezos has invented a device called The Kindle. It is a reader's-game-boy of sorts, where small cartridges with entire books can be inserted and read, pages turning and all, on a hand-held screen that is large enough to read, and more space-efficient than the smallest laptop computer. While literary critics are deploring a possible demise of print culture, Bezos, an avid reader and spouse of a novelist, sees a need for this technological device. If popular culture is admittedly embracing the shift in technology that enhances education, why would academia fall behind? When thinking about digital literacy and technology, we know that “[students that] have been dubbed the “NetGen,” [and]...are the generation of the Internet who often struggle to recall a time in their lives without computers.” (Jones 207). Not only can these students not imagine a time when they were without a computer, but they also identify this technology as an extension of themselves. I’ve had students admit that they can only write papers when they’re IM'ing with their friends at the same time. We have the opportunity to integrate social networking sites into their academic experience and help them engage in rhetoric in an appealing way—ways that they are already succeeding in. We should seize the opportunity. The world is going digital, whether we jump on the proverbial train or not. A high school teacher who wrote a response to the Newsweek article can be quoted on the Newsweek.com page under the search criteria “Books Aren’t Dead”. She states, “[A]s a high-school teacher, I think The Kindle could be the answer to a prayer for students, parents and staff. In the vast majority of schools there is a lack of money and storage space for adequate numbers of appropriate texts…Imagine if students had all textbooks at their fingertips, and instant Internet capability to look up references. If school texts could be downloaded onto a Kindle, it would revolutionize the lives of millions” (newsweek.com). If we see the need from the ground up, even before these students reach the university, the next step in education is streamlining books and networking media to put this information in the hands of more and more students. The affects of including these types of resources and moving toward more digital literacy for our composition classroom would mean that more students would feel less distance from references such as Bakhtin or Burke. Perhaps more students would immediately turn to Dictionary.com to look up a word instead of gloss over it, hoping they can glean the meaning some other way. I imagine we might actually turn YouTube into a verb (just as we’ve done with google) and be willing to hunt for information a bit for themselves. Youtube is one of these visual rhetorical spaces that exemplifies the revolution in intellect that is possible through the Internet as YouTube is one of the most popular sites on the Internet today. The types of visual and audible information that is available is endless, and people just like you and I can (and do) upload videos every second. These sound bytes and video clips provide a way for information to be exchanged and commented on. This forum lends itself to be a space for people interact, discuss, argue, or simply, engage in dialectic. Ann Grafstein, a librarian and scholar at Hofstra University, addresses the technological change by saying the following in an article entitled “Information Literacy and Technology: An Examination of Some Issues”: “In discussing the development of an information fluency program at Rollins College, Wenxian Zhang notes that, despite the ready availability of information in electronic format, people experience difficult accessing it and navigating in a networked environment. “For this reason…and in light of the information explosion there is clear need for some kind of training on information literacy” (53). When thinking about the challenges that this digital literacy presents, it is no surprise that the contenders would argue that by extension of money, perhaps it is a race and class issue: the upper-middle, white-collar, working class would be privileged in this realm, as these are the NetGen students that would have the training, the exposure, and the fluency to engage in such a dialectic. In some ways, this perspective is right. The majority of college-bound lower socio-economic-class students have minimal training in and exposure to digital learning. However, based on the dotcom boom and the upward trend of Internet capitalism, this movement is not one that is going to fizzle out. Within every capitalist society, the rules of the economy are based on supply and demand. The demand is now ever-present for the computer age to flourish and the implications of this are more cost-efficient computers and electronic devices that are more widely distributed throughout the country (and the world), as well as free Internet access. It is also arguable that this kind of “revolution” as I have referred to it as, will divide the classes even more. If more and more people have access to information, even news and media sound bytes through YouTube, wouldn’t that promote a freer society? One that would be more egalitarian, less segregated intellectually, and more socially cohesive would be much more eager and possibly optimistic towards change, would it not?YouTube is representative of a educational movement. It can and should be used in the writing classroom, as well as other classrooms, in order to help build community and display the facilities that promote the dialectic. This type of conversation is evident throughout our world, and it starts with the Internet. Students IM (instant message), chat, blog, and write wikis; they should also be ushered into the vast array of possibilities that exist through a demonstration of a dialectic since they are unknowingly engaging in them daily. This demonstration should be examined as a rhetorical space for discourse to occur, as it should also be analyzed as discourse itself due to its widespread impact and potential implications. The language, the layout, and the way in which information is presented on YouTube allows for the content to be palatable for popular culture, along with public and private- sphere intellectuals. The recent acquisition of YouTube by Google indicates the power for this new model to move and share information, which should further encourage our interest in its influence on our culture, both academically and socially. The fundamentals of our consumer-driven society are steam-rolling towards a technologically savvy society where information sharing and knowledge building are highly encouraged through the Internet dialectic. It is our duty, as educators, to not only prepare our students for the future; it is also to give them tools to learn how to thrive in the world today. |
