Abstract

Since the early days of the internet, the Web has provided forums for like-minded people to gather and create virtual communities. These have traditionally been based around forums and chat rooms, but in more recent years new genres of communication have enabled communities to have a greater level of dynamic interaction. As new methods of online communication between individuals and groups emerge (blogs, Twitter, etc.), these new ways of interacting have been integrated into the existing communicative mode. Thus, online collectives are now frequently using more than one genre of communication to further strengthen and build the community.

Many of these online communities are even extending their communication out of the online-only sphere and engaging in real-world rhetoric. Several examples from recent years demonstrate this. One of the most prominent of these groups is the "hacktivist" collective "Anonymous." Since its inception, this group has successfully and consistently planned activities online and then executed them in the real world. This group in particular is significant because it has received attention from the mainstream media as well as worldwide governmental agencies, indicating that it is perceived as a viable source of activity by these influential groups (though whether these activities are ethical or not will not be discussed in this paper).

Primarily using rhetorical models provided in the work of Spinuzzi and Zachry, this paper will examine the rhetorical genres used by Anonmyous and attempt to identify if there is a collection of genres that significantly contributes to the success of the organization. The purpose in doing this is to perhaps identify patterns of communications that could be emulated by other groups to build communities online and then meaningfully activate community members in the real world.

(This is obviously a rough work in progress which I'll be working on during the day. I wrote this up during an all-night marathon of House and while running on caffeine.)

Anonymous and Activity Theory

Tracking the development of the Anonymous Network

I figure since this week's book could relate directly to what I'd like to write my thesis about, I'd take the time to formally track how the Anonymous network of commmunication developed over time.

Anonymous started on the website 4chan.org. On that site's message boards, instead of having unique login and screennames to identify individual users, users were instead all given the username "Anonymous" and posted anonymously. This counterintuitively developed a strong user community.

One of the first activities the Anonymous collective executed was a protest of the church of Scientology over perceived human rights violations. Protesters in the real world dressed in Guy Fawkes masks and played Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up" on repeat outside of Scientology offices and churches. The group organized when a video was released explaining the operation (dubbed "Operation Chanology" after the 4Chan message board the group originated from).

So far I count several genres: internet message boards, a video uploaded to YouTube, the boom boxes and Rick Astley, and the holding a sign in front of Scientology offices. These genres worked together to have people from all over the world unitedly protesting with a single message. All of this was done through genre ecologies.

Later protests and activities would spread to be used on other message boards (Reddit being a significant player here) as well as unofficial "official" Twitter accounts and blogs. One of the defining characteristics of the Anonymous group is the lack of any sort of single leadership, and so this makes authoritarian models of network theory difficult to adapt. There are inherent "leaders" in the group--those who actually make the videos, flyers, blog posts and tweets--but they are impossible to identify (unless they mess up and leave metadata in the files they upload to the internet).

I'm trying to figure out how to approach this from a theoretical standpoint. I think this type of organization would be more actor-network theory than activity theory since it's not centralized and isn't very structured (Spinuzzi [45] claims that "activity networks are much more structured than actor-networks"). However, activity systems and activity network approaches seem to work because if the linkage through shared tools, resources, or communities (43). They also cast nonhumans as objects of labor through actants by implementing software tools to take down websites. For example, the LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon) tool is what was used by several participants to take down several websites. I think. Right?

Annotated Bibliography

Last night, while initially trying to write this up, I learned that a good keyboard is like a good pair of running shoes--movement feels natural and unforced. Those Thinkpads? They're like trying to run in those thick rubber shoes you wore as a kid that had a plastic picture of your currently-favorite superhero on the side. The next time I buy a laptop, I'm paying an extra $400 so I can have the Mac keyboard and incidentally look more artistic for the ladies.

Freedman, A., & Smart, G. (1997). Navigating the current of economic policy: written genres and the distribution of cognitive work at a financial institution. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4, 4, 238-255.

This article examines the way monetary policy involves complex processes of distributed cognition. The individual acts of interpretation by individuals in the bank are parts of a centralized focus. Thinking takes place through writing and is indeed enacted through it. By looking at how a financial institution makes its decisions, the article identifies how the complex process of constructing and applying specialized knowledge about the economy through distributed cognition. Writing functions as a site of enactment for knowing and decision making.

I read this article because I saw it referenced in Spinuzzi, Hart-Davidson and Zachry's article on p.44. In their reference, I saw how many workers bringing different texts to bear on a particular activity at the same time result in a text that is different from a single text. Looking at the whole gives a much different experience than looking at a single part, and I thought of online communities and dialog. A single message or Tweet in a conversation may be completely unrelated or useless in identifying a greater direction, but it may actually represent a more significant contribution when looked at in a whole.

The article makes an interesting analogy of comparing the multiple points of writing that make up something to a ship. The sea is the financial world, and the ship is the financial institution. A single job on a ship is not more important than another, but they add up to the entire ship moving in a certain direction. The same goes with knowledge or dialog. Maybe action? Anonymous versus the drug cartels indicate this well. One person basically spearheaded #OpCartel, and when the simple majority of Anonymous participants simply decided not to participate, the op fell apart.

Looks at how memos or "notes" are passed around the office and thenn prompts ofther people to write responses. The respones are points of thinking because they require writing. How much thinking actually goes into writing online, though? Blogging is very different than online message-boarding, and pro blogging is more well-thought out than mommy blogs. Still, some idea construction takes place. Do blogs belong to a "ship" they might not be aware of? Yes, because blogs have trends and themes that come and go. Mommy blogs on the way out, I think. Am I constructing an idea through writing right now?

Spinuzzi, C. (2002). Toward a hermeneutic understanding of programming languages. Currents in Electronic Literacy 6. Retrieved from http://currents.cwrl.utexas.edu/spring02/spinuzzi.html

In this article, Spinuzzi discusses paralogic rhetoric and compares it to programming code. Rather than looking at how machines use code, he argues that code is actually for programmers and for them to interpret. He also goes to an effort to point out a paper that Ruven Brooks wrote in 1983, ten years before Paralogic Rhetoric was published by Kent, and refers to this paper and Kent's work throughout. Programmers begin making hermeneutic interpretations about a program even before seeing the code itself. Hermeneutic guessing works because of triangulation. The reader looks at the text and then tries to use it and his/her own experience. Spinuzzi writes, "He argues that to gain more than a strictly functional understanding of the code--to understand the original programmer's intentions--the programmer who reads the code must understand the domain in which the program is intended to work, the problem it is meant to solve, and even the hardware on which it should run. Without that understanding, Brooks points out, the programmer will not be able to make useful sense of the program (i.e., productively refine hypotheses) or be able to modify the program in a satisfactory way. " 

This ties directly into the "Chains and Ecologies" article because it looks at how to analyze digital communication/information and shows how the difficulty of using empirical analysis for exchanged texts. The underlying assumption, I'm thinking, is that an empirical analysis is almost impossible due to the hermeneutic problems associated with communication of shared information. It really caused me to think about the way pieces of information are seen--a comment on a message board or photo, for my interests--and constantly reinterpreted.

So let's tie this into what I learned from the previous article. The pieces of information people produce through writing are like the different people working on a ship. Each contributes to the information some decision maker uses to steer the conversation/decision/whatever in a certain direction. Except the wind is blowing, and every sailor is from a different country and doesn't really speak the same language, so there's a lot of educated guesswork. The context of the situation helps everyone stay on the same page. Now that we have this information, what can we do with it? Acknowledge all conclusions must be flawed? S/HD/Z come up with the broadish model which seems to work, but they acknowledge limitations and testing that needs to be done.

Spinuzzi, C., & Zachry, M. (2000). Genre ecologies: An open-system approach to understanding and constructing documentation. ACM J. Comput. Doc. 24, 3, 169-181. doi:10.1145/344599.344646

This article, written in 2000, seems to be both a chronological and ideological precursor to the articles read for class and some of the other ones on my list. Basically, Spinuzzi & Zachry argue that open-system approaches work best in providing computer documentation. They give case studies demonstrating this point. In retrospect, the reasons for this are obvious and make perfect sense since most companies have realized this and gone to open source approaches of their own. Do you know of a company that doesn't use support forums? Why not outsource your tech support issues in an open-system way to your fans who will work for free?

However, to their credit, this article was written before the invention of Wikipedia and the explosion of user-generated content (and user-mined technical support). They use the term "Genre ecology" to describe the interplay of genres by a user, and their demonstration of this in the article is particularly useful in understanding the idea. It implies the co-dependent interrelationships the different points of information have with each other. Every piece of the ecology has an effect on the other, and the entire situation would fundamentally channge if one point of conversation were removed (rhizomic?) They write, "Genre ecology diagrams can help designers to lay out relationships, analyze the interplay among genres, and identify which genres are central or peripheral to the use of the technology. The diagrams thus can be a resource for replanning the ecology." This is cool because it gives a practical way to apply the idea of genre ecology. As a writer and someone feebly metathinking about communication, I'm a big fan of the drawing things out. Mapping the genre ecologies will put us in a place where we are able to see how the genres overlap and then look at how technology mediates those communications. 

Zachry, M. Ecology of an online education site in professional communication (2002). In Proceedings of IEEE professional communication society international professional communication conference and Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM international conference on Computer documentation, IEEE Education Activities Department, 433-442.

Did I mention I met Dr. Zachry last May? Nice guy. Ryan arranged a meeting for me, and Dr. Zachry took a lot more time out of his afternoon than I expected to explain how applying to PhD programs actually works, which was really great of him. 

Since reading the last earlier article by Zachry and Spinuzzi helped this info start to come together really well, I read this other early article by Zachry as well. This article discusses online-based chat groups--I've personally struck gold, and I should have started here--and the basic argument is that students should be free to choose which medium of communication they wish to use to facilitate real interaction and learning instead of incidentally teaching that human interaction should only be done through the most convenient technology. This article serves as a good ecological framework for developing curriculum for an online learning environment. It identifies tools and areas for interaction students may use in order to meaningfully communicate instead of being forced to communicate through a limited medium. It demonstrates that different types of ecologies can be observed, hopefully giving instructors the confidence to propose alternative ways of allowing their students to communicate without the instructor losing the ability to moderate.

I felt this article was a strong case study of seeing how to facilitate communication between different actors in a group. It could also potentially serve as an example for what we're going to be doing as a class in a  few weeks when we begin working on professional development.

The ways of communication discussed in the article (discussion boards, file sharing, etc.) were based on technology from 10 years ago. Online communication has become much less obtrusive since then. As tech writing (or composition, or whatever) instructors, are you aware of any useful tools to allow students to communicate that integrate new technologies while easily allowing you to observe? Some of the ideas in this article helped me to see how I can apply genre theory to my instruction, but the tools on Blackboard are cumbersome (traditional groan of agreement, etc. okay). However, outsourcing the communication of my class to an effective tool--email through a competent client, for example--either shuts me out or doesn't maintain the privacy the students require when discussing their papers. A Facebook comment thread doesn't seem like the appropriate place to give feedback on a revision. Anyone got any ideas? Is Google+'s circles the best way to do this?

Spinuzzi, C. (2004). Four ways to investigate assemblages of texts: Genre sets, systems, repertoires, and ecologies. International Conference on Computer Documentation (110-116). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/1026533.1026560

Rounding up this Spinuzzi/Zachry fanfest is an article cited by Ryan in his article about the NSF. 

Spinuzzi describes four frameworks that have been used to describe assemblages of genres: genre sets, genre systems, genre repertoires, and genre ecologies. He describes the differences between each. He uses model of action, agency, foregrounded genres, perspective, and relationship between genres as ways to identify the type of framework that a genre should fit it. Genre sets are sequential and stabilizing work and looks at the product of work as the focus. Focus on information flow and information transaction. More of an individual perspective.

• Genre Systems: Spinuzzi writes, "Unlike genre sets, genre systems involve “the full set of genres that instantiate the participation of all the parties"" but only look at official genres, not unofficial genres. An expanded way to see genre sets by acknowledging additional genres in play. 
• Genre Repertoires: The most significant thing genre reps do is acknowledge the presence of overlapping genres (typing on a computer while talking on a phone). This allows genres to be amped in more of a non-sequential way, although only official genres are acknowledged.
• Genre Systems Redux: Genre systems is a term whose usage has become loose, so it is again used in a different sense. In this one, it refers to how genres function in assemblages. 
• Finally, genre ecology focuses on mediation--how genres interact with each other in dynamic ways. It's neat. 

This article is a fantastic primer if you, like me, were very confused by the seemingly synonymous terminology (hint: it's not, really). His breakdown of genres allows people like us to detemrmine actively what framework we want to use in our work owerk. Essentiually, he gives us the rhetorical tools we need to take part in scholarship. The issue of quantifiability remains, but I don't think it's going away in this field.

Poke-Rhetoric

As I was reading the chapter in Gameworks on rhetoric (the one that starts with the conversation about Pokemon), I was struck by this quote:

Good game designers, like good advertising agents, are particularly skillful at knowing intuitively what will capture the audience's attention . . . [Game] developers adorn games with plot details that depend on rhetoric functioning conditionally. (90)

I think skilled game designers are also good at creating subcultures for their games complete with specialized language and rhetoric. This pulls the gamers in to create a higher investment in the actual game.

I went through that conversation and underlined every word that was either unique to the subject or reappropriated to mean a different thing. Here is a list of the words I found:

• Game Boy Advance
• Web
• evolved
• Spearow
• Fearow
• trainer
• LCD
• discovered
• trained
• fought
• traded
• Poliwrath
• water stone
• Pokerus
• Game Boy
• Pokemon's
• stat experience
• Internet

Some of those words are used in everyday conversation--Web, Internet, and LCD, for example--but in the rhetorical context of the conversation, they mean different things. The Internet refers to a system of connecting two Game Boy Advances together for the purpose of the game (I'm assuming, based on the context). Web retains its normal meaning in this context, as does LCD.

The words that are completely reappropriated--evolved, trainer, trained, fought, traded--create a new language or way of communication between the gamers without having to create entirely new words. The game designers deliberately crafted these meanings in order to create a culture around a specific game, and apparently to great success. In 2000, the Pokemon games were the top selling games of the year (74).

Finally, the new words--Poliwrath, Spearow, Fearow, water stone, Pokerus--are entirely unique to the game and further pull the gamer into the experience. The rhetoric of Pokemon is brilliant and extremely effective.

I realize the chapter on rhetoric is more about the rhetoric of game development, but I think this shows how the linguistic "art" of creating a game can make it more successful as a gaming experience (one that apparently crosses into everyday life outside the game) and a business venture.

So now there's the golden question: so what? I think, as tech writers, we need to deliberately create a rhetorical universe through the language we use if we ever work on games. Being away fo how language shapes a gaming experiences makes it more immersive and, if paired with excellent gameplay, will be profitable/successfull. Look at World of Warcraft. Azeroth, Night Elves, Loraereon, Horde--these words have a specific meaning in the context of the game but also create a rhetorical world for the players to exist in, a language with which to communicate with each other, and generally immerse the players into a more satisfying experience. I'm wondering how this applies to the chapter, though. Is this rhetoric functioning exigently, in a quotidian way, or conditionally? Or may none of the above?

Hypermediacy and Convergence as Prosthetics

I know it isn't exactly an example of modern film making at its finest, but there's this scene in Iron Man 2 where Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is being questioned by the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Stark is asked whether or not he is in possession of the Iron Man weapon, and Stark responds that what he has is better defined as a high-tech prosthesis. A few moments later, he pulls out a smart phone that literally allows Stark to manipulate the real world through an example of ubiquitous computing.

The reason I bring this up is that I see the eventual convergence of technologies as well as hypermediacy as eventually functioning as a virtual/digital prosthetic--a seamless and essential extension of ourselves. I think the corporations. hegemomic overlords, etc. want this to be the eventual goal as well but maybe don't know it yet.

Maybe Apple knows it. When the iPhone was first released in 2007, I read an article (it might have actually been on Wired, but I don't remember exactly) that explained to iPhone users how and when it was appropriate to look up information when you were with friends in some social setting. The point of the article was to give geeks gentle advice on how not to be a know-it-all with their new gadget and constant internet access, but what I took from it was how constant internet access would eventually fundamentally change how we interacted with each other. Don't remember the name of that movie with the cowboy guy from Ghost Rider and The Big Lebowski? In a few seconds, you'll know his name is Sam Elliot, and you'll know the name of the movie, too. Apple wants you to see your iPhone not only as a tool or gadget but part of your identity. We're going to become so accustomed to having video communication, voice communication, libraries of data and information, picture galleries, etc. all available to us at all times, we're going to become dependent on it.

I don't think that's a good or bad thing; I just see it as the way it's going to be. It won't be universal, not for at least 20 or 30 years, but as baby-boomers like my parents age, retire and die, those of us who grew up with technology and are completely comfortable with it will see its place as an extension of our identities as natural. Privacy concerns won't really matter to us like it does to some groups today.

Internet browsers won't ever actually go away entirely, as the Wired article referenced in Bolter and Grusin posits (see 221-226), but they will first become more important as they replace the need for a desktop computer. I mentioned this in my introductory post, but I have 5 machines I use consistently right now: my desktop at home, my office computer, my tablet, my phone, and my netbook. I can access all of my necessary files on any of these computers due to the way I use apps primarily available in an internet browser. I bet Google, Dropbox, and the other services I use see me as the ideal customer because I've become somewhat dependent on what they're offering. As companies start to realize what it means to have everyone constantly using a different digital device, the smart ones will offer a way to make accessing the virtual self across platforms seamless and natural. The actual medium will become inconsequential.

When that happens, the corporations will love it. Advertising will be everywhere, and everything will be monetized. Instead of using your tablet one way and your PC another, your individual digital experience will seamlessly transfer across all technological platforms in an example of ubiquitous computing. Here's kind of an example of what I mean:



Of course, the reality in that video would be hell, at least from our perspective now. Maybe by the time that technology develops we're have become gradually accustomed to it--like boiling a frog.

What does this mean for tech writing? As readers/users/our audiences gradually shift towards the "prosthetic" model of technology use from the current "window" model (having a very obvious interface through which technology is accessed instead of a seamless platform), I think we'll have to assist in that transition somehow.

I don't know, though. Maybe it's because I've been awake drinking Mountain Dew all night, but watching that video again kind of makes me want to throw up.

Occupy Marx Street?

I wonder what Karl Marx would say about the #Occupy movement. On Saturday, I was in San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley, and there were signs for local Occupy protests in each of those places. I don't actually see Oakland as a financial center for the country, but the mere presence of a protest shows how widespread the rise up against what Marx might call bourgeoise oppressors has become.

Being interested in this sort of thing, I was very excited when I began reading Cyber-Marx and came across this lovely passage:

The unleashing of computerization, telecommujnications, and genetic engineering within a context of general commodification is bringing massive crises of technological unemployment, corporate monopolization of culture, privatiztion of bodies of knowledge vital for human well-being and survival, and, ultimately, market-driven transformations of humanity's very species-being. In response to these developments are emerging new forms of resistance and counterinitiative. And insofar asthe force with which these movements collide is capitalism--perhaps  a post-Fordist, postmodern, informational capitalism, but capitalism nonetheless, and not some postindustrial society that has transcended commodification--Marx's work can continue to provide participants in these struggles a vital source of insights.

Technological developments are allowing new forms of resistance and counterinitiative to emerge. I need to do some more research on this, but from what I saw, the whole Occupy Wall Street protest began as a activity by Anonymous, the hacker/mischief-maker collective. Their @AnonOps Twitter channel was the unofficial way much of the early information about these protests were disseminated and organized. Anonymous works well as an example of the proletariat using emerging technology to effectively activate against the modern aristocracy. There isn't any central leadership, allowing strong ideas to simply command attention and support organically. This does lead to a sort of "mob rule" at times, but for the most part, the organization has been very effective in executing attacks on the ruling classes.

I'm not sure what Marx would say about this exacty, but I think it's incredible the supposedly-discounted Marx and his theories actually have plenty of application in the new user-driven world of technology.

There are a lot more factors that go into this, I know--organizing on Facebook requires use of Facebook, one of these hegemonic institutions--but I think it's still an application of Marx's theories. I wrote this a few days before class just to make sure I got it done, and I'm eager to see what else Dyer-Witheford has to say about Marx in the modern technological world.

I'm sorry, what?

It would have been fantastic if some sort of chart or diagram had been included in every chapter. Being a visual/kinesthetic learner, I had heck of a time trying to figure out what D&G meant when they explained how "the rhizone connects any point to any other point" (21). From what I understand, a rhizome is basically a demonstration of data and meaning about things that are connected directly. Of course, since a rhizome can be connected to any other point, it can be the connection between two things. Right? Maybe? Why weren't there lovely illustrations to see how maybe a bug connects to a tree and also a cat for some reason?
I think the example from "10,000 B.C.: The Geology of Morals" helps to clarify this.

The proof that there is isomorphism is that you can always get from one for on the organic stratum to another, however different they may be, by means of "folding" . . . There are irreducible axes, types, branches. There are resemblances between organs and analogies between forms. (46)

Okay, so any two things can be connected somehow by "folding." We're getting somewhere now. And even though the second guy is trying to argue with the first guy, I think this helps to make more sense of rhizomes. The relationship between two things can be demonstrated and interpreted, even if that relationship is that there isn't really a relationship. The point is the connection between the two things can always be described somehow.

So let's talk about how this opens us to new ideas and thoughts. (First, let me make a disclaimer: this is going to over-simplify the concept of a rhizome and its potential use in my field.) Everything is connected in a complicated web of relationships. The strip of paper on my desk is connected with the tablet PC in my bag in several different way. By being aware of their rhizomic state, I instinctively begin to look for connections and see the greater One-ness of everything. I see how the actions of one thing affect all others, and now the pen sitting next to me has much more significance.

That's kind of an "I Heart Huckabees" soft-existentialist type philosophy, though, and not very useful to me as a tech writer. In relation to me as a writer and instructor, I am now aware I need to be aware of connections and relationships I had previously taken for granted or overlooked. Thesis statements relate to level of detail and also what sources are used; a student's thesis statement will also relate to their personal life and values as well. I need to be aware of these things to see how I can properly identify and interpret what a student is really trying to say and why so I can coach them properly. If I were writing an instruction manual, I'd need to be aware of how the different parts of instruction, pieces involved, etc. all related to each other in order to communicate them in the most effective, logical way possible.

Really, though, at the end of all this, I think D&G are really playing some sort of prank on intellectuals and philosophers in the same vein as Ern Malley.