Messy Rhetoric: Identity Performances as Rhetorical Agency in Online Public Forums
Jeffrey T. Brabill & Stacy Pigg
This article talks about how the language surrounding public spaces would fit neatly into a box because of the trackability of the conversations. However, with the introductions of online spaces, there is a “complexity, fragmentation, and situatedness” (104) that makes rhetoric messy.
In the example of Science Buzz in the article, Grabill & Pigg talk about two ways that identity performances are important to showing interest in a topic. The first is about participants “writing their way into conversation” (108), and the second is that “these identity performances move the conversation (108).” To illustrate the point further, they state,
“Writer identity is a code that encompasses a range of explicit textual moves, including expressions of affect, values, and direct invocations of things like “role” or “education.”
Grabill & Pigg, 108
I definitely see truth to that statement because each person has something to add to the conversation merely by the fact that they are a unique human being with different experiences and viewpoints. Because of this, it is important that identity is established.
However, a part of me is concerned with this concept of establishing identity as a form of agency. When I read the later section of the article relating to agency (p. 113), all I heard was “sometimes people use their identity as a power move.” Like I said before, I think it is important to establish some type of distinguishing factor about yourself, like how the young women in the Science Buzz discussion tagged their age, but at the same time, I get a sense that this article may be prioritizing the importance of identity over the information itself.
In a different situation, say, a discussion on Blackboard in a Theology class about Catholic Social Teaching, let’s say that there is a discussion about the teaching regarding the human trafficking crisis. I think it would detract from the lesson if people would share personal stories about human trafficking. In another context, such as a blog/Facebook post, a counseling center, a family/friend gathering, or even the US Senate, these stories should absolutely be shared in order to bring awareness, as well as real change. The reason I think sharing experiences should stay out of a classroom setting is because the problem is already being discussed in a productive way, and there might not be enough time to address the emotional aspect of the specific, personal issue, especially in on online classroom. While human trafficking is on a different level than lack of access to medical information, it can be said for both that sometimes, sharing too much personal information can run the danger of the conversation turning into a navigation of human sensitivities, rather than a productive conversation. But then again, sometimes it is good to go off of the original topic!
So, my question for the week is: Do you think there is a limitation in online spaces regarding how much of one’s identity is shared in order to establish agency, while keeping to the topic at hand?
May you experience love and light!
ANOTHER new blog post on my personal blog woo –> http://www.amusingwriter.blog/whatdoyoulove
Theresa
Caritas et Lux 
Hi Theresa, your question is a really interesting one and I think it speaks to the question of including emotion into rhetoric or into academic settings. Nowadays, showing emotion is seen as a weakness and as something that should be hidden, especially in corporate or academic settings. However, the reality is we are emotional creatures, so I think it is simply unnatural to hide our emotions. Of course, this does not mean to just explode in emotions when you’re in a public setting. However, putting on masks (like how we do daily in our lives) is unnecessary and unhealthy. Emotions are an integral part of one’s identity, so yes, I do think one’s identity should be included in rhetoric because a lot gets taken away when one does not include their identity.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of “AS A (race/sexuality/gender/political identity), I THINK…” as though this identity is what gives what we’re about to say validation. I think that’s kind of a load of bologna.
Unless you’re adding a small list of your degrees to the end of an article you’re about to publish, I’m not too sure if it matters. A good idea is a good idea. People are allowed to have opinions on things regardless of their experiences I think.
Great post!
LikeLiked by 1 person