Lably
Skip to content

Digital rhetoric

Forms of communication via digital mediums

  • 44 min read
  • 5 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Communication, Software and Technology

The field of digital rhetoric is not yet fully established. It draws theory and practices from the tradition of rhetoric as both an analytical tool and a production guide. As a whole, it can be categorized as a meta-discipline.

Due to evolving study, digital rhetoric has held various meanings to different scholars over time. It can take on a variety of meanings based on what is being analyzed, depending on the concept, forms or objects of study, or rhetorical approach. Digital rhetoric can also be analyzed through the lenses of different social movements.

Digital rhetoric lacks a strict definition amongst scholars. The discussion and debate toward reaching a definition accounts for much of the writing, study, and teaching of the topic. One of the most straightforward definitions for "digital rhetoric" is that it is the application of rhetorical theory to digital communication.

Definition

Early definitions of rhetoric from western classical/Greek and Roman times are "the art (techne) of finding out the available means of persuasion for a given argument," and "the practice of persuasive communication and a formal art of studying such communication." Traditional practices of rhetoric often involved methods that a person could use to construct persuasive speeches, whereas classical rhetoric was concerned with legal speeches, political speeches, and ceremonial speeches.

Rhetoric has developed alongside many technological developments, with digital mediums being amongst the most recent and transformative. There are many ancient and historical examples of "machine's to think with". Early examples of devices being used for the purpose of guiding thought include Martianus Capella's 9th century glossed collections of prose, philosophy and other writings, and the biblical concordances developed by monks between the 12th and 13th century. Some argue that types of man-made artwork and codes, such as ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, were some of the first forms of digital rhetoric.

In 1917, C.I Scofield created an annotated version of the King James Bible. This version of the bible would indicate passages that related to one another throughout both the Old and New Testaments, guiding the reader's interpretation of the work. These "connected topic concordances" are similar to "key-in context concordances" used on modern computers.

By the 1960s, early computers had become more prominent in many environments, and began seeing application outside of math and science. In 1964, Harvard's Allan B. Ellis published an analysis of how computers could be used to better understand literary works, through having text from The Adventures of Huckleberry plugged into punched cards and having the computer analyze the titular character. Between the mid-60's and early 70's, there were several experiments to investigate the potential for computers in the grading of academic papers. These computers were programmed to approximate the way that teachers generally approached the grading process, and judge the content in its quality of vocabulary, composition, and approach to the content.

Definition of digital rhetoric

Early definitions (1989–2015)

The term digital rhetoric was coined by rhetorician Richard A. Lanham in a 1989 lecture and was first published in his 1993 essay collection, The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. Lanham avoided coming to a firm definition, instead aiming to connect digital communication to examples from traditional communication, discussing the relationship between postmodern theory, digital arts, and classical rhetoric. Digital rhetoric theory is primarily based in traditional rhetoric and shares many of its methods and characteristics, including its status as a meta-discipline. Lanham's work referred to many works of Hypertext theory. Hypertext theory is a similar, but less broad concept to digital rhetoric, which studied the consequences of computer users interacting with hypertext links. Much of the writing on the theory focused on how the meaning that hypertext links gave to words and enforces a relationship between users and the particular words, and how this could be implemented in rhetorical and educational settings.

In 1997, Calgary University professor Doug Brent expanded on the concept of hypertext theory, approaching the topic from a rhetorical framework, when past studies depended more on literary analysis. This presented hypertext as a kind of "new rhetoric". The same year, Bowling Green University scholar Gary Heba united studies of hypertext and visual rhetoric into the concept of "HyperRhetoric", a multimedia communication experience that could not be replicated outside of an internet setting. Heba stated that as the online landscape and the perspectives of users change, HyperRhetoric must also adapt and evolve. This fluidity remains a characteristic of digital rhetoric.

The late 1990s and early 2000s represented a greater shift towards rhetoric in digital communication study, and how "persuasion" functions in an online setting. In 2005, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute scholar James P. Zappen expanded the conversation beyond persuasion and into digital rhetoric's capacity for creative expression in exploring the behavior of individuals and groups in online settings.

Recent scholarship (2015–present)

In his 2015 book Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice, Douglas Eyman defines digital rhetoric as both a field of study and a practice that examines how digital media transforms rhetorical theory and communication. He argues that digital rhetoric extends beyond textual analysis to include multimodal composing, networked communication, and digital production. Eyman also emphasizes that teaching digital rhetoric requires integrating design, interactivity, and critical awareness of digital infrastructures into writing instruction.

By this definition, digital rhetoric can be applied as an analytic method for digital content and be a basis for future study, offering rhetorical questions as research guidelines. Eyman categorized the emerging field of digital rhetoric as interdisciplinary in nature, related to fields including digital literacy, visual rhetoric, new media, human–computer interaction, and critical code studies.

Eyman further attempts to explain in chapter one what digital rhetoric is, but realizes that digital rhetoric can mean something different to every field because it can be used in several contexts, such as a college class, a research paper, or even a blog. So instead of defining digital rhetoric, he attempts to connect digital rhetoric to other professions like writing, communications, and media studies to continue expanding the concept of digital rhetoric. Because he believes that if he defines what digital rhetoric is he will limit the possibilities digital rhetoric can have. Overall, digital rhetoric examines how rhetorical theories can be used to understand digital texts like social media posts, blogs, and even websites.

In 2018, rhetorician Angela Haas offered her own definition of digital rhetoric, defining it as "the digital negotiation of information – and its historical, social, economic, and political contexts and influences – to affect change". Haas emphasized that digital rhetoric does not solely apply to text-based items—it can also apply to image-based or system-based items. In this way, any form of communication that occurs in the digital sphere can be counted as digital rhetoric. Stuart A. Selber emphasized the need to adapt traditional rhetorical frameworks to address uniquely digital contexts, proposing guiding questions for future research.

AI scholarship

In the 2020s, scholarship on digital rhetoric increasingly focused on artificial intelligence (AI) as both a communicative resource and as an object of rhetorical study. Scholars Zoltan P. Majdik and S. Scott Graham introduced the concept of a “rhetoric of/with AI,” situating AI within broader developments including computational rhetoric and digital humanities.

AI scholarship in digital rhetoric is interdisciplinary and focuses on areas such as writing, authorship, and the relationship between human and machine-generated discourse. Annette Vee argues that while AI is changing writing practices, uncertainty and critical engagement remain central to writing pedagogy. Ethan Mollick characterizes human-AI interaction as a collaborative partnership in the production of texts.

Critical AI scholarship has examined the limitations, biases, and power relations shaping digital environments. Kate Crawford, in Atlas of AI, analyzes the ethical and material dimensions of AI, while Safiya Umoja Noble, in Algorithms of Oppression, addresses how algorithmic systems reinforce gender and racial biases. Emily Bender and colleagues raise concerns about limitations of large language models including biased output, environmental costs and social impacts. Chaoran Wang and Zhaozhe Wang have also examined the need for critical AI literacy for second-language writers in transnational contexts.

Recent initiatives such as the Sweetland Digital Rhetoric Collaborative (2023-2024), further integrate AI and writing pedagogy. These developments extend digital rhetoric to include ethics and structural considerations, highlighting how communication is shaped, influenced and interpreted in AI-mediated environments. It also demonstrates that digital rhetoric is evolving beyond its initial focus on hypertext and multimodality, toward a broader engagement with AI, institutional literacies, and global rhetorical traditions.

Other definitions

While most research represents a traditionally Western view of rhetoric, Arthur Smith of UCLA explains that the ancient rhetoric of many cultures, such as African rhetoric, existed independent of Western influence, and developed in ways that reflect the values and functions of those societies. Today, rhetoric encompasses all forms of discourse that serve any given purpose within specific contexts, while also being shaped by those contexts.

Some scholars interpret this rhetorical discourse with greater focus on the digital aspect. University of Texas's Casey Boyle, Rutgers University-Camden's James Brown Jr., and University of Virginia's Steph Ceraso claim that "the digital" is no longer a single strategy that can be used to enhance traditional rhetoric, but an "ambient condition" that encompass all parts of life. As technology has become more ubiquitous, the lines between traditional and digital rhetoric have blurred. Technology and rhetoric can influence and transform each other.

Sign in to keep reading

4 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Philosophy