Students in Dr. Nicole Pfannenstiel’s summer 2025 writing seminar crafted blog posts exploring Rhetoric & Composition. Over the next several weeks, we will share their work in this space to bring visibility to their posts and offer a variety of perspectives on pertinent topics within Rhetoric & Composition. These posts are written by graduate students currently in the MA and M.Ed. English programs.
Digital Rhetoric Digital Entry: Indirect Action
By: Jacob Rice
Unlike ancient rhetorics, a current understanding of rhetoric would be remiss if it did not include digital spheres. This adds to both content and theories of rhetoric past, but most notable is the addition of action’s changing definition. To be active in digital rhetoric does not only include action as creation of content (written, visual, etc.); it also includes action as changing perspective/understanding through rhetorical listening.
Valued and most often known within the digital rhetoric “arena” is outward, visible action. What I propose and examine here is that this view of rhetorical action is only one facet of how we interact and change online. Sometimes this type of action requires what Donna LeCourt thinks of as a “standing under discourse” disposition in her book Social Mediations. This involves “taking on public orientations that [insist] one engage an ecology on that public’s terms, not our own” (citation). As a rhetorical listener, one must take a stance outside of themselves. One cannot ever fully separate themselves from the space in which they interact, but with rhetorical listening it is possible to remove as much of ourselves as possible. This is not to say that one should silence oneself always, but a practice of not appropriating or translating discourses through our own worldview. In this avenue of interaction in digital public spaces, the act of *not* bringing or sharing one’s views leaves room to “stand under.” There is room to take the stance of the speaker. To understand another’s identity and subject. In doing so a rhetorical listener is able to reflect on self and identities up to this point left out in conjunction with digital consumption. For example, public educators will always consider parental rights and opinions of their school district and curriculum; an educator might look to listen and understand those opinions. These opinions might be inside a Facebook group called “Parents of [insert school district]”. For the sake of exemplification, let’s say this educator is left-leaning and the parent Facebook group is right-leaning. The educator comes to the table with opinions that differ from the parents, but this educator, in order to be a rhetorical listener, would leave those opinions at the metaphorical door and seek to understand the opinions of others. They might read through the parent group messages without prior disdain, but an orientation that is as objective as possible. This might lead to further identity introspection in the educator as they learn more about the parents and their concerns. With skill, the educator might see common, human ground in the group and leave, that is, to exit Facebook. The educator did not take tangible action within the digital space, but can now reflect on their own identity within the context of the digital space and, possibly, make changes in their teaching for the benefit of those parents’ students. Of course, sometimes it might not be possible or even ethical to “stay silent” in certain digital spaces. This is for the individual to decide and reflect on possible courses of action as in “Mourning for Strangers: Black Women, Sequelae, and the Digital Afterlife of Police Violence” and “Women Listening to Women: Radical Reflections on Self-Injury Support”.
I should say, as well, that this work can be done in isolation but does not have to be. One must first learn the context in which they are initiating engagement (in this case, internal engagement). This rhetorical work requires one to learn the ins and outs, the subject, the purposes, and the people involved. This may lead to the stance of rhetorical listener. Again, after listening, the rhetorical work of contextual understanding must be reflected upon. More deliberate and external-facing action can be taken in whatever mode suits the context, but does not have to be. It might be another space suggested by contextual reflection or it might not. One cannot predict the way a public moves, but one can choose how to act as a listener within it – and what their footprint will be in a digital economy – and (if necessary) after.
In this digital age, then, rhetoric cannot be understood only within the context of composer as creator. It can be, sure, but it is much more. It is listening, too, and sometimes that is all it needs to be.
Works Cited for Further Reading
Donna LeCourt. (2024). Social Mediations : Writing for Digital Public Spheres. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Scott, S. M., & Edgar, A. N. (2021). Situated Listening: Toward a More Just Rhetorical Criticism. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 24(1/2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.24.1-2.0223
Chaney, S., & Copperman, J. (2023). Women Listening to Women: Radical Reflections on Self-Injury Support. British Journal of Social Work, 53(3), 1742–1750. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcad041
Richards, N., & Hartzog, W. (2024). Against Engagement. Boston University Law Review, 104(4), 1151–1179.
Malone Gonzalez, S., Buggs, S. G., & Jackson, J. (2025). Mourning for Strangers: Black Women, Sequelae, and the Digital Afterlife of Police Violence. Feminist Criminology, 20(2), 132–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/15570851241258316