Notes on Findings
draft

Presentations have shown that Facebook is a social space for rhetoric -

Recall that persuasion incudes "to affect values, understanding, behavior...."

Presentations sketched out some of the rhetorical practices of fbookers - and practices that make sense on fbook, practices that are valued, acknowledged as legit. They setched out some of the rhetorical affordances: what parts of fbook can be used rhetorically and what can't. Eg: photostream used to desecrate the underlying idea of meat space socializing.

Socializing and socialization

Group A made the comment that fundamental purpose of fbook is "socialization" -

• meaning socialize? eg: an online public space to hang out it? or meaning enculturation?

1. If "socialize", then our rhetorical interest is in how the messages between the participants work to what ends. Socializing is pre-eminantly rhetorical: people create and exchange messages to do social things - to get people to engage in social activities, and even private ones.

• impress? become popular?
• what other purposes fit in this hang out space?

2. socialization as enculturation (google define: socialization)

• the process whereby individuals are made aware of the behaviour that others expect of them as regards the norms, values and culture of their society. Agents of socialization include the family, school, friendship groups, religious institutions and the mass media.?www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome?/cshtml/media/efterms.html
• The process of acclimating a puppy to the company of humans and other animals.?www.petsmart.com/global/popups/general_popup.jsp

• The process whereby individuals learn to behave willingly in accordance with the prevailing standards of their culture.?www.unk.edu/offices/aaeo/index.php
• the process by which culture is learned; also called enculturation. During socialization individuals internalize a culture's social controls, along with values and norms about right and wrong.?oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

If we focus on this, then our interest is in how the messages work to bring rhetors/audiences into cultural alignment: how participants learn the lingo of the culture - and how that rhetoric then shapes their understanding of the self.

This is fbook as fyc: students learn how to behave within the space - learn

• what counts as knowledge
• what's discussable and what isn't
• what makes a valid argument and what doesn't
• what kinds of arguments work - and which don't
• when an issue is rhetorically expedient: when a situation is rhetorical and when not.

See Bartholomae, Inventing the University, and GroupE's work (Tammy Bobrowsky: FacebookPresentationGroupE)

In either case, here's what we've seen

1. Fbook has an internal rhetoric

• privileges particular genres of rhetoric
• particular subjects
• certain kinds kinds of arguments or appeals, but only some
• doesn't address all purposes, - but a wider set of purposes than expected
• what is "effective" is defined by others in the situation - internal, not imposed -
  • and even what's considered ineffective in other sits is effective w/in

2. Being on Fbook - engaging the rhetoric of others - teaches users the rhetorical ways of the group: what counts as rhetorical, what counts as persuasion in this space, what counts as knowledge... This is learning-by-doing: participants learn the ways of fbook by engaging in exchange.

That is, to have an effective profile page, users follow, or engage, or use as resources, the rhetorical strategies generally practiced - or desecrate them.

But

In either case, fbook is social interaction - not private interpersonal. The exchanges are enacted in a public space as much for onlookers as for specific audiences - and not for other specific audiences. Self-consciously, too, by the sound of the descriptions. Rhetors might have a close-in, near by audience, but the rhetors also know that they act in the view of a larger audience - like kids on their cell phones on the train putting on an act for others.

How aware do the rhetors seem of their choices?

The degree to which the rhetor seems to be aware of the rhetorical choices seems to vary. Rhetor is most aware in the desecration and re-creation, probably. But rhetorical choices are still being made: messages shaped to have an effect. Image selected to persuade viewers of something - and something more specific than "Bird here!"

The sense is that rhetors don't seem to be much aware that they are making rhetorical choices or that they are engaging external audiences. That doesn't mean they aren't choosing.

What does it mean?

Means that they have internalized the rhetorical practices of the group - that they are socialized - that the choices have become naturalized: "Just the way we do it here." or "Just the way I do it."