Groneck And The Cyberpolitical Culture

I found the article a little dull in the beginning with the inclusion of the Greek language and the meanings behind it, but overall, I think his article touched upon a very important aspect of rhetoric, that being his “electric rhetoric”. Going on about how we use radio, film, television and the computer to send our thoughts to the masses so others could read them, I think that this is a new important horizon we as a generation as seen. Years before, people wrote letters and staged riots and did all of that to get their point across, but now, all we have to do is jump online and write what we feel. Case in point, this blog. Anyone who is searching for this topic -  radicalism and rhetoric and everything else in between – can just get on Google and search for it. Using an example from my last blog post where I attracted the attention of an Alinsky biographer, I think now that the state of the cyber world is as essential as forever. But I digress, back to my point.

The Internet has become the premier gateway to share ideas. All we have to do is have access. Anyone with an idea can share it. Whether they be intellectuals or scholars or even regular students, one little post is all it takes to introduce the world to a radical new idea. Of course, this could have consequences, but that’s not the point: we shouldn’t deter anyone from introducing or proposing progress of any sort. If it’s a good idea, then we must elaborate on it and give it importance. And the language in this electric rhetoric is indeed radical rhetoric – because it’s on the Internet shouldn’t change anything at all. Language is language – it’s how you use it, how you push it forward. And some people call the Internet a burden – and believe me, at times, it is – but we should never scoff the power of it. We can do anything we want to do with it and Gronbeck’s article definitely proves that.

some final thoughts on del gandio

for the majority of this course i have personally struggled with ideas and notions surrounding the intelligentsia–the elite class of subsequent rulers based primarily on the fact that they are educated beyond the capacity of your average citizen.  in much of the readings we have encountered we are to believe that this class strata of individual is the last and only defense the bewildered herd has against both themselves and the greater power structure at large–hello marx–and this is where i draw exception.  the books, propaganda, and general message we receive is both tailored and manufactured by this said class.  now this poses an interesting problem when the lower classes are attempting to organize.  they must ask themselves: “who and or what is really behind this uprising?”, “am i just a pawn in a struggle for control?”, and “who the hell are these people?”.  i have come to the realization that we are to believe they are a distinguished group driven by their altruistic intent without a corruptible bone in their body.  these fevered drum banging elitists try to convince the masses of their invaluable contributions to the organizational spirit at large and their unique abilities to navigate the power structure–sounds suspect.

del gandio and alinsky are perfect examples of this notion:  ivory towered purveyors of the “true” and ” righteous course”.  to qualify my particular argument i am willing to make certain concessions,  that yes indeed there is an invaluable resource present within these individuals, and that yes they do seem to master the language of the ruling class, yet they appear to play a game so similar to those they supposedly are against it is disturbing.  that game is the struggle to define–perhaps the exact course of rhetoric itself.  this power i have viewed as invaluable for ideally if you can change the course of the argument you can indeed manipulate or control this argument at will.  the classes that are then to be protected by these individuals are forced to seek out their services–it’s like a protection racket.  perhaps it’s just job security at work, but by keeping the basis of power far from the reach of the protectorate their is no concern of your power ever being taken.  nice and comfortable as the middle-man or buffer all their intelligent diving seems to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  i say this because when i think of the proletariat in general i think of individuals who have little or no time to discuss the intellectual course of the power structure or the educational background to understand the dialectic–all in all it is quite worrisome.  obviously this forum is limited in both time and scope and so for the sake of brevity i’ll simply make one final statement: ” beware the snake- oil salesman in sheep’s clothing.”

Gronbeck: Citizen Voices

There were a few points he made, which he summarized and quickly moved on from, which I wish he would he explored a little more.  For example, when he wrote that, “…even as some beat the drum to organize peoples’ marches, actual political activity in the execute and legislative halls seemed more influenced by the numbered voices of the printout than the bull-horned voices of the streets” (23). This point was one in a list of points that he would have made if he had more space.  I personally think it is an interesting one worth contemplating and wish he would have spent more than three sentences on it.  What is he basing this idea on?  Is that meant as a segue into the idea of cyber politics?  His concept intrigued me and then left me unsatisfied.

I have to agree with his later point that a citizen’s building of political identity is just as much a part of civic engagement as attempting legistlative change.  And when a citizen is a critically thinking, he or she can definitely successfully piece together a political identity by taking advantage of internet sources.  A danger does lie, though, in the fact that many internet users may not be aware of the different angles website creators are coming from and may not be able to see past that to use their own experiences to compare and contrast.  Personally, I have a problem with believing too much that I read or hear and therefore must be extremely careful processing information before I go voicing my opinion. It’s true, though, that the internet is certainly not the only place where one must be careful to analyze and criticize sources.  It’s certainly one of the more easily accessible and extensive places.  When armed with the right tools, I think it’s definitely a beautiful place of opportunity for many of the reasons Gronbeck listed in his essay.