tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post9026852158368613524..comments2023-07-16T04:38:04.407-05:00Comments on Spinuzzi: Some tentative thoughts about a networked rhetoricClay Spinuzzihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13356273383001825508noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-75748916240766473742009-10-08T09:19:02.040-05:002009-10-08T09:19:02.040-05:00Right - In a slightly different but analogic frame...Right - In a slightly different but analogic frame, I'm thinking in terms of classic project management as set out in the PMBOK and employed in construction and engineering projects. Here, the assumption is a fairly articulated and rigid hierarchy in which all parties must agree on a specifically defined set of objectives, a calendared series of milestones with a critical path, and procedures for recovering from errors. Project management allows hierarchical organizations to coordinate, both internally and with other actors (e.g., contractors). PM reduces complexity by limiting the actions that actors can take - avoiding the high cost of communication and nodal coordination in traditional environments.<br /><br />But in some sectors, classic PM is simply not seen as nimble enough. That includes, for instance, some strains of software development and most web development. So we get "agile PM" and variations, which assume more networked organizations, although those networked orgs still tend to operate on a hierarchical "chassis." <br /><br />If we see classic PM as a response to the classic problem of high communication costs in an organization, lowering those costs might push us toward very different coordinative planning practices. For instance, in a more networked organization, we might see a much more rudimentary set of milestones, but a more interconnected workforce with higher operational autonomy and more robust channels of communication across all members of the workforce. Planning might become more cycle-based rather than milestone-centric, and collaboration might happen in more frequent casual interactions rather than coordinated by the central set of milestones. And in a much looser transient organization, such as a federation, we might see even fewer remnants of PM. <br /><br />In such cases, PM can be seen as a set of genres embodying a particular worldview based on pervasive constraints. Lift the constraints, and the set of genres - and thus the worldview - starts to decay. <br /><br />Also, in cases in which individual nodes exercise more autonomy, audience analysis and ethos become far more complicated and contingent. Logos, perhaps, takes a back seat.<br /><br />Obviously that's pretty hand-wavy at this point. I'll keep processing it.Clay Spinuzzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13356273383001825508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-15737848101121271882009-10-07T16:58:06.570-05:002009-10-07T16:58:06.570-05:00Great stuff here Clay. What interests me most, I t...Great stuff here Clay. What interests me most, I think, is a discussion of the limits of Network Rhetorics that lays just beneath the surface of your post. <br /><br />All of argument falls under the category of probabilistic reasoning, but traditional Toulminian argument adheres to what in the face of NetRhet seems a hyperrational model where the constituent parts have defined dependencies and tight tolerances.<br /><br />NetRhet, by your preliminary analysis here, may well show that these components can function in other arrangements...but the question remains what the limits of effective argument are? Can sheer volume and/or speed make up for tight alignment of claims, evidence, & warrants? (this begs the question what constitutes a "swarm?")<br /><br />NetRhet cases may provide fascinating insight into the limits of probabilism. <br /><br />And so stay with me here, this talk of limits is not quite a metaphor ...we may yet come to see Toulmin's structures as arithmetic, with the rhetorical equivalent of Calculus yet to be fully explicated. I would say that you are on that path, though.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11868810068966430711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-62406924930722417442009-10-05T08:23:43.702-05:002009-10-05T08:23:43.702-05:00David -
All good points. I'm also coming at t...David -<br /><br />All good points. I'm also coming at this question from a third understanding of networks as heterogeneous assemblages of humans and nonhumans, based in the actor-network theory (ANT) literature. In that view, networks are not understood in terms of structure so much as they are in terms of how actors and resources are connected - ANT is much more interested in ontology and its relation to power and politics. At the same time, ANT doesn't provide a very good understanding of cultural-historical development, and its account of rationality or logic is fairly static. Part of what makes TIMN interesting to me is that it injects both org structure and development into this account while still remaining open to the sort of political-rhetorical translations that ANT excels at.<br /><br />I'm not sure how much the two understandings of network can be reconciled, though, given their basic differences in what counts as a network actor. I'll keep working through this question as I continue reading the netwar literature. And, of course, the more classical network analyses you suggest. Although the task of absorbing yet another swathe of literature seems exhausting!<br /><br />Definitely the issue of strong/weak links seems like a fruitful place to start. And so I will. Thanks as always for your insights.Clay Spinuzzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13356273383001825508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-31664367889122240472009-10-04T23:29:02.570-05:002009-10-04T23:29:02.570-05:00a very interesting post (and again, thanks for the...a very interesting post (and again, thanks for the plug). <br /><br />i quite agree that each of the four TIMN forms may be associated with a different type of rationality and thus logic and rhetoric. it’s a point worth continued development. there’s still lots more to be said about it, i’d suppose. <br /><br />at the same time, i’m thinking that you have run into something similar to what i’ve run into: two different kinds of views about networks. in my case, that means sticking with the view i prefer, which is that networks are a form of organization distinct from tribes, hierarchies, and markets. the other view, which dominates in network science and social network analysis, is that all forms of organization are networks, or can be reduced to networks of one kind or another. this new expansive view contrasts with much older, more classical traditions in social science that tended to view all forms of organizations and other systems as resting somewhere on hierarchies / institutions. <br /><br />what i’ve seen at the town-hall meetings looks more like a pro-tribal than a pro-network (or pro-institutitonal or pro-market) rhetoric, as i use those terms. the people i’ve seen speak out seem to be longing more for tribal than for information-age network answers . nonetheless, at the same time i think you are quite right, and are saying something interesting, to observe that the town-hall participants, in voicing their tribalism, reflect a “networked rhetoric,” as distinguished from a classical, more linear, logic-oriented rhetoric that stems from its institutional origins. <br /><br />what i would suggest you consider is the following: relate the underlying structure of this kind of rhetoric to the kinds of concepts found in social network analysis. maybe the rhetoric and its ingredients could be depicted in terms of a network map showing nodes and links, with some hubs. this would result in quite a different depiction from a classical, more linear, even pyramidal logical layout, i’m supposing. <br /><br />a couple of possible insights from going in this direction: it may help explain why, if counter-arguments seem to take out a few nodes and links in a raging rant, it doesn’t matter much to the ranter. he / she just shifts to another node / link in his wide-ranging rhetoric. whatever sticks, works. better to spray than to take narrow aim. <br /><br />also, it might be interesting to relate this to one of the major notions in social network analysis: that it’s interesting to distinguish between weak ties and strong ties (i.e., links), and that it’s the weak ties that lead to more results (e.g., job opportunities) than the strong ties. you may already know of this notion; but if not, it’s from a paper by granovetter.<br /><br />again, i think you are on to something. i’ll hope to see more. my apology for taking so long to get around to offering this comment. i hope it helps. onward.David Ronfeldthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06488855410947866567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-81203623924750054102009-09-28T16:09:16.124-05:002009-09-28T16:09:16.124-05:00Okay, now I have to reread Law. Great comment. And...Okay, now I have to reread Law. Great comment. And the idea of interstitial rhetorics is especially intriguing.Clay Spinuzzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13356273383001825508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-35629730049815579412009-09-28T15:04:11.919-05:002009-09-28T15:04:11.919-05:00I think I need to give this a second read before I...I think I need to give this a second read before I, too, comment with anything beyond the "tentative," but I can't help think of Law (2002) as congruent with some of these ideas.<br /><br />In "Objects and Spaces" Law argues that "networks tend to panic when when they fail to secure network homeomorphism" (p. 102), that fluid objects and spaces (as differentiated from Euclidean and/or network objects and spaces) cannot be accurately represented in networks, and thus flow "through the meshes" (p. 101).<br /><br />Law also notes that networks "embody and enact a politics, a politics linked up to and dressed up as functionality" (p. 102), a statement that I can't help but link to your later comments about the health care debate--enacted and held together by arguments "united in tactical opposition." <br /><br />So networked rhetorics, in some sense, seem to foster compulsory political oppositions as a means by which "arguments" are made--arguments that, as you point out, don't adhere to traditional models. Returning to Law, when "fluid objects or subjects do become visible in network space they tend to look dangerously <i>elusive, vague, and sloppy</i>".<br /><br />I wonder if there are networked rhetorics, and interstitial rhetorics (those which flow "through the meshes") which, in concert, produce the "irrational" rationality of networks?Brian J. McNelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01368391154391981350noreply@blogger.com