Comments on "Procedural Rhetoric" (#1)

In a series of three posts I will comment on: (1) the structure of Bogost's argument; (2) his claim that procedural rhetoric constitutes a new domain; and (3) applications of my own studies in visual rhetoric to Bogost's claims.

As you may know, I am wary of claims that today's technologies pose unprecedented problems that obsolesce all previous knowledge and require entirely new analytical frameworks. So I was skeptical of Bogost's early suggestion of "the name procedural rhetoric for the new type of persuasive and expressive practice" of "using processes persuasively" (p. 3).

Yet while I reserve the right to ultimately demur, I must confess that Bogost's argument in Chapter 1 is effectively laid out and nicely anticipated (tough not necessarily answered) my objections at nearly every turn. Thus I found his argument a thoughtful one that merits sobser consideration.

Let me lay out Bogost's argument:

1. Define the term procedurality
2. Explain the tropologic nature of procedurality
3. Provide a (admittedly garden-variety) history of rhetoric
4. Argue why procedurality is not adequately covered by visual rhetoric
5. Argue why procedurality is not adequately covered by digital rhetoric
6. Argue why a new domain of procedural rhetoric is required
7. Explain why videogames are a privileged category of procedural expression
8. Define the term persuasive game
9. Distinguish persuasive games from--
a. Serious games
b. Rhetorics of play
c. Persuasive technology
10. Introduce examples of persuasive games

As an example of inventio Bogost's case is effectively constructed: When after Point 3 above I found myself asking "Yeah, but what about visual rhetoric?" then Bogost nicely anticipated that objection. And when after Point #7 above I found myself asking "Yeah, but how do 'persuasive games' align with our readings last week in Huizinga" then Bogost carefully distinguished between his concept and Sutton-Smith's rhetorics of play (p. 52).

(By the way, Sutton-Smith's thesis gets me far more interested in "the reasons people play and the cultural function of that play" than did Huizinga's somewhat vacillating musings. The notion that rhetorics of play are "placed in context within broader value systems" and thus serve to reproduce culture is a notion I would enjoy studying in more depth. For example: Are Sutton-Smith's seven rhetorics of play--progress, fate, power, identity, the imaginary, the self, and frivolity--exhaustive? Do they function as archetypes across all cultures? Thoughts, anyone?)

So to conclude this post: Bogost has made a thoughtful and reasoned argument that merits consideration. In my next posts I turn some thoughts of my own regarding his thesis.