Persuasive Communication in the Digital Milieu: A Rhetorical Analysis of Vlogging Entries of a Vegan Advocate

Abstract

The study assumes vlogging as a rhetorical act to contribute to the understanding of the nature of persuasive communication in the digital milieu.

The study is framed within the Rhetorical Tradition of Communication Theory that theorizes communication as a practical art of discourse and problematizes it as a social exigency requiring collective deliberation and judgment (Craig, 1999). With modern technology and mobility, we communicate in a dynamic and intricate system of personal and professional relationships, and each of us is linked to all others by fewer degrees of separation than ever before. These technological advancements have revolutionized how persuasion is performed and accomplished. The evolution of media to social media become the fulcrum that links and influences the modern world (Baym, 2015). Do the techniques and functions of persuasion change as technology changes?

By employing rhetorical analysis of vlogging entries of a vegan advocate, the study attempted to answer the following research questions: (1) What rhetorical strategies are used by a YouTube vlogger in communicating veganism as an advocacy? And (2) how do these rhetorical strategies accomplish the goal of advocating veganism through YouTube? Using netnography, a digital ethnographic research method, online data collection, observation, and immersion were employed to analyze the social interactional dynamics of a vlogosphere.

With veganism having a limited place for discussion anywhere except in social media platforms, the study particularly examined the vegan advocate Ed Winters’ YouTube channel. From the selected YouTube vlog, three vlogging rhetorical acts emerged which can be applied to all forms of advocacy in the digital sphere. The vlogger made use of: 1) misconception about the advocacy and/or its opposition; 2) morality about the advocacy and/or its opposition, and 3) move to action.

The rhetorical acts accomplish the goal of communicating an advocacy which is the required collective deliberation and judgment through YouTube by first addressing a misconception about the advocacy and/ or its opposition. The rhetor or the vlogger introduced and explained it as one of the common reasons people fail to move to action or commit to advocacy. The rhetorical act of morality about the advocacy and/or its opposition allows the viewers to be informed of the moral issues and to question the status quo. Lastly, the rhetorical act of moving to action attempts to influence the viewers to commit to the advocacy presented by the vlogger that represents the collective deliberation and judgment.

These three rhetorical acts serve as a powerful instrument for the advancement of any advocacy as they illustrate how an advocate constructs the discourse to understand and explain that the situation or issue is important enough to speak rhetorically about it through a YouTube vlog to accomplish collective deliberation in any persuasive situation in the digital age.