Porter’s article seems to matter now more than ever, as communication is heavily mediated by digital codes and the technological conventions of social networks. In “Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric,” he argues that delivery, one of the five canons of Greek rhetoric that pertains to the way that we convey our discourse, in speech or in writing, is increasingly becoming the most important element of the rhetorical act. Throughout the article, Porter attempts to revive the concept of delivery within the current digital landscape as techne, a form of knowledge, and develops a theoretical framework that covers five main topics: body/identity, distribution/circulation, access/accessibility, interaction and economics.

Porter starts out with an overview of delivery as a rhetorical component from the classical period to its disappearance with the advent of the printing press. He compares Aristotle’s notion of delivery as a public speech that did not require “artistic labors,” such as, for instance, invention and style, to Cicero’s valorization as an important emotional and persuasive tool (3). He mentions the effect that the printing press had on the concept of knowledge itself, but also on how delivery came to be perceived as a result of mass written production of texts (4-5), as the emphasis on writing made delivery a secondary, or even useless, technique. Porter then goes on to explore the role of delivery in technologically mediated communication.

I found the body/identity relationship particularly interesting (my MA thesis will actually focus on this subject), as Porter emphasizes the importance of both physical and virtual representation, defining the body as a sort of “performance” or “text” through which we communicate and persuade (8). In this context, a change in the bodily representation means a change in the way the message is conveyed. Better yet, the body becomes, in a sense, the message, the information. Discourse becomes, then, it seems, deeply ingrained in bodily identity. Even in the virtual spaces – cyberspaces, as scholars used to call them in the 80s – one is never completely free from some sort of bodily identity, or from issues of gender, race, sexual preference and age (8-9). Although digital spaces have opened up a set of possibilities for identity formation and representation, users are still limited by real, physical issues that influence the way they choose to present themselves.

Porter also brings up the issue of audience and how to tailor delivery to achieve the strongest impact. This will depend on a negotiation between the writer and audience of the four other elements that compose the act of delivery: distribution – how you choose to “package” the message, – access and accessibility – who you make it available to by the media you choose, – interaction and interactivity – how you engage with others and the technology you use, – and economics – the value we/others attribute to the rhetorical product.

Porter raises very interesting issues about delivery. The most important one has to do, I think, with the level of accessibility and availability of the technology and of digital spaces of communication. He points out that, despite common belief, digital media/rhetorics are still very much limited to what can be considered a “privileged minority” that has access, the physical ability or even the skills to use them. This leaves a vast majority of people out of what are now becoming the prevalent modes of communication. This leads me to ask, then: can this shift in the way we produce and deliver discourse (from the physical act of writing to the codes and multimodality of the digital environments) actually make rhetorical composition more of an exclusionary activity? Or is there a way to gradually increase access/accessibility to integrate and reach those who are outside the digital landscape?