Vieregge – Gaming
According to our readings this week, video games do fit into the realm of rhetoric. Both McAllister and Gee make convincing arguments to that effect. Gee’s argument, of the two, for me was the most persuasive. For Gee, video games teach not so much literacy as they do “semiotic domains.” Semiotic domains are a more conceptual idea than literacy, for literacy, in Gee’s opinion has a connotation that focuses too much on the written word. Semiotic domains, instead, focus on conceptual ideas. Gee defines semiotic domains as “any set of practices that recruits one or more modalities (e.g. oral or written language, images, equations, symbols, sounds, gestures, graphs, artifacts, etc.) to communicate distinctive types of meanings” (18). Gee then goes forward to argue that video games are a type of semiotic domain, where users can learn about how to interact with others, interpret linguistic signs, and just as importantly think “actively” and “critically.” Critical thinking for Gee involves thinking about how the game works. For instance, for one to think critically when playing a video game, the user must, “see and appreciate the semiotic domain as a design space, internally as a system of interrelated elements making, interacting, and valuing that constitute the identities of those people who are members of the affinity group associated with the domain” (40). This point is well taken, but I wonder about a couple points. First, simply because one can learn to think critically from video games, does that mean it is the most beneficial way to think critically? We could argue that critical thinking can be found within any number of semiotic domains, but what do games offer better or exclusively that other domains do not? Nevertheless, Gee conclusion was especially beneficial. By providing a connection to education explicitly at the end, the author brings the article full circle to how this can benefit learners in the classroom. In McAllister’s article, a much more theoretical approach is used. McAllister begins with a – possibly unneeded – explanation about ideology, dialectic, and rhetoric. However, all of this really doesn’t seem to be the main thrust of the argument. The main thrust of the argument is that gaming is immersed in rhetoric, and that there are many ways to approach the investigation of this gaming rhetoric. The point where McAllister’s article really comes together is when the articles turns to a series of questions: “Do different communities value this subject in different ways?” (33) and “What are the components of the (in game) struggle?” (33). Notice that the structure of the questions deal with both how they relate to each and the larger society but also the internal meaning of each game. McAllister’s article is really about persuading people that gaming theory is worthwhile, whereas Gee assumes some of this is already agreed upon and makes a more specific argument. Nevertheless, they both effectively argue that gaming can be studied in the field of Rhetoric. – Quentin Vieregge
