Rhetorical Analysis Of Dumbing Down Smart Objects

In today’s society the term smart objects holds connotations of devices that are user friendly, intuitive, technologically advanced, and allow the user to access unlimited amounts of information at the click of a button. In 2004, however, before the advent of the iPhone and other such “smart” devices this term had another meaning. Bruce Sterling, of Wired.com, paints a picture of ordinary objects linked to the Internet that allows said object to be analyzed and its components quantified. In his article “Dumbing Down Smart Objects,” Sterling argues that although this advance may be advantageous to the consumer as far as quality assurance, it does come with some drawbacks and foreboding implications for the future.

Sterling opens with

Michael Callaway, of Arizona State University, describes these writing styles in the following ways. In ethos rhetoric, one attempts to persuade the reader by attempting to gain the readers trust in the writer. The writer attempts to show he is unbiased and is not attempting to skew the facts in order to persuade the reader unethically. Logos rhetoric is characterized by the writer attempting to present his argument in a clear, logical, well-reasoned manner. This style appeals to the intellect of the reader and presents an argument suitable for academic study. Lastly, in pathos rhetoric, the writer is appealing to the reader’s emotions. Here the writer will use emotionally charged language and vivid depictions to incite the audience’s gut reactions to an argument. This writing style does not rely on rational thought, but rather a “right-brained” response to subjective information. When analyzing the article through this lens we can see that Sterling’s writing relies heavily on a logical, fair minded presentation. In this manner he is drawing on ethos and logos rhetorical styles, which is very appropriate for his target audience of logical, analytical, and intellectual

In addition to this, one should also consider the implications that the premise of this article raises. Taking into account that Sterling is fully aware of his educated audience, I believe that his use of the RFID chip example is, in fact, criticism of the smart object movement. He knows that his audience will not be totally closed minded about the concept of a computer/human interface, and they are prepared to handle the inevitable merging of the two. However, I believe Sterling is subtly hinting at the fact that perhaps these interfaces are not as straight forward as they seem at face value. Could the objectification of man make him dumber? Is the implantation of this chip going to change the politician’s behavior? If so, some serious ethical implications are brought into play. Perhaps the wide spread use of artificial intelligence and the concept of “big brother” is lurking too close for Sterling’s comfort. Considering Sterling’s premise in combination with his seemingly off handed comment concerning RFID tags, one can extrapolate that Sterling is setting forth a red flag to the virtual community. He may state that making smart objects out of objects is a good idea, but after reading between the lines, I think he feels quite differently about making smart object out of