what scientists do and provides a framework for analyzing the cultural rhetoric of science. In defining a new paradigm for social context, network science seems to have a similar potential, especially since the models it constructs affect us all, not just a select group.

Here are some ideas for using the knowledge of social networks to modify our traditional understanding of rhetoric:

Invention. Blogs that serve as platforms for drafting documents like dissertations open a back door to feedback and collaborative contributions in the composing process and change the relationship between publication and composing. Text-mediated dialogue employed as a topos differs from simply passing a draft around for feedback. Conventional “one-mind” invention theories don’t speak to collaborative activity such as might take place with wikis.

Rhetorical situation. Network science offers a completely new paradigm for understanding the context in which utterances and persuasion take place. Bitzer’s idea of situation as the ground and exigence for rhetorical activity is rather narrowly defined; nevertheless, the new network paradigms provide a fresh perspective on an often disregarded aspect of Bitzer’s theory: constraints. These are “persons, events, objects, and relations which . . . have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (“The Rhetorical Situation”). Network characteristics like emergence, power law distributions, tipping points and the Matthew Effect re-map our understanding of the potentials and limits of the power of discourse to alter reality within social networks. Bitzer speaks of fitting the response to the situation, but this new knowledge would seem to call for an elaborated art of fitting strategies to situations, something akin to market research. For instance, the success of an innovation, according to Watts, may depend on the structure of the network.

Audience. Bitzer also speaks of audience as a key constituent of the rhetorical situation. New social relationships such as those defined by Weinberger and devices like trackbacks call for a re-examination of the relation of rhetor to audience. New network paradigms provide a framework for redefining certain audiences. Netflix, Amazon and iTunes, for instance, have benefited by recognizing the long tail as a particular type of audience (Bnoopy/Kraus).

Ethos. In any number of ways and contexts, the character and very identity of the rhetor become problematic on the Web. What is happening in terms of ethos, for instance, when an employee is fired for making remarks about his or her company in a blog? (Or we might ask it: What happens to ethos distributed across multiple, coexistent contexts?) How should we read popularity against credibility in the blogosphere? See Weinberger’s discussion of .Zannah (16) as the norm on the Web, and to his discussion of Web credibility (141).