Bogost Rhetorical Moves

In the first two paragraphs of his article, Bogost retells the story of Amy Webb who had the unfortunate experience of breaking her ankle which lead to her using a backscatter at the airport. In this experience, Webbs breasts were signaled as a weapon, however only to find out this was caused by the underwire in her bra, but the machine unfortunately can not make this distinction. Bogost utilizes this story to introduce his point seamlessly as Webb herself said that the reason this happens is because someone like her was not in the room when the machine was designed. He uses purposeful rhetoric as he placed her experience as a way to highlight that many inventions and devices would be suitable for the larger population if there was more diversity in the workplace. By taking an emotional approach, he is able to emphasize the importance of his point.

Bogost further develops his point by transitioning to how lack of diversity in larger companies is derived from the kind of education their employees are exposed to. Bogost uses comparison  of a University program and diversity count, to the demographic of an employer like Google. He analyzes how Georgia Tech has a center to promote women and people of color into overwhelmingly majority employers and promotes higher education to those who thought they may never have it, but for example Google employees who are white and asian is over 95% . He further develops his point by saying that although inviting individuals who are black or have curly hair would change the programs that are being developed, it would change it for the better and avoid problems that Amy Webb experienced in the airport.

In the next part of his article, Bogost uses a series of quotes by Amy Webb, whom the reader has become familiar with and other individuals who further enhance his idea. In using first hand accounts and direct quotes from individuals, Bogost is able to draw the reader in and develop his article into one that resembles a conversation between him and the audience. He uses a series of quotes to resemble a conversation between him and the individuals he is citing, as well as speaking to the audience in person. In doing so, the reader is more likely to be persuaded into agreeing with his points as the sources he uses are notable and used in a comprehensive way.

Bogost again connects one point to another seamlessly as he includes another rhetoric move by using a rhetorical questions. For example, his integration of the Charles Isbell quote ‘ “The real question,” he told me, “is: Are we interested in diversity, or are we interested in integration?” ‘ draws the reader to think about what he is presenting. In choosing to include Isbell’s rhetorical question, Bogost is able to persuade the reacher and have the audience think critically about diversity and whether what we actually mean when we say diversity inclusion.

Lastly, another rhetoric movement that Bogost uses to amplify the point he has developed throughout his essay, is the use of irony and repetition. To conclude his essay framed around diversity in the computing world, he states “Instead, the problem with computing is computing.” In his last paragraph, Bogost suggests and supports the idea that inclusion in the computing industry goes farther than the organizational culture, the issue is within the center of the job field. The issue, he concludes, is with the actual computing. With the integration of Amy Webb’s narrative points, he is able to emphasize that the issues within the system itself which is able to reflect the larger society.