Vape Rhetoric:

Contextually Examining Meaning and Power as Socio-Cultural Public Constructs

Colin Mckenzie Clark Griffin
Dr. Erin Frost
Submitted on 12/11/2014

Griffin 1
Introduction
The consumption of tobacco is a practice that is very much traditionalized, transcending
both generational and cultural barriers. Tobacco has been used throughout history for
recreational, ceremonial, and religious applications; however, its use has also inarguably
generated a noteworthy amount of controversy that has come to foster staunch
opposition. After a strong emergence in the mid 20th century, anti-tobacco advocacy has
enabled the development of various communities and programs. Such entities encourage
cessation and promote community-constructed perspectives of healthier lifestyle
practices. As a result of the mass publics growing disillusionment with tobacco, a
plethora of emergent alternatives have been made accessible to users seeking new
methods of supplementing their habits. Of these surrogates, one in particular continues to
garner substantial attention from both localized and governmental publicsthe electronic
cigarette. This article posits that the electronic cigarette has evolved into a foundational
cornerstone for an emergent public, and that the rhetoric at work within that public
functions to situate meaning while sociologically constructing a knowledge-power
dissonance.
Statement of Methodological Positioning
It is important to note that, in my presentation of the information to follow, I have
situated myself as a member of the vaping community and a previous member of the nonpartisan public. My inferences stem from my experiences and personal interactions with
both publics over the last 18 months, interwoven with contemporary theories espoused by
the fields of sociology, cultural studies, technical communications, and education.
Vaping as a Community of Practice
The term vaper is a label to which many users of electronic cigarettes willingly ascribe. It
refers to the byproduct that is created when the solutions used to deliver nicotine (e-juice)
are heated and inhaled. Such situation of identity has come to form a unified publican
assemblage of users who find cohesion through shared values and common knowledge.
This is representative of what social theorist Etienne Wenger calls communities of
practice (CoP). According to Wegner, CoP feature three signifying characteristics:
Domain
This encompasses the shared body of interest to which membership in the CoP
mandates commitment. The domain may or may not hold value outside of the CoP.
Community
This refers to the establishing of communicative relationships and the open sharing of
information between members. Wegner feels this level of interaction to be essential.
Practice
This illustrates the collaboration of resources and experiences that Wegner purports to
unite and influence CoP members as practicioners. (Wenger et.al)
Ethos in the vaping community is very much obtained through a complete denouncing of
anything associated with traditional cigarettes (which they have termed analogs). For
instance, members who actively participate in community-created virtual spaces such as
2

Griffin 2
e-cigarette forum establish personal credibility by incorporating signatures that display
how long they have been tobacco free and how many analogs they have subsequently
avoided (fig. 1). Digitized arenas like the aforementioned also enable communication and
collaboration between members, further solidifying the perceived cohesion of the
community itself. Members use online forums to discuss new devices, e-juice flavors,
and developing government legislation pertaining to their shared domain of interest.

Figure 1
Community Exclusion and Othering
As with many CoP, the vaping community is one that is largely exclusory. While
members will openly embrace those they perceive as possessing ethos, they conversely
dismiss those who do not by the very nature of the communitys rhetorical practices.
To provide contextual reference, levels of membership within the vaping community are
observantly reflective of the particular device variant (or mod) an individual uses. Pen
mods, named for their resemblance to the writing utensil of the same name, operate on
controlled electrical resistances and afford limited options in terms of personalized
customization; thus, they are largely considered to be entry-level devices. On the other
end of the spectrum, mechanical mods are devoid of computerized regulation and built by
users themselves. Resultantly, they are more personalized reflections of their owners that
require specialized bases of knowledge to operate (fig. 2-3).

Figures 2 & 3, showcasing pen and

mechanical style mods, respectively.
The existence of such a pseudo-caste system within the vaping community functions
twofold as a means of exclusionary control over membership and ethos. The othering
that results from this knowledge-power dichotomy has been routinely examined through
the rhetorical theories put forth by Foucault and other postmodernist scholars (Foucault,
Gordon). Such ideologies proclaim that power is what denotes ethos, and that power is
obtained through knowledge; if one can control the flow of knowledge, then one can also
control power hierarchies. Ironically, such exclusion works to repel the very audience to
which the vaping community seeks to appealindividuals who are actively searching for

Griffin 3
tobacco-free alternatives. One is debatably unlikely to consider seeking membership in a
community where they will be openly discriminated against should they not be willing to
invest large sums of time and money into that community. This level of rhetorical
exclusion is a detriment to the longevity and growth of the community it befalls,
preventing the development of new knowledge while restricting the flow of existent
knowledge to those who do not stand to further benefit from it.
This notion of rhetorical othering extends into the very retailers that serve the needs of
the community. Brick and mortar stores often specifically cater to one of the communitys
two extremes; rarely will a retailers wares equally satisfy both. In other
words, a retailer may elect to carry devices and juices that appeal to a more entry-level
demographics desire for usability. In so doing, they rhetorically encourage more
advanced users to dismiss their quality and their standing within the community.
Likewise, a store that sells higher-end devices and more expensive e-juice lines appears
unapproachable to vapers of lesser experience.
This dissonance creates what sociologists and communications scholars refer to as social
closurethe processes of drawing boundaries, constructing identities, and building
communities in order to monopolize scarce resources for ones own group, thereby
excluding others from using them (Koch 2013). Essentially, current retail strategies are
undermining the communitys unity from within; in making rhetorical distinctions
between levels of membership, the CoP has dramatically reduced members opportunity
for upward mobility while making it near impossible for new members to assimilate.
With new members comes new innovation, and the construction of new knowledge is
what allows communities to evolve and thrive. Respectively, this article argues that the
very entities that give life to the community in question are also working, knowingly or
not, to take it away.
There are other rhetorical theories to consider in developing a comprehensive
understanding of the vaping communitys exclusionary rhetorical design. Contemporary
scholar Mike Rose presents the notion of disciplinary silos. These silos function
similarly to Kenneth Burkes terministic screens, in that they both suggest our partialities
and past experiences function to influence the way we perceive information and make
meaning. In context, high-ethos members of the community may be dismissive of baselevel members because of an inability to relate to their experience. The CoP has
established a set of expected beliefs to which those with authority are to adhere, and
deviance in any form will be met with consequence. This is reflective of the CoP model
Wegner illustrates, as it mandates that membership requires compliance to established
values and principles that, once established, are predominantly unwavering.
Ethos & Persuasion: The Social Knowledge Construct
The influence and power that ethos provides to members of the vaping community in
many ways shapes the community itself. Educational pedagogy has long supported the
belief that knowledge is constructed through social interaction (Bartholomae, Berlin,
Shaughnessy). In other words, the exchange of information between involved parties

Griffin 4
allows them to form new meanings and explore previously unconsidered perspectives.
Arguably, the issue that arises from this mentality is that parties holding ethos can
strongly influence the knowledge that is generated. This same premise not only exists
within the vaping community, but controls it.
To contextualize the aforementioned, members of the vaping community often seek out
and share information through one of two venues:

Digitized spaces (YouTube, cigarette forum, etc.)

Physical Spaces (Brick-and-mortar retail stores, conventions)

In these spaces, members often discuss and review new devices, device builds, and
emergent juice flavors through video and text. What results is a phenomenon common to
the traditional rhetorical situation; if said member has established credibility within the
community, then it is highly likely that their commentary will significantly influence their
respective audiences. However, the extent of this impact in the given contextual scenario
(arguably) has a more extensive reach.
In Digitized Spaces
In considering this medium, there are currently numerous members of the vaping
community who have established themselves as credible authorities; videos and postings
composed by community authorities like Grim Green, Rip Trippers, and Phil Busardo
routinely draw the attention of the community at large. Their opinions on vaping
technology shape the respective opinions of their viewers, and often have noteworthy
impacts on product sales and public reception. The merchandise that online personas
engage with are often provided to them free of charge by the manufacturer, who interacts
directly with them.
The issue present in this exchange is that more financially established manufacturers are
being privileged as a result of their wealth-constructed power. The electronic cigarette,
despite its recent growth in popularity, is still very much the product of an emergent
industry. With that being said, few companies have obtained monetary security; it is not
uncommon for obtained revenue to be immediately allocated to continued research and
engineering developmentsboth costly endeavors. This makes the amount of corporate
entities able to routinely give away larger quantities of profitless merchandise small in
number. Resultantly, companies who are perceived as having established ethos are able to
maintain power by enabling their wares to dominate the community forefront. This
establishes a borderline monopolistic market-closure, in that it does not afford smaller
developing manufacturers an opportunity to establish themselves amidst the
overwhelming influence of the pre-existing normative.
In Physical Spaces
E-cigarette retailers (and their respective levels of ethos) also influence the ways
knowledge and power are socially constructed within the user public. Such affect is felt in
two succinctly observable ways.
5

Griffin 5
Firstly, by the very nature of their design, retailers effectively place members into
exclusory subset publics. These re-classifications tend to parallel a members level of
knowledge and experience within the overall community; users of lesser experience are
proverbially camped into frequenting stores that sell devices and supplies relevant to that
level of engagement (Store A), while advanced users do the same on the other end of the
spectrum (Store B).
Each retailer, again reflective of Burkes notion of terministic screens, perceives their
ethos relative to these classifications. As such, their (and their consumers) perspectives
of other stores are skewed because of these lenses. In other words, Store As perceived
faults in regards to Store B may not be faults by the latters standards, but members of
each public are incapable of rationalizing the others construct of meaning. For example,
consumers who frequent Store A may feel that Store B is inapproachablethat it has no
interest in them and their businessbecause they cater to a different and separate public
that possesses a higher level of knowledge-power.
Conversely, Store B is aware of this dissonance and rhetorically capitalizes upon it; they
embrace the mindset that their clientele is perceived as being of a higher sect, and use
that perception as a way of promoting their own ethos within the community at large.
Store B is not concerned with knowledge distribution or upward mobility, but with
containing knowledge-power so as to control their position of elitism. In either situational
context, ethos itself is dependent upon the individual assessing it and the public to which
they have situated themselves.
Secondly, retailers further community identity by setting parameters on membership. In
other words, retailers brand consumers as members of that particular public. This
prescribed belonging can take many forms. Stores will often offer cards to repeat
customers that offer rewards for return business, which can make consumers reluctant to
take their business elsewhere. They carry merchandise that is not available in other
retailers, and use their perceived ethos to establish what device variants and e-juices are
of quality. This has led to members of local vaping communities being able to assess
one anothers level of engagement based solely on the products that they use. In essence,
retailers use their ability to determine knowledge value to influence the way that
members of their representative public construct meaning and attribute the power of
ethos.
Perspectives of the Non-Partisan
As this article posited earlier, it is of interest how the vaping community works to
alienate itself from those who seek entry-level membership. While there are many
avenues open for individuals to enter into the public, access to those avenues is becoming
increasingly restricted. This closure is directly reflective of the way ethos and value
within the community have come to be perceived by existing members.
These perceptions, as has been hinted, take root at the retail level. There is simply more
profit to be made from selling advanced level devices and higher-end e-juices. Pen mods

Griffin 6
are low-cost, low-maintenance devices; they require a small (around $20) initial
investment, and upkeep averages around that same amount monthly. Most mechanical
mods sold in stores are replicas, or clones, that can range in price from $40-100.
Authentic variants, or those made by the original manufacturers, can cost as much as two
thousand dollars. Mechanical mods, much unlike pen mods, require extensive upkeep
costs; many elements of these devices have to be re-built by the user routinely in order to
maintain effectiveness and desirability.
The rhetorical value of the mechanical mod itself is immense, in that the sheer possession
of one elevates the owners ethos within the community. The non-partisan public has also
been bombarded by the popularity-fueled growth of the electronic cigarette. There is a
possibility that some have attempted cigarette cessation with the poorly manufactured
commodity devices commonly found in service stations and other chain retailers;
however, these devices often fail to provide the user with their desired experience. As a
result of the growing exclusivity of the vaping community, the only experience
nonmembers often have to consider when developing their initial perspectives is one with
which they negatively associate. When these individuals encounter users of mechanical
mods, they assume upon the latter an immediate ethos because of their perceived mastery
over the unfamiliar. Mechanical mod users often instruct face-to-face classes or compose
instructional videos in regards to various devices and their components, which to the nonpartisan seats them in a position of authority regardless of their actual level of expertise.
This but reinforces the established power-hierarchy of the vaping community; the next
generation of constructed knowledge is the derivative of the previous generationsthere
is no transference of ethos or value, which stagnates the spread of information and
enables the current motif to remain unchallenged.
Conclusion
In summation, the rhetorical situation that encompasses vaping culture categorizes
members into subset publics. Each of these publics adheres to notions of ethos that have
been cultivated by those who reserve agency within them, and this ethos situates meaning
while simultaneously restricting the flow of knowledge and power. In other words,
rhetoric here is functioning to both support the status quo and maintain the communitys
insular nature. While this is very much significant to the continued study of publics and
their rhetorical interactions, there is a notable pushback on behalf of the academy when it
comes to embracing emergent communities that are perceived to be of little curricular
value. As such, this article advocates awareness of such publics whose agency is not
being fully realized in educational discourse through positioning the vaping community
as an exemplar of what could potentially arise through future research in this area.

Griffin 7
References
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism (Rev. ed.). London: Verso.
Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. New York: Guilford.
Bitzer, L. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1).
Berlin, J. (1982). Contemporary composition: The major pedagogical theories. College
English, 44(8), 765-777.
Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Delanty, G. (2010). Community (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Foucault,M.,&Gordon,C.(1980).Power/knowledge:Selectedinterviewsandother
writings,19721977.NewYork:PantheonBooks.
Gordon, R. (2007). Power, knowledge and domination. Malm, Sweden: Liber.
Koch, M. (2003). Closure theory and citizenship: the Northern Ireland experience.
Electronic Journal of Sociology. Retrieved from http://www.sociology.org/content/
vol7.4/koch.html
Rose, M. (2011, April 21). Remediation at a crossroads. Retrieved November 18, 2014,
from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/04/21/rose_remedial_education_at_a
_crossroads
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic
writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
St. Amant, K. (2005). A prototype theory approach to international web site analysis and
design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 73-91.
Vatz, R. (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 6(3).
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.