I find it incredibly appropriate that you cited that line from Miller about designing a course. As a new instructor with the English department, and a new member of the 609 Pedagogy class, I’m not only teaching a subject that I might not necessarily be an “expert” on, but I’m also reading weekly about others’ (sometimes very strong) opinions on how I should go about doing my job. These readings are supposed to make me a better teacher and prepare me for more work in the field (I’d quote the terms of Miller’s you quoted in your blog entry, but I’m not sure I’m confident enough yet to cite that in MLA form just yet!). Miller’s article, much like any of the other articles about pedagogy from 609, might help you become a better teacher of a technical writing class. It could also help you better contribute, through practice, to the field of writing instruction. The idea is that you, as a human being, will not only decide how the article affects you, but who you want to benefit from the decisions you make about the article – be it the technical writing field, or the overall field of writing, or general society.

One of my pedagogy texts, though, which was written by James A. Berlin, stressed that all rhetoric is ideological in nature (478). If such a claim holds true, then it only stands that the rhetoric used by certain members of a field are ideological in nature. When companies claim they want certain things from an employee, or when some universities stress the importance of fitting a company’s “culture” when trying to find a job (Rutter 30), those entities are expressing their ideologies – and those ideologies seem to focus on fitting in for a career’s sake. Similarly, an article like Rutter’s seems to express an ideology regarding the “culture” issue – but its ideology, instead, focuses on “progress” (30).

It’s likely that little of this is new to you, I’ll admit. I’ll also admit that I’m probably bringing all this up simply because I’m excited to see connections between my classes and their readings. Just to clarify, too: I agree with everything you wrote. My mention of the free will idea earlier in this post, though, makes me wonder, like someone else in the class (I’ll have to look that up and give them credit) what some other universities’ mission statements are. Sure, students will ultimately decide what they believe about what they’re taught, but shouldn’t we try to impart some knowledge unto them, or at least throw some information at them, that fits our university’s goals (a lot of them, I’d hope, are geared towards the progress of society and research)? Or would that be an act of “fit[ting] into a culture” much the way that Rutter warned us about, as well as an act of impeding economic progress?

Wow, I’ve gotta say: Those questions make it seem like I’m struggling through some existential crisis, or that I don’t get too upset about nihilistic despair.

Works Cited

Berlin, James A. “Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Classroom.” College English 50.5 (1988): 477-494. PDF.

Miller, Carolyn. “What’s Practical about Technical Writing?” Professional Writing and Rhetoric: Readings from the Field. Ed. Tim Peeples. New York: Longman, 2003. 61-70. Print.

Rutter, Russell. “History, Rhetoric, and Humanism: Toward a More Comprehensive Definition of Technical Writing.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 20-34. Print.