This week’s readings can be divided into two categories that address ethics in distinct ways: two articles address the ethical implications of what we teach in the TC classroom (Sullivan/Herndl) and two focus on approaches to teaching ethics (Gough and Price/Dombrowski).  Other posters have already discussed most of what I wanted to address in the Gough and Price and Dombrowski articles, so I will focus my efforts on Sullivan and Herndl. These authors ask us to consider the political and ethical ramifications of a pedagogy that indoctrinates students into the dominant discourse of industry.

Both articles highlight a lack of critical perspective in TC pedagogy as a major source of concern. Sullivan (1990) focuses on how the TC classroom may indoctrinate students into a culture that unquestioningly accepts technology and technological progress as a good. For him, the very genres we teach limit the ability to critique technology: “Ultimately, genres in technical discourse seem to preclude the opportunity for citizens to speak simply as citizens on the issues of technology in any meaningful way” (p. 213).  His solution is twofold: emphasize rhetoric as a social act or practice (rather than as an art or set of skills) (p. 214), and include political discourse in the TC classroom (p. 216).

I understand Sullivan’s concern about reducing rhetoric, and by extension the TC course, to a set of skills.  However, I see rhetoric as both technique and practice; there are certainly rhetorical skills to be taught, but that does not mean that rhetoric is only a set of skills. Teaching students the value of audience awareness, purpose, context, etc. is a good thing. Later in the article, Sullivan notes that he teaches students about stasis, kairos, and invention (p. 218). These concepts cannot be reduced to skills, but it would be difficult to deny that there is no technique involved.

Sullivan asks us to include “public discourse about technology” (p. 217) into the curriculum. Herndl (1993), informed by radical pedagogy, asks us to teach students how to resist dominant ideologies (p. 223). He suggests that we begin with the familiar: “. . . students can achieve a level of resistance and discursive self-awareness by articulating their practical knowledge of academic discourse” (p. 229).

Again, I am sympathetic to Herndl’s arguments. I do think it is important for students to learn how to critique, if not underlying ideologies, at least some of the obvious cultural constructs that impact their lives as students, writers, and human beings. The TC classroom (or any writing classroom, I believe) seems to be an ideal place to foster criticism and resistance.

However, Herndl also outlines one of the dangers of radical pedagogy: it may set up a confrontation between teacher and students because it can be perceived as threatening to students’ values. He goes on to suggest that “since critique generally subverts the dominant ideology and this is the position typically occupied by students in professional writing courses, a confrontational pedagogy is more likely to produce opposition among the students than to encourage cultural resistance” (p. 228). In other words, radical pedagogy is difficult. In my experience as a novice TC/FYC instructor, radical pedagogy is extremely difficult.

It is telling that both Sullivan and Herndl’s article quote Bizzell: “Our dilemma is that we want to empower students in the dominant culture so that they can transform it from within; but we fear that if they do succeed, their thinking will be changed in such a way that they will no longer want to transform it.” In other words, if we teach students how to write well in the workplace, they may no longer have the motivation to question and change workplace practices.

I am still working to “empower students in the dominant culture;” that is, my primary concern is teaching them how to become successful writers in the workplace. That does not mean that I do not ask students to question the status quo (broadly speaking, why writers do what they do and why genres are they way they are); still, I would not consider myself a radical teacher. And I’m OK with that.

Herndl, C.G. (1993). “Teaching discourse and reproducing culture: A critique of research and pedagogy in professional and non-academic writing.” In J. Johnson-Eilola & S.A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 220-231). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Sullivan, D. L. (1990). “Political-ethical implications of defining technical communication as a practice.” In J. Johnson-Eilola & S.A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 211-219). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.