The Rise of Rhetoric in the Teaching of Technical Writing
The history of the teaching of technical writing seems to arc from a narrower focus on teaching engineers to perform specific writing tasks to a broader focus in training engineers in rhetoric. This path seems coincident with increasing enrollments of engineers in universities. A pivotal point seems to occur around 1980, as people like Carolyn Miller seem to argue for a more expansive view of rhetoric in the teaching of technical writing. In part, this may also be due to the field of technical writing itself cohering—and, in particular, cohering within English departments.
I wonder, though, whether we may be facing influences beyond the establishment of technical writing as a field unto itself. Specifically, I wonder if the increasing focus on rhetoric comes from a longer arc. We can look to Russell Rutter’s “History, Rhetoric and Humanism: Toward a More Comprehensive Definition of Technical Communication” for a longer outline about the shifting focus on rhetoric. Of particular interest, Rutter notes that during the 17th century, scientists explicitly tried to remove “rhetoric” from the dialog of science, instead striving to create a language that would directly reflect scientific outcomes. Largely, this was because these scientific outcomes were of interest to a small and insular group—there was no need to address a wider audience (26-27). Carolyn Miller takes a similar tack, showing how a “positivist” view of science mandated that scientists express themselves literally—rhetoric was seen as superfluous or even dangerous (49-50). Both Rutter and Miller note that changes in science helped to promote rhetoric in science writing. Rutter notes the overall expansion of who viewed science writing, while Miller shows that modern science is established through “consensus”—a rhetorical product—rather than by virtue of a single person’s scientific results.
While the field of technical communication becoming self aware may have contributed to defining rhetoric as a greater need, both Rutter and Miller show that outside events have also pushed rhetoric into the technical writing classroom. And, during the 1980s, it seems the calls for teaching rhetoric increased. Robert Connors states in “The Rise of Technical Writing Instruction in America” that through the 1970s, rhetorically based texts gained prominence (17). But, I believe that two published articles by Miller—published a decade apart—bring this into sharp relief. In her 1979 essay, “A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing,” Miller concludes that an “enculturation” to technical communities is necessary for technical writers (52). However, in 1979, she linked this specifically to understanding “technological communities” (52). Ten years later, Miller writes that technical writing should embody the Aristotelian idea of practical rhetoric (68-69) and should thus focus on the conduct of the writer in contributing positively to a community at large. This much broader conception of rhetoric and community in the technical writing classroom shows a shift over the decade of the 1980s.
I am interested in the affect that two other factors might have had in the increasing emphasis on rhetoric in the technical writing classroom. First, I believe that the increasing scope of what is considered a “technological community” (Miller, 52) has affected the importance of rhetoric in technical writing instruction. While in 1979, the publication date of Miller’s first article discussed here, the technological community might have been relatively narrow—focusing on technical professions and perhaps a few hobbyists—, the “technological community” of 1989 may have been broader—encompassing consumers of products like VCRs and video game systems, even early home computers. We can extrapolate an increasing scope of “technological communities” to our current situation, with electronics becoming more integrated into everyday life. Here, then, the approach to writing as practical rhetoric to affect the broader community makes more sense.
Second, I believe this proliferation of technological communities, through the proliferation in technology, has also created a proliferation of ways that a technical writer must communicate. Connors notes that, during the formative years of technical writing, textbooks focused on “forms” that technical writers would have to produce (8-9). At the time of publication in 1982, Connors notes this focus remains “the basis for most textbook organization today” (8). Both essays by Miller and Rutter’s essay point to a development of rhetoric concerned with aspects beyond form, moving into an understanding of the technical writer as someone who is a part of a community and someone who must be able to think through a multitude of writing tasks.
In this way, I believe part of the increasing emphasis on rhetoric comes from the need for technical writers to communicate in myriad “forms.” Because of the proliferation of forms, a textbook written to accommodate a set number of forms might become obsolete soon after it was written. This has become more prevalent of late. New ways of communicating continue to emerge, and so, technical writers must have a strong understanding of rhetoric per se rather than an understanding of rhetoric narrowed to highly specific forms or audiences.
Works cited:
Connors, Robert J. “The Rise of Technical Writing in America.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eiola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 4-19. Print.
Miller, Carolyn R. “A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eiola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 48-54. Print.
Miller, Carolyn R. “What’s Practical about Technical Writing?” Professional Writing and Rhetoric: Readings from the Field. Ed. Tim Peeples. New York: Longman, 2003. PDF.
Rutter, Russell. “History, Rhetoric, and Humanism: Toward a More Comprehensive Definition of Technical Writing.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eiola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 20-34. Print.