Missed Connections within the History of Technical Communications and Writing
If we can communicate well, then we communicate effectively and productively; we understand what others are showing and teaching us, and we can, therefore, communicate those ideas. If we cannot communicate well, there breeds the endless cycle of confusion and resentment; no one can understand the other, nor comprehend their viewpoints, their motives, or their goals. Everyone’s goals are fundamentally the same, to succeed, to prosper, to be happy. However, this cannot be communicated so everyone continues to speak in different tongues, conflicts remain which build into more isolation from personal expression or understanding, some prosper while others are swept to the side in their failed attempts to speak.
This somewhat dramatic introduction stemmed from the overarching theme of communication and, in many ways, the lack of sufficient communication and connections in the history of the development of technical writing and communications. I find it terribly ironic that the divide between the humanities and the utilities was a failure to understand the viewpoints of the other side and integrate the two faculties.
The industries into which the fresh graduates were being thrown, found them lacking in the technical communications and the technical writing needed to be able to work well in their fields. So, it seems easy to implement a course within their studies that teaches them to be able to write and communicate on the basic level so that they can write well within their fields and connect with those who need to have the knowledge that these more scientific minds possess. Who would have known that a technical writing course could cause so much discourse throughout history? It seems simple to me that one can implement a writing education requirement without starting a huge debate. But of course, creating a whole new section of education takes a lot of organization of ideas and concepts in order to be implemented effectively and usefully. I can however understand the viewpoints of those on either side. As a writer who straddles the line between creative writing and professional writing, I find the conflict between the two departments interesting to delve into. The classics wish to not sully the English department with writing that does not rise to their expectations of cultural and literary values. They also find it tedious to try and develop teaching techniques for classes that the engineering and mechanical based studies students can take. The practical brains within the engineering and mechanical disciplines find the study of literature to be a waste of time that could be spend progressing in a utilitarian direction.
I find this same attitude within undergraduate students in basic composition classes. They do not seem aware that a basis in writing is directly connected to the basis of speaking, thinking, and interacting with those around them.
I would also like to throw out for discussion this quote, from Rutter’s conclusion,
“What we need to understand is that majors and careers are byproducts of education, not the purposes for which it should be sought.” (Rutter, 32)
Pondering on this for my reading response, I ended up confusing myself and leaving it alone to process.
Influences:
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. “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.
Sullivan, Patricia. “After the Great War: Utility, Humanities, and Tracings From a Technical Writing Class in the 1920s.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 26.2 (2012): 202-228. PDF.