1. Technical Communicators (and Others) as Rhetoricians
While I found all of this week’s readings to be quite informative, accessible, and engaging, I was especially drawn to Russell Rutter’s article, “History, Rhetoric, and Humanism.” On a very basic level, I found Rutter’s article especially beneficial in answering some of my general questions about the nature of technical writing. For example, I asked last week during class about the balance that technical writers are expected to find between writing aptitude and technical mastery. I (like several of my peers as pointed out in their reading responses) especially appreciated one particular statement in Rutter’s article that answers my question almost directly: “Technical writing . . . is one-third writing proficiency, one-third problem-solving skills, and one-third ability to work with other people” (21).
Aside from gaining a great deal of clarity about the field of technical writing in general, I also bought into Rutter’s argument that we can define technical communicators as rhetoricians if we agree that writing is “an activity that by its selection and organization of information and its assessment of audience creates its own version of reality and then strives to win the consensus of its readers that this version is valid” (28). With the understanding that technical writers are not simply reporting upon the reality that is but are instead contributing to the creation of that reality, the argument that technical communicators engage in rhetoric is clear.
So Rutter argues that because technical communicators construct reality by selecting and organizing information, making assessments about their audience, and endeavoring to prove their validity to that audience, their work is rhetorical. While I agree with that, I am left questioning what in that argument is specific to technical communicators alone. In other words, could we make the argument that any other profession in which individuals construct reality by selecting and organizing information, making assessments about their audience, and endeavoring to prove their validity to that audience is rhetorical as well? Could an architect who creates a plan for a new office building by selecting and organizing spatial, aesthetic, etc information, catering his plans to his client, and striving to win the consensus of his client also be considered a rhetorician? Could a portrait photographer who decides on the best lighting, aperture, composition, editing, etc of a shot while assessing the needs of and finding consensus with his client also be considered a rhetorician?
Rutter goes on to explain that technical communicators are rhetoricians “because they depend on both ‘knowledge and practice,’ because they rely on learning as a guide to experience, and because they need to bring eloquence, empathy, and imagination to the world of work” (29). This point again makes me think that there are many, many other professions that fit those criteria too.
Maybe we are (or I am, at least) so quick to accept the argument that technical communicators are rhetoricians because we are aware of the clear parallels between the disciplines of communication and rhetoric. But what about the parallels between rhetoric and other disciplines that aren’t so clear? I don’t want to diminish the argument that technical communicators are rhetoricians, because I do believe it is a strong one, but I am left questioning if this argument is as exclusive as it seemed in this article.
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.
Hi Jillian. I often have the same “isn’t everything rhetoric?” thought process when trying to define technical writing, and I really appreciate your question about “the balance that technical writers are expected to find between writing aptitude and technical mastery”? For instance, in my question in class last week, I asked what the parallels between tech writing and art were. In my after-class conversation with Ashleigh, I connected art to imagery to visual rhetoric to advertisements to the marketing career. Would I then be in the tech writing field or the marketing field?
I think you’re right. Every career uses rhetoric! Rhetoric seems to be the new word for engaging with the world through both knowledge and practice. Because you are earning your PWE degree, I wonder what you would like to do with your degree? You will have a lot of specialized training in writing and communication that does not directly apply to any one field. What are the benefits of that, for you? I know these questions are annoying. I suffer them often as an MFA student, but I have to provide my own answers, and I’m just wondering what yours are for your field.
Christina, I really like your idea of finding a connecting between technical communication and art. When you first asked that question in class, I, like you, was stumped to find an answer. I think you’re absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that the link between technical communication and art is rhetoric (which is so appropriate given this week’s readings!), visual rhetoric specifically. I also appreciate your and Ashleigh’s thought to focus an abstract concept like “art” into a specific discipline like marketing. My initial impression, however, is that visual rhetoric is essential in many other fields besides marketing and advertising. I imagine web designers, photojournalists, television and film producers, editors, interior designers, architects, publishers, and many other professionals also employ ideas of visual rhetoric in the workplace.
Of course, a degree in Professional Writing directly lends itself to a number of specific career paths (editing, publishing, web design, technical writing, grant writing, etc), although the skills we learn in this program could make us successful in countless other fields as well. For me, that is the benefit of having an education in rhetoric and professional writing outside of any one particular field: the opportunity to succeed in the field of my choosing. Like I said in my response to Rachel’s post, I may have to learn the very specific skills of a position while I’m on the job (like how to write a requirement specification document, for example), but the solid foundation in rhetoric, writing, and communication that this program has afforded me will allow me to learn those things quickly and easily. I don’t think that theoretical foundation, unlike specific skills, can be learned on the job.
The idea of finding a connection between technical writing and visual rhetoric actually ties directly into my response to your questions regarding my personal career aspirations. Admittedly, thinking about a career in technical writing does not at all sound appealing to me. I would much prefer to find a job that has a more obvious connection to visual rhetoric than technical writing does. I love web design, editing, and multimedia writing, so a career in editing or publishing would be ideal for me. Again, I will have to learn specialized skills on the job, but I will be successful because of my education in rhetoric and professional writing.