Already, posts have noted the numerous ways “audience” has been conceptualized in our readings for this week—and a lot on Kent’s essay. I’d like to look at how classical conceptions of rhetoric map to modern communication situations. And, with Kent as an inspiration, perhaps, show how these codifications can limit our understanding. (Though, in what would probably irritate Kent, I will provide some alternative categories.)

In “What Connection Does Rhetorical Theory Have to Technical and Professional Communication,” Smith spends time analyzing the classic rhetorical canon in an effort to show how it is applicable in technical and professional writing. While her descriptions of invention, arrangement and style resonate with contemporary communication, memory and delivery—along with some other elements of style—do not seem to mesh as comfortably with contemporary technical and professional communication.

In the “memory” subheading, for instance, Smith notes how modern rhetoricians are interested in “public memory” as a way of understanding public communication, but notes that is outside the scope of “memory,” which should be focused on the rhetor’s process. Instead, she says “memory may be seen as the act of writing something down as the ‘final draft’ after you are finished researching” (117). To me, this seems a bit of a stretch; perhaps Smith agrees, using the phrasing “may be seen” instead of a more direct claim. This isn’t to say that looking at how a piece of communication is recorded is not important, but it does beg the question of why we are attempting to graft it on to a centuries-old conception of communication. Even the idea of “final draft” seems a bit off from what I understand to be the classical idea of “memory.” The “memory” may not be word-for-word, the way a final draft is. Perhaps something that alludes to the more expansive nature of communication may be a better replacement for “memory.” I would suggest something like “medium.” Here, we could look more specifically about how, or where, communication is stored and how that affects our creation and interpretation of communication.

This conception then brings us into the next part of the canon, “delivery.” I believe one could easily say that “delivery” might be a better fit for “medium.” That said, Smith brings up a germane point about “delivery” in contemporary schema when she notes “publishers, media producers, and event planners have more control over this final process of rhetorical production than do the original authors or speakers” (118). This was likely not the case with much “classical” rhetoric. And studying this disconnect between the author and the “deliverer” may be an important part of rhetorical analysis. But it may need a different name to refocus how we approach it. This disconnect Smith describes reminds me of what Mackenzie Wark in A Hacker Manifesto describes as the “hacker” class and the “vectoralist” class. The hacker, in Wark’s view, “abstracts” new things from raw information. The “vectoralist” tries to control the flow of the new material. He mirrors this on Marx’s capitalist vs. proletariat. Understanding how those “vectors” affect the communication is interesting. But, referring to this as analyzing “delivery” seems outdated.

Style, as part of the rhetor’s process, seems relatively straightforward at first. But, as you trouble this with the multi-variable reality of many texts, then this style is necessarily affected by both “memory”—or perhaps “medium”—and “delivery”—or perhaps, “vector.” While a rhetor may choose specific words, analyzing these choices becomes more complex if the rhetor is working with others. Or if the words may be translated to multiple media—perhaps a press release to be sent, in print, to a newspaper wire, to be published online on an organizations Web site, and to be read on a radio spot. The same rhetor may make all the stylistic decisions. But, these decisions are complicated by the medium that is to be used and by the vector through which it is transmitted. The classical conception of “style” may be too narrowly hemmed in by the assumption that communication is happening as an oral address.

Kent would no-doubt balk at my invocation of his essay. For I doubt changing the codifications would address his concerns with the way language works. But, while I am sympathetic to Kent’s argument, I believe these sort of codifications have their place. No doubt they do not fully capture the way we communicate. But they will capture the way we communicate less completely if we do not question them. So, perhaps we should look at the way rhetoric affects writing in new ways to ensure we don’t get stuck in one way of thinking.

 

Kent, Thomas. “Paralogic Hermeneutics and the Possibilities of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review 8.1 (1989): 24-42. JSTOR. Web. 27 Aug. 2012. PDF.

 

Smith, Tania. “What Connection Does Rhetorical Theory Have to Technical and Professional Communication?’ Readings for Technical Communication. Ed. Jennifer MacLennan.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 114-121. PDF.

 

Wark, Mackenzie. A Hacker Manifesto… (The book is not with me right now—nor is my MLA handbook for citations. An online version of the text (which I don’t think matches, exactly, the printed version, is here: http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html)