History, Rhetoric, and Humanism

In his article “History, Rhetoric, and Humanism,” Russell Rutter looks at a more comprehensive way to define technical communication. He begins his piece by discussing that technical writing is more than just writing proficiency; it also involves problem solving skills and the ability to work with other people (21). Technical communication, Rutter feels, needs to associate itself more with rhetoric and humane learning. Also, technical communicators need to go beyond just being users of systems; they need to be educated human beings.

Being and Knowing Before Doing and Writing: Technical Communication and the Liberal Arts Tradition
The tradition of technical communication asserts the primacy of knowing and being over willing and doing (22). According to this tradition, the person thinking is more important than the tools or systems being used. Rutter goes on to provide research of this tradition, which emphasizes the classical period, the Renaissance, and the nineteenth century. After these three periods, even more perspectives of technical communication were formed.

Scientific Progress Through Crisis and Its Implications for Technical Communication
Science and technology are often viewed as rigid subjects, and therefore most think that when writing about them, the language should also be rigid. However, this is not the case, and this thought needs to be brought into the open. The importance of the scientific method is often exaggerated, and the scientific and technological progress through spasmodic change, serendipitous discovery, and imaginative flexibility are often forgotten (26). Rigid procedures have not always brought about scientific advancement so it is hard to see how they would ensure the advancement of technical communication. Therefore, as technical communicators, if we must mimic science, we should also mimic the imaginative side as well.

The Evolution of Science and Technology and the Reductionism of Technical Communication Theory
As late as the seventeenth century, what passed as science was based on the authority of the ancients rather than experimentation (26). Technology wasn’t even really considered because it rested in the hands of guilds, artisans, and the illiterate. Rutter then goes on to describe more about the history of scientific advancement. Most of the great scientific advancements of the time came from just a few scientists. He notes that professors at Oxford were laid off because they couldn’t fill their science courses. It wasn’t until the Technical Instruction Act of 1881 that it became possible for Britons to study technical education (27). In the United States, the Morrill Act of 1862 brought about technical education by endowing what we now know as land grant colleges (27). With the increased enrollment in technology and science came a need for courses designed to teach about how to write about technology and science. However, these emphasized that the scientists provided the content, and the actual writing was just “frosting” (28). This form of rhetoric emphasized technical writing as a means to fitting facts into content outlines developed long ago. Rutter notes that by providing this history, we should be equipped with the knowledge needed to shape current practice (28).

Technical Communicators as Rhetoricians
“To understand the dynamic nature of science and technology and to discover that the supposed gods of objectivity and pragmatism are just the illegitimate offspring of expediency and misunderstanding is to realize that technical communication is rhetorical above all else (28). Rutter notes that if technical communicators aim to create versions of reality instead of serving as windows to reality, then technical communication must be fundamentally rhetorical. This is valuable in the workplace because communication should be seen as an open system, which is often not. Technical communication has to be rhetorical because its task is not to serve technology abstractly conceived but rather to produce “writing that accommodates technology to the user” (29). “Technical communicators, because they depend on both ‘knowledge and practice,’ because they rely on learning as guide to experience, and because they need to bring eloquence, empathy, and imagination to the world of work are—and should be expected to be—rhetoricians” (29).

The Values and Limitations of Research on the Culture of the Workplace
Rutter writes that the research for redefining technical communication defines a problem that it cannot be expected to solve. Through his reaserach, Rutter has found that technical communicators must do more than write. They must also possess the ability to function productively in the collaborative context of the workplace (30). Writers must be able to focus on the culture as an entity in which they must fit themselves. However, Rutter finds this similar to fitting content into pre-existent content outlines, which will not produce a result of progress (30).

Conclusion
Rutter concludes by stating that he wants to avoid negativism, and that he is not trying to deprecate the efforts of those who have devoted productive lives to writing well and teaching others to write well (31). However, he writes that the best way to advance would be to eliminate the biases against such subjects as rhetoric, literary criticism, and the history of science and technology, and to include teaching training. He notes that if as much effort is put into this as has been for cooperative education, then we will surely succeed in broadening the base of technical communication.