Channels, Fall 2016

Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 81 Æsop’s Trumpeter, Aristotle’s Orator, and the Technical Communicator Ruth Towne Communication — Cedarville University Introduction n his Fables , Æsop describes the story of a trumpeter who had ventured too close to where his enemies camped. With ease, his antagonists captured and prepared to execute him. “Wait!” he pleaded. “I do not fight! I blow this trumpet—I have no weapon. I won’t hurt you! Why would you kill me?” To his cries for mercy, one soldier replied, “You may not fight yourself, but you encourage and guide your men to the fight.” And so, concerning the unfortunate trumpeter Æsop writes, Parem delinquentis et suasoris culpam esse : the fault belongs alike to the wrongdoer and the persuader (Jacobs 1964). Unfortunately, the distinct melody of a trumpet call does not always accompany persuasive discourse. Much persuasive rhetoric remains latent in communication. Just as audiences may not recognize when they encounter persuasive rhetoric, so technical communicators may also fail to recognize how they persuade audiences. Too often, communicators identify themselves with Æsop’s trumpeter—since they do not believe their rhetoric is a weapon that allows them to persuade audiences, they do not believe that they perpetuate social action. They do not realize that they rally their troops. Although many classical theorists delegate ethical responsibility to communicators, contemporary rhetorical theorists often do not. In the broad discourse of technical communication especially, many communicators do not call themselves authors and would not say that they persuade their audiences. Many communicators operate in the discourses of science and technology where they argue that they mediate, translate, or transmit information. They act as though their rhetoric is simply a tool of communication. Because they believe their work is linguistically neutral, they often blow their trumpets without first understanding for whom they play. Since they do not see the ways in which they perpetuate social action with their rhetoric, they often do not question the implicit values of their discourses. Thus, the question arises: how do technical communicators employ their rhetoric, and to what extent are they responsible for it? This paper attempts to revive an Aristotelian perspective of rhetoric and authorial responsibility in order to assert that technical I