Channels, Fall 2016

Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 85 communicator’s status, saying that “it is only when the meaning is seen as the result of a creative act and not a discovery, that rhetoric will be perceived as the supreme discipline it deserves to be” (161). Although both Bitzer (1999) and Vatz (1999) assert that rhetoric leads to action, they disagree as to whether rhetoric itself creates meaning. As scholars have debated about rhetoric, so they have argued over the communicator’s role in the rhetorical situation. In fact, much of the scholarship of technical communication attempts to define the field since scholars believe that if they outline the discourse, they may also articulate communicators’ roles (For representative essays, see Dandridge; Harris; Hays; Hogan; Kelly and Mass; Limay; MacIntosh; Stratton; Walter; Zall). In his article “What is Technical Writing? A Redefinition,” Britton (1975) defines technical writing as a positivist skill, a communication that has “one meaning and only one meaning” (11). However, Dobrin (1983) redefines technical writing as “writing that accommodates technology to the user” (242). Neither Britton (1975) nor Dobrin (1983) are the first or the last scholars to define technical communication. As the field expands to accommodate new technologies, so the definition will also change. In light of such definitions, many scholars assert that technical communicators transfer or translate knowledge (Hughes 2002; Johnson-Eilola 1996; Katz 2004; Rutter 2004; Slack, Miller, and Doak 2004). Slack, Miller, and Doak (2004) note that if communicators transmit knowledge, then they purvey meaning as neutral parts of larger power systems. Likewise, if they translate information, then they mediate meaning and create delegate power between sender and receiver but do not influence communication themselves. However, Rutter (2004) and others suggest that technical communicators actually generate knowledge (Katz 2004; Miller 2004; Slack, Miller, and Doak 2004; Vatz 1999). If technical communicators author knowledge, then they articulate meaning and become equal parts of larger power systems (Hughes 2002; Slack, Miller, and Doak 2004). As scholars have deliberated how technical communicators influence communication, they have also considered how technical communicators operate in the political realm specifically (Auerbach, 2015; Johnstone 1980; Sullivan 2004; Yack, 2006). Although many scholars attempt to define the communicator’s role, Allen (1990) suggests that the negative effects of defining the discourse outweigh the positive ones since defining technical writing would divide the field. However, scholars will likely continue to define—or attempt to define— the discourse. As scholars have discussed the ideas surrounding classical and contemporary rhetoric in technical communication, they have outlined different roles for the orator and for the communicator. However, an Aristotelian perspective of rhetoric better serves contemporary technical communicators because it gives them both power and responsibility. Of course, Aristotle’s notion of the ethical communicator contrasts aspects of contemporary scholarship, especially scholarship that suggests that rhetoric in technical communication is linguistically neutral. However, just as Æsop’s trumpeter blew his horn to rally the troops, so technical communicators employ rhetoric to persuade their audiences to act. Because communicators use rhetoric to persuade their audiences, they must embrace the power and responsibility of authorship. If technical communicators accept their responsibility as authors, they equip themselves to engage political discourse.