Channels, Fall 2016

Towne • Æsop’s Trumpeter, Aristotle’s Orator, and the Technical Communicator Page 88 Although Aristotle may not address it specifically, proximity is an important aspect of the Aristotelian feedback loop. As orators argue, they persuade live audiences. If audience members recognize that an orator is manipulating them, they can react publicly—perhaps even with force. Consequently, like Aristotle himself, audiences hold orators directly accountable for what and how they communicate. Analyzing Rhetoric in Contemporary Communication As scholars have begun to embrace classical rhetoric in recent years, they have applied Aristotle’s rhetorical theories to many disciplines outside of public speaking, including technical communication. As Ong (1975) writes, although rhetoric originally dealt with oral communication, “it has gradually extended to include writing more and more” and is even a principle concern of writing today (9). Although contemporary rhetoric certainly falls within the Aristotelian paradigm, the rhetoric of technical communication differs from what Aristotle originally suggests. Consequently, it seems that modern writers have accepted only part of Aristotle's rhetoric. The Communicator’s Responsibility Like Aristotle, modern technical communicators believe rhetoric is itself amoral. They use it as a tool that operates within a larger paradigm. Although the classical orator and the modern communicator might both define rhetoric itself as ethically neutral, they would not define the role of the communicator the same way. Technical communicators do not claim that they are authors; they prefer instead to remain anonymous parts of larger systems. They argue rhetoric is “the process of transferring information from someone who possesses it to someone who needs it. It moves the reader from a state of uncertainty to a state of certainty” (Warren quoted in Rutter 1985, 705). As technical communicators assert that they transfer or transmit instead of author information, they use rhetoric as the tool that mediates information between groups of experts and novices. Since they consider rhetoric an amoral tool, communicators often do not consider the ethical implications of their work. As science and technology have developed, so technical communication has also assumed the empirical values of such discourses. Technical communicators have removed themselves from their rhetorical situation and have undervalued ethics as technical communication has adapted to suit objectivism, technology, and standardized methodology (Jacobi 1990; Miller 1989). Charney (2004) suggests that technical communicators gain power when they associate with empiricism since they elevate their status as professionals if they work within the sciences. Charney (2004) also notes that to move technical communication away from the sciences would “[divorce] technical communication from the source of its power” (283). She considers objectivism the means by which communicators protect themselves from “powerful outsiders who want to steer work toward their own ends” (Charney 2004, 288). Some scholars have suggested that technical communicators should not associate themselves with the sciences exclusively (Miller 2004; Rutter 2004; Slack, Miller, and Doak 2004; Sullivan, 2004). Still, technical communicators commonly assert that their work is merely a means to an end. They suggest that they only mediate information between groups.