Channels, Fall 2016

Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 93 The Communicator’s Responsibility Because contemporary rhetorical theory often divorces communication from its context, communicators need to revive Aristotle’s ideas of ethical rhetoric and authorial responsibility. As Corbett and Connors (1999) note, communicators should not embrace classical rhetoric simply because it becomes more venerable as it ages. They should model their work after Aristotle’s ideas because what he suggests is both relevant and useful. Since persuasive rhetoric is latent in society, technical communicators especially must understand how rhetoric works within their discourses. Moreover, as they take responsibility for what they communicate, they should use their newfound power to empower audiences in other discourses. Just as Aristotle’s orator considered “any subject which [was] open to discussion and deliberation” (Grimaldi 1980), so the technical communicator is also qualified to write in any discourse. Communicators today find themselves working in a wide range of fields where they exchange information; however, they should not feel that their discourses limit them. If they understand that they are responsible for what they communicate, they should feel prepared to decide how to employ their rhetoric. Since technical communicators often operate within pragmatist or positivist paradigms, they separate the means of communication from its end; however, communicators cannot ignore the larger contexts of their discourses. If communicators separate their work from its contexts, they miss what Grimaldi considers “the essential link between deliberation and action” (Katz 2004, 199). Technical communication—maybe even more than any other kind of communication—leads to action. Since technical communicators always persuade others to act, they must do so ethically. Whether the communicator drafts a manual or a presidential speech, audience members interact with and respond to communication. Moreover, technical communicators often work within government and industrial hierarchies, and their work reflects the ideas of such entities. Consequently, as Miller (2004) asserts, “[i]f we pretend for a minute that technical writing is objective, we have passed off a particular political ideology as a privileged truth” (52). If technical communicators do not identify the values latent in their discourses, they will perpetuate the goals of larger power systems. Consequently, since communication is not objective, technical communicators cannot ignore their authorial responsibility. They must acknowledge that they create meaning and motivate action. If technical communicators understand that their rhetoric is a powerful tool that advances social action, they will realize that they must consider the good of their audiences above all else. As Aristotle asserts, when communicators attempt to write to their audiences and suit their needs, they will combine logos , pathos , and ethos in an ethical manner. Of course, an audience-based approach to technical communication is not a particularly novel idea. However, if technical communicators assert themselves as authors, then they can envision their audiences as judges like Aristotle suggests. Moreover, if they revive a more tangible feedback loop, they will have more incentive to operate with wisdom so that they can best serve their audiences. Kennedy (1991) notes that Aristotle’s orator could succeed only by “[attending] and [adjusting] to the ethos of varied types of auditor” (148). Although