Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Adams,

MA TCH402,
SP2013 Miller
Response, Draft

Introduction
Carolyn Miller, in her A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing
addresses a valid, albeit frequently contested, argument concerning the
necessity of a humanistic approach to the traditionally positivistic framework of
technical writing. Miller argues that by using rhetoric via the modern
consensualist perspective of science, science and technical writing may be
evolved--from coercive to persuasive, from purely positivistic to humanistic. She
presents this as a necessary step to move tech com (and especially tech com
pedagogy) from just a skills endeavor to a true humanities discipline.
In this response to Millers article, I will clarify her discussion of positivism
vs. humanism and how tech com is encompassed by both perspectives.
Additionally, I will expound upon the consensualist perspective. With these
concepts clarified, I will then discuss this perspective as a bridge across which
tech com has evolved.
Positivism
The 19th Century philosopher Auguste Comte coined the term that posits
that science, math, or logic can prove any reasonable claim and the only true
form of knowledge is the description of sensory phenomena. (positivism, 2008)
This concept morphed into the idea of creating scientific standards for resolving
all issues.
Miller explains the positivist view of science as, a complex and varied
traditionthe conviction that sensory data are the only permissible basis for
knowledge; consequently, the only meaningful statements are those which can
be empirically verified. (p.612) From this idea, science has been trying to devise
a purely scientific, for lack of a better term, languageone consisting only of
terms that directly indicate logic or observation and is utterly devoid of any
linguistic clutter.
Miller states, language, based as it is in personal psychology, is just a
distraction for science; and rhetoric is just irrelevant, because conclusions
followfrom the data of observation and the procedure of logic. (p. 613) With
this view in mind, she explains how we have applied the concept of absolute
reality to tech com. Specifically to the various definitions of tech com.
Essentially, she argues that the positivistic viewpoint focuses language away
from its innately rhetorical structure, stripping it down to passive voiced, third
person constructions that aim at being an efficient way of coercing minds to
submit to reality. (p. 610)
Miller establishes the traditional contrast between science and rhetoric
simply: Science has to do with observation and logicabsolute reality. Rhetoric
has to do with symbols and emotions, the stuff of uncertain, incomplete
appearances. (p. 611)

Adams, MA

TCH402, SP2013
Miller Response, Draft
Miller claims that the forced application of positivistic frameworks to
technical and scientific writing have dictated that they abstain from the use of
rhetorical techniques, as science and rhetoric are mutually exclusive. (p. 611)
Miller quotes various TC textbooks and their claims as to what technical writing is
and finds these definitions devoid of emotion and partiality, fact-based, utilitarian,
exact and inelegant. (p. 611)
Miller further explains that the positivistic view of tech com is dependent
upon the Windowpane Theory of Language: the theory that language provides a
view out onto the real world (p. 612) And this view, it is believed, should never
be fogged with anything so florid as rhetoric. It is this non-rhetorical view of
science (p. 613) and the frameworks were instructed to build our writing on, that
Miller argues make technical and scientific writing a tool for intellectual
coercion. (p. 613) The positivistic view asserts that if the audience cannot see
through the window and view the concepts, then perhaps they are simply not tall
enough (in other words, not well-informed or well-educated). There is no room in
the positivistic view for a rhetorical de-fogger.
Humanism
The Renaissances renewed interest in the study of Greek and Roman
literature initially fashioned the concept of humanism: "a rediscovery of the unity
of human beings and nature, and a renewed celebrations of the pleasures of
lifeany philosophy concerned to emphasize human welfare and
dignityoptimistic about the powers of human reason, or at least insistent that
we have no alternative but to use it as best we can. (humanism, 2008).
In our modern sense, it is the conceptual view of the world via the
individualthat man is the highest form with the most potential: for knowledge,
for technology, for epistemological processes, etc. For example, psychology,
history, and literature are humanistic because these fields focus on the affairs of
human beings. These fields are also humanistic in that the ideas and theories
they put forth require the originator to persuade their audience that a new
concept, theory, approach, etc. is not only appropriate, but that the conclusions
drawn are possible and correct.
This differs greatly from science. Miller tells us that science and human
knowledge, is a matter of getting closer to the material things of reality and
farther away from the confusing and untrustworthy imperfections of words and
minds. (p. 610) Humanistic pursuits, then, seek to examine, quantify, clarify, and
qualify exactly these confusing and untrustworthy imperfections. It is such
imperfections that, in part, keep the human in humanism.
Consensualist Perspective
The consensualist perspective is drawn from the philosophy of
perspectivism. To clarify this, we must initially define perspectivism and then

Adams, MA

TCH402, SP2013
Miller Response, Draft
explain in what way the addition of consensualism essentially alters its meaning
and forms a new view.
Perspectivism is the view that all truth is truth from within a particular
perspective. The perspective may be a general human point of view, set by such
things as the nature of our sensory apparatus, or it may be thought to be bound
by culture, history, language, class, or gender. (perspectivism, 2008) Note that
perspectivism does not reject the positivist view out of hand. Rather, the positivist
view is included within perspectivism in this definitionit becomes a part, rather
than the sole pursuit of, our sensory apparatus.
Consensualism, as its parts suggest, is the deliberate arrival at a
consensus or an agreement by a group. Consensual is defined in the Oxford
English Dictionary as relating to or involving consent (2013) and, as far as my
research has shown, there are no current definitions of consensualism, per se.
However, by combining the two terms, perspectivism and consensual, we
may safely arrive at a general definition for consensualist perspective: that truths
from within a particular perspective are regarded as truths by a consensus of the
members who associate with that particular perspective.
Miller does provide us with a brief summary of the consensualist
perspective, stating that it holds that whatever we know of reality is created by
individual action and by communal assent. (p. 615) In direct contrast to
positivism, which states that all knowledge is pre-existing and weve only to
observe and quantify it to prove its existence, consensualism counters that
[f]acts do not exist independently, waiting to be found and collected and
systematized; facts are human constructions (p.615)
Millers argument here is that science is, in fact, a humanistic endeavor.
Science is not accomplished in isolated observationbut in the widest
agreement with other people. (p. 616) Millers implicit argument is that, though
science needs a positivistic framework in which to record its observations and
datafor certainly the more accurate the information, the more credible it is
science itself, because it is done by human beings for, essentially, the betterment
of other human beings, is, through and through, a rhetorical endeavor.
Scientific information is invisible until it is brought to the attention of other
scientists and the public. Even then, such information is not considered fact or
truth until it has been replicated and the results confirmed by others. Hence, the
communal assent aspect of the consensualist perspective; and when such
information is brought to the public it must again find communal assent, albeit
usually in less technical (positivistic) language.
The bridge
Millers implicit argument is: we should shift our approach to tech com
pedagogy away from the positivistic framework to which it has been traditionally
affixed. We should move toward a more humanistic approach via the
consensualist perspective.

Adams, MA

TCH402, SP2013
Miller Response, Draft
Meaning, there does exist a human part of scientific and technical
writingand humans are, by nature, innate users of rhetoric. She states, the
relationship between science and rhetoric, can provide a basis for seeing
technical writing as a more humanistic and less coercive endeavor. (p. 611) She
goes on to state that [g]ood technical writing becomes, rather than the revelation
of absolute reality, a persuasive version of experience. (p. 616) It is by this
opening of the door onto rhetoric that we may invite tech com into the humanities.
Science is not an absolute; it is a process that humans undertake to
expand knowledge. Galileo asserted that the sun was the center of our solar
system; Einstein posited that light was affected by mass. Both men were
considered wrong by their contemporariesyet both were proven correct with the
acquisition of new knowledge. Essentially, science is not the absolute that the
positivistic view asserts. It is a process of communal assent. Since it is such, we
should be required to neither teach nor write in a manner that supports what
Aristotle would classify as a fallacy.
It is impossible to entirely separate technical and scientific writing from the
positivist perspective. However, we have seen a shift in modern definitions from
those in Millers initial publication. Take, for example, our departments definition
of technical communication and compare it to Millers quote of Ulman and
Goulds definition:
Technical communication, whether written, oral, or visual, enables people
to use technology effectively, to understand technology and to make
effective decisions about real-world problems. (technical communication,
2013)
Technical communication has one certain clear purpose: to convey
information and ideas accurately and efficiently. (1972, p. 5)
S&Ts definition makes mention of people and, by doing so, places the program
squarely in the humanistic realm. Tech com enables people to use, understand,
and make decisions about technology. Ulman and Goulds definition is phrased in
such a manner as to make one certain that the information their technical
communication conveys is for expertsit is well entrenched in the positivistic
view.
Conclusion
We know, as modern tech com students (whove read several textbooks
about and innumerable articles within the discipline), that our field is as yet
imperfectly defined. Attempts at an encompassing definition of our field are still a
contentious point of divergencebetween academics and practitioners, between
practitioners, and between academics. Yet Millers article brings the argument of

Adams, MA

TCH402, SP2013
Miller Response, Draft
who are we, what do we do, and how should we teach it? to the fore.
Millers advocacy for a diminution of the positivist view and an acceptance
of the consensualist perspective possibly foretold the path our field would
eventually takethe path we, as modern technical communicators, find
ourselves upon. A path to the humanistic view, regularly traversed by rhetoric.

Adams, MA

TCH402, SP2013
Miller Response, Draft
References
Consensual. (2013). In Oxford english dictionary (online). Retrieved February 7,
2013.
Humanism. (2008). In Oxford dictionary of philosophy (online). Retrieved
February 4, 2013
Miller, C. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English,
40(6), 610-617
Perspectivism. (2008). In Oxford dictionary of philosophy (online). Retrieved
February 4, 2013
Positivism. (2008). In Oxford dictionary of philosophy (online). Retrieved
February 4, 2013
Ulman, J.N., Jr. and Gould, J.R. (1972). Technical reporting (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
Technical communication. (2013). In Missouri S&Ts Department of english and
technical communication (online). Retrieved February 7, 2013.

Вам также может понравиться