Andrea L. Beaudin
Britton, W. Earl. “What Is Technical Writing?” Critical Theory and the Teaching of Composition, Satire, Autobiography. Spec. issue of College Composition and Communication 16.2 (1965): 113-116. JSTOR. Web. 3 Sept. 2010.
This 1965 article is one of the earliest academic discussions of technical writing—at least one of the earliest accessible from academic databases. Britton’s purpose is to define technical writing—a concept commonly misunderstood, especially within the academy—and the tasks of both teachers and authors of technical writing. He categorizes previous attempts as defining as: subject matter (typically, science or engineering); language (serious, factual, objective, and using special terminology); thought process (not associative but sequential); or purpose (“functional literature” [Knapp, qtd. in Britton 114]). Britton argues, quite simply, that technical writing is clear, unambiguous, and precise writing that should not be open to interpretation. He concludes with a call for technical writing to be taught in educational institutions across the curriculum, arguing that it is more reflective of real-world writing situations than current composition assignments and expectations.
One of the greatest benefits of this article is its age; it provides an historical point of context. Although evolving technologies and a variety of other developments have since impacted the field, defining the discipline and reconciling the perceived schism between academia and the “real world” are still hotly contested topics, as Dobrin (among others) reiterates.
The timing of this article makes me very curious. What would Britton have thought of Foucault's and Derrida's works and theories? These works seem to be rather concurrent. How would Britton's definition match with Foucault's criticisms of language and knowledge? And, if this is one of the first major attempts to define TC, how does this square with Derrida's originary complexity/deconstructionism? Perhaps this is just a circular attempt at understanding things and I can't expect you to have responses to questions dead men should be answering. I just think the connections are very interesting and we could possibly benefit from the intertextuality of these works.
ReplyDeleteThis gets me thinking all sorts of difficult thinks to think.
The Order of Things, according to almighty Wikipedia, was published in 1966 and Derrida introduced the term deconstruction in 1967, so the thinkers are formulating their ideas during the same eras. I wondered if the Continentals would have smirked when that line about "clear, unambiguous" writing came up... but I also thought it interesting to think about who Britton was writing to: college instructors. This is one of the earliest attempts I can find at defining the discipline, and it's happening in academia, not "real world." People aren't asking what they're doing; universities are asking how to categorize the courses (ok, I'm oversimplifying, but...). Foucault might have something to say about the role of power and institutions in that regard.
ReplyDeleteWe could try a séance to see if we could get some of these dead men talking.