Meta-comment, Week 13
Rhetoric and ethics surfaced as the major themes of discussion from the week thirteen reading assignment. Although four out of five of the launch posts created by the members of team Gorgias concentrated on the same Cezar Ornatowski article entitled, “Between Efficiency and Politics: Rhetoric and Ethics in Technical Writing,” each thread produced different ideas and focal points. This meta-comment will make an effort to summarize the topics of conversation in each thread, and to identify major points and concepts brought up throughout each discussion.
To start, Matthew Mohammed constructed an effective launch post regarding the ethical differentiation within separate social collectives discussed in Ornatowski’s article. Using school and work settings as his example, Matthew questions the difference between the set of ethics for corporations in opposition to the one taught by teachers and parents. He states that there is no problem or dilemma in technical writing, “there is simply a lack of understanding on how these systems work” (Mohammed). In a response post from Anne Renicek, she states, “I think it a problem and dilemma in technical writing that this "system" of communication exists in the first place,” thus unraveling the issues behind the matter (Renicek). This idea of an underlying “system” or set of guidelines appears within other forums as well.
Ornatowski’s article is also the topic of conversation in Darcie’s launch post. Unlike the previous forum, however, Darcie’s thread focuses more on the contradictory idea of viewing technical writing as both, effective and objective. In the conclusion of her post, Darcie asks, “is it even possible to produce a plain document that is also effective and readable?” (Fuller). Jennifer Norman, Nick Hornbrook, Jackie McKee, and Leroy Bridges all contributed useful opinions, information and answers to some of Darcie’s initial questions. A prominent issue within the discussion is the attempt to delineate the societal definition of an “objective” document. Jennifer writes, “if documents were seen as inter-subjective, rather than subjective or objective, people would realize that documents can be effective, truthful, and ethical all at once” (Norman).
Brad Fawaz takes a different approach to Ornatowski’s article in his launch post by comparing it to the advice on ethics provided by Weiss in Learning from Strangers. Throughout the post, Brad discusses the parallels between writing an ethical interview report and other types of technical documents. He states, “ both authors encourage valuable considerations in our rhetorical methods for composing technical documents in a practical setting, and when conducting accompanying research. Yet both authors also stress the immense importance of considering details as minute as choices of word omission in interview exerts” (Fawaz). Focusing on the importance of clarity, objectivity, and neutrality in technical writing, the post explores rhetorical strategy in terms of various types of documented communication.
In addition to the elements of objectivity and efficacy discussed in the previous threads, Brian’s post focuses the notion that the situation in which rhetoric is used affects the way in which it is interpreted. Stating, “there is a fine line between ethical and unethical rhetoric,” Brian stresses the importance of knowing one’s audience and possessing the skills needed to be a successful technical writer. In response, Jackie McKee extends these issues to include the notion of guidelines or specific codes involved when creating a document. She states, “every situation is rhetorical and has ethical dilemmas; most of these dilemmas go unnoticed because the choices are so ingrained in us as good and bad – that we make the decision without knowing we have made one at all,” implying that the ideas and teachings instilled in us influence the way we take in a situation and the way that we make decisions.
Drifting away from Ornatowski’s article, Ingrid Hardy focuses her launch post on James Porter’s essay, “Framing Postmodern Commitment and Solidarity.” Ingrid discusses the breakdown of the “Golden Rule” and the way that our changing society has affected the values and principles of the average person. She writes, “ there can be a fine line between persuasive and unethical,” suggesting that the writer must pay close attention to overstepping his or her boundaries. One response from Karley Hicks suggests that writing should be limitless. She writes, “clear communication should remain morally just, however, a person only defines that for themselves (Hicks). In other words, the ethics involved in the creation of a document are dependent upon the individual principles of the writer.
Arrika Dedmond, Team Corax
- Login to post comments