Today’s Plan:
- Some Advice From Last Semester
- Link to Discussion Document and Rubric
- Miller Reading for Monday
- Finish Report
Some Advice from Last Semester
I think we have already discussed all of this.
Link to Discussion Document and Rubric
Here is a link to the discussion document.
Miller Reading
Miller’s essay, published in 1979, speaks to the ways in which writing (and not just technical writing) gets intellectually devalued. Underwriting this devaluing is a positivist epistemology (epistemology is the study of knowledge). In a positivist epistemology, humans can, through various systems, arrive at objective, transcendent Truth. This can be a scientific truth (the earth is round) or a humanistic one (the purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness). Writing becomes devalued in a positivist era because writing (supposedly!) is not a way to discover truth, merely a way to communicate it. Furthermore, writing’s relationship to rhetoric makes it more devalued, because historically rhetoric has been seen as manipulation or bullshit, something artificial and duplicitous used to mask the “real” truth. Note that I do not believe any of us. But that’s something we will talk about later when we read the Herrick article.
I’d like a slightly longer reading response here (probably a minimum of 300+ words). First, I want you to wrestle with some of Miller’s harder ideas. Be sure to google unfamiliar vocabulary as you read. Pick one of the following questions:
- Why is positivism in conflict with technical writing (and, um, what is positivism?) What does Miller identify as the most problematic dimension of a non-rhetorical approach to scientific communication?
- Miller identifies 4 problems for technical writing pedagogy that stem from the positivist tradition. What are they and h might we avoid them?
- How does Miller–writing in 1979–describe the epistemology that is replacing positivism? Do you know what we would call this today?
- What does it mean to teach technical writing from a communalist perspective? Why might some students reject a communalist approach to teaching writing?
I assert that Miller’s grounds for labeling technical writing a Humanity lies in what she identifies as a consensualist relation to audience. Why do I think this? What does this mean?
So that’s part one. I’d like you to start part two by thinking about your own experiences as a student at UNC.
- First, does the argument Miller makes here resonate with readings/ideas/work you have done in other classes? Tell me about that. Tell me about something you’ve read somewhere else that talks about the nature of knowledge, why we teach in the humanities, etc.
- Second, to what extent does the classroom and grading practices you’ve encountered in classes reflect a positive tradition? Are texts presented as having one right answer? A range of meanings? Is the meaning of a text completely open to a reader?
For Next Class
Finish and submit the report. Read and post on the Miller.
You should have already ordered one of the three books I listed last class.
