Blog 3 - A Humanistic Rationale For Technical Communication

Wow. I thought the article “Who Killed Rex?” was a weapon of mass confusion but after reading this article, I was wrong. Carolyn Miller's "A Humanistic Rationale For Technical Communication" left me with jaw dropped on the floor. I clearly do not understand what her reasoning behind technical communication is. I understand she supports it but when she goes into details about why I get lost. I prefer to read articles with simpler vocabulary so this article throws me into a loop. She could use simpler vocabulary and examples to explain her points. English has many aspects to it that just more than literature or just words. You cannot define English to just one thing, as that would be absurd. Its like saying science is just Biology and that Anatomy, Chemistry and Physics are not sciences. From what I understood of Miller’s writing, she tires to argue that technical communication is more than just unemotional writing. Although I would like to say it is more than that, I feel that it is not. When I write for my technical communication class, I feel that I am just stating the facts and that there is no logic or emotional behind those facts. In a literature class, you have to think clearly on the subject of your essay and how you are going to support it through out your paper. In my technical communication, you are just taking these facts or information and placing them in an order or certain fashion. But I do not feel that it is inferior to a literature class. I think that a technical communication class, focus more on the content of your writing and how you can say something in with many different tones. You have to think clearly on how you want to express something to a business partner or coworker without pissing them off. In a literature class, you have stand for what you believe in or how you interpret something regardless of others. In miller’s article, she talks about technical communication in this realm of science. This left me extremely confused. I do not understand what she means by this and how this applies to the class. Also, she discusses positivist view on technical communication. I have never heard of a theory like this and yet again I do not understand how it applies to the class. I think I would have understood this article, if I had taken a philosophy class before hand or if I had some exposure to these theories she is trying to explain.