Relationship between Professional Writing and Rhetoric

Classical scholars conveyed varying ideologies of the relationship between professional writing and rhetoric.  Some studiers of the art of discourse believed the two stood as separate disciplines, where a second set of theories emerged and identified both specialties to be counterparts, yet able to thrive independently. A third group of intellectuals further developed the notion that professional writing and rhetoric cohabitate; one could not thrive without the presence of the other. These exploratory thinkers employed professional writing as the means of transmitting messages to an audience and rhetoric symbolizing creative methods to translate that information.

When professional writing is considered a rhetorical practice and art, the perceived role of the writer can be established. (45-46). Faigley elaborates on three major theoretical perspectives – textual, individual, and social – to institute the relationship. First, the textual encompasses features of language and genre, readability, and style and format the writer uses to communicate information (48-49). The individual perspective is fluid; they change based on behavior, the development of cognitive thinking, and the evaluation of the writing task (49). The social perspective is impacted by interaction within an environment, comprehension of the philosophy of language, and the understanding of cultural relationships – discourse community (50-52). Since communities change and overlap, academic, work, and public environments, the relationship between professional writing and rhetoric must be modified to accommodate each audience and the level of which information is transmitted to varying audiences.

Miller further constructs the presumed relationship by determining the practical and conceptual application of professional writing (61-63). Richard Bernstein states, “The practical man is one who is not concerned with theory (even anti-theoretical or anti-intellectual), who knows how to get along in the rough and tumble of the world,” (61). To be practical, is to accomplish a task or goal effectively and efficiently, an action founded on directness. On the other hand, a conceptual understanding provides justification for a necessary action. Problems and goals are identified and the appropriate action weighed. Why is this essential to technical writing? Technical writing, in this case, is thought incorporate the practicality of an action due to a well-founded reason for the action. In other words, a writer must know why a message needs to be transmitted, the objectives for writing, and methods for presenting the information in a practical way to evoke the audience’s understanding through rhetorical communication.

Furthermore, Miller examines practice as descriptive or prescriptive – what is and what ought to be – within higher education versus the professional arena (64-67). Students are often equipped with a theoretical understanding of writing but lack consideration of common practice. Institutions have afforded students an opportunity to connect the relationship between vocational preparedness and cultural awareness (65). Work settings create a cultural standard that does not always coincide with best practiced theories. Students who are unable to (and sometime unwilling) integrate their ethics, textbook knowledge, and organizational cultural often struggle with identifying the relationship between professional writing and rhetoric (69).

Regli bases the relationship on knowledge, collaboration, and application in the writing field. Knowledge has typically been thought of as a noun and to some technical writers the transmittal of information in no more than seen as a product, an invention (71). However, the transmittal of knowledge is considered a verb to the rhetor. Rhetors treat knowledge as an activity, elaborate process of developing, producing, and testing (73). To master a connection of writing and rhetoric, collaboration, communication, and articulation must occur (74-77). A problem must be identified, followed by conducting analyses of the situation, audience, and structure to adhere to constraints and satisfy expectations. Succeeding these steps, changes or revisions can be successfully articulated prior to production – the representation of knowledge.

Slack, Miller, and Dock explore the relevance of the communication theory, providing the framework of the transmission view of communication, the interpretation and reinterpretation of messages, and the articulation aspect of communication (81-94). This theory credits technical writers as mediators of communication through interpreting, articulating, and transmitting information to an audience via power, authority, and expertise in their respective industries. They are foremost neutral facilitators of message and negotiate the relationship with receivers of information to avoid miscommunication (81-82).

Since communication is not a linear act and more of a negotiation, both the sender and receiver can possess power over meanings, either negative or positive; communication is an ongoing struggle for power, unevenly balanced toward encoding (87). The sender has power when the message is encoded effectively and the receiver respond in the intended manner (83). The receiver establishes power when the message interpreted appropriately and can initiate a correlating action, or practice (86-89). When effective articulation, or rearticulation, occurs meaning and discourse are transformed (90). In cases where messages are not encoded or decoded properly, technical writers reevaluated and revise information. They edit transmissions in support of ever-changing social practices, cultures, and situations to maximized application.

Writing is producing useful context allowing senders to express and readers in specific situations to interpret messages (105). Organizational and rhetorical situations guide decision making (118). The culture and values, as well as ethics help formulate writers’ ability to communicate within given situations. Yes, they can follow a communication model and previous document designs to transmit information; however, when writers do not have full knowledge of industry standards and organizational beliefs, his ability to convey information may fail. Rules are constraints that writers must find creative ways to conform to and overcome to limit personal and organizational liability. They must contend with personal, social, and situational authority, with each building on the other 124-125). Effective writers employ such strategies in a rhetorical manner; thus, classical intellectuals’ ideas regarding the relationship between professional writing and rhetoric have resurfaced, and still serve as models for industry application to this day.