Teaching Discourse And Reproducing Culture
Herndl argues that current state of research and pedagogy in the field of technical communication (and, likely, composition in general) fails to critically examine, and thus, possibly, reinforces the hegemony of the prevalent power/political structures. Research, the author argues, has failed to examine the conditions and relationships between the established power structures and the people who are subject to them, as well as the consequences of this for alternative viewpoints. Pedagogically, current practices maintain and reinforce this hegemony by both (a) training students to recognize the accepted structure as the only correct one overlooking the alternatives; and by (b) engaging in (writing) the discourse from the standpoint of this prevalent culture and power/political structure, thus maintaining the status quo. Herndl suggests that Freirean notion of the “culture of silence” reciprocating itself through lack of research and current pedagogies can and should be overcome.
As an alternative pedagogy, the author suggests adopting the approach based on collaborative pluralistic “rhetoric of ‘dissensus’ which leads students not to a conformity which reifies the existing social and institutional relations” (p. 228) but arrive at explanation of the differences and ways to cooperate despite/thanks to these differences. This would require a different pedagogical approach. However, this pedagogical approach must be supported by research that “examine dissent and conflict within professional discourse [not only as] as a source of failure and the breakdown of effective communication” (p. 228)
4 Comments:
I was a little surprised to come across this article. With an English background, and prior requirements to slog miserably (though at times with a certain amount of reward) through literary criticism, I had never considered technical communication from a more theoretical, critical position. I think this is because, as Herndl mentions, most practitioners in this field approach us as representing an objective group. But I agree that he is right, that in creating an accepted and perpetuated discourse that mainstreams our field and reinforces our sense of professionalism, we limit the types of discourse we perpetuate and undoubtedly have chosen to privilege certain stances and positions. The field of technical communication, as technological dependence increases in our society, seems to naturally privilege those with the financial abilities to access modes of technological communication more readily. This is only one example of many, but upon such examination, it seems that even our "objective" field needs to be aware of marginalized voices and ways they might expand upon our narrowed view of what it means to communicate technically. Objectivity is an illusion, and to take it as an absolute truth that the commonly accepted approach to our profession is an unbiased and scientifically approved best practice, without contemplation of other approaches, is undoubtedly to mindlessly perpetuate prefabricated discourse.
It is interesting to see how pedagogy in the Technical Writing field is affected in many ways by social, political and professional realm. Each sector seems to have their own expectation and it is challenging for the teachers to pool resources and create a sense of connection for the student with the theoretical teaching method. It is not just up to the teacher to find a mid-point to balance everything but we as students need to try to connect all these theoretical studies with the real world as well.
Herndl talks about how the world being taken over by the expansion of technology and more or less technical instruction is being needed in every sector in some aspect. To be able achieve the balance between everything we need a new unconventional pedagogical approach. At the end we end up with the need of a mutual study and research to attain this goal.
I admittedly had difficulty connecting what Herndl was talking about with technical communication until he finally came to the DSM-III as an example of how social rhetoric is built into these types of technical documents. I'm familiar with the manual; it is--unfortunately, in a way--an historically valuable teaching tool on how society's values and assumptions about mental disease has evolved over time, hopefully for the better. The theoretical discussion on pedagogy didn't make sense to me until placed in this context. I was less interested in the Marxist history of the theory than the actual application of the pedagogical theory. In context (DSM), it makes perfect sense, and I agree with the notion that even seemingly "objective," technical materials like this formulate and perpetuate subcultures, something that should not be encouraged in the critical classroom.
How institutional and economic interests shaped the discourse of the DSM solidified my agreement with Herndl’s view that we need to be more critical when reviewing discourse. It maybe common knowledge that underlying factors have an effect on structure or discourse, the extent to which those factors can be a detriment to the discourse or structure was really brought to life, at least for me, by objectivity in the DSM.
The idea of collaborative learning as a means of letting students form their own ideas on discourse instead of just conforming to the current institutions is one I believe is working in a Technical Theory class I am currently taking. This is relevant because I believe a main purpose of the class is to expand our knowledge of the Technical Communication field so we can form our own values pertaining to it before we enter the working community that may want us to conform to their values.
Post a Comment
<< Home