Salvo, Michael. “Rhetoric as Productive Technology” from Critical Power Tools.
1.
Salvo mentions a few problems. First, he
explains that students aren’t being effectively positioned produce an ethical
change in the workplace. And, further than that, that students are not being
engaged in classrooms about how to enact these changes in the workplace using
technology. Additionally, he discusses a divide between cultural studies and
rhetoricians. He also questions modern notions of experts and poses the
question, “what is the technical communicator’s expertise?” (227).
2.
The solution that Salvo presents is a revision
to James Berlin’s argument in Rhetorics,
Poetics and cultures, which “names race, gender, and class as the three
dominant matrixes that will shape cultural studies inquiry, particularly in the
literary studies” (219). Salvo’s suggested revision states, “Learning to gain
some control over communication forms and the technologies that enable them,
students become active agents of social, political, and technical change,
learning that social and technological worlds have been made and thus can be
remade to serve the interests of democratic society” (220).
Salvo documents the work already
done in the field of cultural studies with an eye toward “highlight[ing] the
active, cultural engagement they each foreground” (221) He “assert[s] that
cultural studies does its most insightful work in the analytical phase by
mapping discourses, institutions, and flows of power on a virtual map of
culture. This productive analytic trust of cultural studies can effectively
inform action through critically examining design, mapping the discourses that
inform design, as well as revealing the complex networks of power and the
interests that are served and subsumed in different designs” (221). In this
way, Salvo suggests that technical communicators should bring the analytic and
descriptive methodologies from cultural studies to “inform the active, engaged,
and productive elements of technological invention and design… [which would
offer them] an effective means for engaging political, social, and discursive
implications of technoculture” (221). Salvo contends that this will advance
technical communication research “to participate in cultural studies discourse
and to move that discourse forward, to add technical communication’s engagement
of workplace discourse and power dynamics to cultural studies while also
enriching technical communication” (223). So, in essence, Salvo suggests that
technical communicators should take some of the qualities of academics in
cultural studies and apply them to issues they’re already interested in. He
gets into what the field of cultural studies can learn from technical
communicators later in his article, but, he basically argues that they can
learn the art of knowing when to engage. He writes, “expertise ins not limited
to critical analysis but also requires action, both critical status-raising
rhetorical action and more mundane functional language work. Knowing when to
engage in, or recognizing opportunities for strategic action is a rhetorical
skill requiring action based on hard-won knowledge of the institution, the
intensification and slacking of workflow, and the potential for language to
enable change” (230).
He also uses some
nerdy jargon—technocultural agents? Really? Salvo then delves into the notion
of expert and explains that before, experts served as people who used their
knowledge to take over. However, there’s been a shift to thinking of the expert
as a partner who comes into a community to help them do what they already do
well in an even more effective way. He discusses expertise in terms of the
technical communicator, effectively answering the question that he posed. Salvo
argues that “being an expert in communication, in technical writing, in
usability, does not exclude one from playing the role of expert in an
accompanying technical endeavor… the expert’s role… becomes a self-conscious
analysis and comparison of the local conditions with the previous experience
and knowledge of the expert… technical and professional writers’ existing
expertise in effective communication, coupled with the role of user advocate,
informed by cultural studies analysis, can and should allow practioners and
academics to contribute to the invention of new technologies” (226).
A few questions that I had:
1.
What is technoculture? He uses it over and over
again, though I don’t think he really defines it. Is it just a culture of
technology? A web based culture? What does Salvo have to gain by echoing the
rhetorical moves of other authors (remember usability experts? Salvo uses
technoculture agents)?
2.
Salvo makes moves to begin to discuss online
culture, and, at the beginning of his article, I really thought he would
discuss it more. How might these cues that he discusses, of knowing when to
engage in specific rhetorical action, or even when there’s an opportunity for
specific rhetorical action, change in an online space?
3.
I have to ask. Did anyone else think that he
over-cited? I felt that his discussions of other people’s work, while very
detailed, seemingly suffocated his overall argument. What was gained or lost by this rhetorical choice? (I ask this while thinking about document design. I'm not sure if this is a dumb question to ask, or to even think about, but I'm going to do it anyway--when we think about document design, is this a separate thing from thinking about the content of the document? How might this contribute to thinking about technical communicators as producers versus authors?)
Connections to other readings:
He
cited Robert R. Johnson’s notion of user centered technology and applied it to
our perceptions about experts, which was really interesting. Also, he cites the
article I presented on last week by Slack, Miller, and Doak, and discusses how
“high-wage jobs are outsourced of “offshored” in the misinterpretation that
professional writing is mere translation of information and delivery of facts
from those who know to those who lack understanding,” bringing us back to the
dichotomy of the technical writer as author versus the technical writer as
producer (231). Also, I see links to Henry and Scott’s articles, which are
focused pedagogies that would inspire students to make ethical changes in their
future workplaces.