"Colourless green ideas sleep furiously."
Noam Chomsky

To the ongoing debate over whether the status or role of the technical communicator is to be considered as that of a 'professional' versus a 'practitioner' I cite the following example culled from real life. At the small University of Washington center where I am currently employed, technical communicators are seen as nothing more than glorified editors assigned the mundane task of ensuring that proper syntax and correct spelling is put to good use along with making sure the requisite 'i's are dotted and 't's crossed. Therefore it came as no surprise that the person hired recently to create course text material did not have any formal instruction or experience in technical communication. But because this employee had some prior training in a medical discipline, the director assumed no further skills were needed to insure successful course development. Owing to the fact that the center's affiliation is one with a 'hard science' (Rehab Medicine) may or may not have something to do with this particular mindset. However, the opinion of my employer is that instructional design is nothing more than electronically manipulating the text by copying it from various sources and merging it in a unified place. Little thought is given to notions of audience/readers, context or meaning. As this view is not an isolated one, perhaps what bears examination is whether the "name writing [be] given to an entire structure of investigation and not merely to writing in the narrow sense, [that of] graphic notation on tangible material?" (Spivak, lxix). If the answer to this question is an unequivocal 'yes' then how do we as aspiring technical communicators position ourselves in the field to overcome this kind of prejudice and narrow-mindedness? Are there skills and theories that are important to learn or at least be aware of that will not only help foster respect for the field of technical communication as a recognized profession but also aid in distancing ourselves from being labeled mere practitioners?

In all likelihood the goal of disseminating information into a clearly written textual format is not limited only to those whom aspire to be perceived as a 'professional' in the field. Presumably instructors everywhere who teach writing courses routinely stress the importance of style. However, the concept and methodology of style as Whitburn points out in "The Plain Style in Scientific and Technical Writing", may be limited to that in which "style in current textbooks focuses on the avoidance of error" (153). The real focus, Whitburn opines, should be on "audience adaptation" for he is convinced that "this is the most serious problem in our discipline"(153). He further advocates for "making students aware" of [what he terms the] personal touch [as this] can often help them attain their ends. The personal touch arouses interest, and interest sharpens awareness and understanding" (154). While Whitburn shows concern for readers and the need for understanding, he does not make any direct links or correlations between writing and meaning, nor does he discuss interpretation in any detail. Instead he concentrates his efforts on instructing writers to utilize stylistic devices to foster the "discovery of content and arouse reader interest" (155). If the roles for writers and readers that Whitburn alludes to appear upon closer scrutiny to be somewhat simplistic it may be due in part to ignoring that space where text lives and readers enter to visit. This oversight on the part of the Plain Style theorists--whether intentional or not--ultimately proves to be self-limiting in scope especially when it comes to examining the notion of "What is writing? [which] means 'where and when does writing begin?" (Derrida, Of Grammatology, 28). Because Plain Style theory does not address in any depth how meaning is constructed, construed or appropriated by readers in the end it is unable to validate the possibility that the 'text belongs to language, [and] not to the sovereign and generating author" (Spivak, lxxv). Plain Style theorists are by no means alone when it comes to focusing solely on the quest for optimum clarity, economy, and organization.

Another belief that echoes this call for clarity is the 'windowpane theory'. These theorists known as positivists believe as Carolyn R. Miller states "that language is ideally a transparent medium, a windowpane through which we can be brought in direct contact with the facts"(Moore, "Instrumental Discourse", 102). Patrick Moore in "Instrumental Discourse", promotes a positivist "process of agreement [that] is called standardization in where a certain thing or procedure is said to have one meaning unless people agree later to change it" (108). However, he does admit that "standardization like anything else has its disadvantages, and that some people think standardization is a threat to human individuality, [which] to an extent of course it is" (109). Moore counters this rather negative admission with a litany of

"once the standards are established, there is no argument or confusion about whether something is true. This certainly enables engineers, chemists, or legislators to create their computers, pharmaceuticals, and laws. These standards remain in effect as long as necessary, depending on the situation. Standardization is in part a reaction to the subjectivity and slipperiness of language, and one of the main purposes of instrumental technical communication is to satisfy the technical person's need for linguistic consistency, economy, accuracy and the like for the profit of all parties"(110).

Certainly "linguistic consistency, economy, [and] accuracy" are valid goals when writing (Moore, 110). And "although we customarily say that the text is autonomous and self-sufficient, there would be no justification for our activity if we did not feel that the text needed interpretation" (Spivak, lxxiv). But what is the real cost of ridding language and text of all ambiguity?

It is a fair assessment to say that by eliminating or flattening those spaces prove to be detrimental to the reader because it strips away the potentiality of multiple meaning in a text? Is it necessary to "limit the semantic range of words" and sacrifice creativity in order to achieve clarity? (113).

Is it truly desirable to impose "instrumental language as the means to control people" and if so then who or what determines it to be "effective, ethical and humane?" (111). Whose yardstick shall be chosen to use in the measuring? How does Moore make the leap from equating control with humanity as when he urges, "practitioners of constructive instrumental discourse [to] acknowledge and even embrace the inevitability of controlling people--so long as the controls are used for a higher (i.e., ethical or unselfish) values" (113). Given that Moore's doctrine may have an underlying noble purpose--that of aiding the reader by providing s/he with the utmost clarity in language and text, the question that begs to be posed is one of whether or not this rather dictatorial sounding mandate of control is the best approach?

Because Moore views the "slipperiness of language" as problematic he therefore believes it is not only right but laudatory to eradicate any ambiguity or multiplicity in the text so as to force acceptance for the existence of a universal meaning--by and for all readers (110).

A reversal to this was of thinking may be found in deconstruction, a theory advanced by Jacques Derrida, where multiplicity in the text is not only acknowledged but given a name--'differance' with an 'A'.

"Differance combines the French words for 'difference' and 'defer'. In the theory of Deconstruction, binary oppositions are defined by their difference from each other, [but] this difference cannot ultimately be pinned down. That is the definition [of language, a text, a word] is perpetually deferred. The concepts forming a binary opposition are mutually defining--each being what the other is not. A given concept excludes what it is not. It excludes what is other. Binary oppositions are also hierarchical. One member of the binary is dominant, while the other is secondary or other. Deconstruction reveals the other and deflates the hierarchy" (Hope, 3).

In this rather dense quote lies an important key to understanding deconstruction. What Derrida is attempting to illuminate by closely examining the text is to show that there is not one inherent universal meaning in a text, as the positivist would like to proclaim, but rather two, which are at constant odds with each other. Through this process of 'deferring' to one another's difference is how meaning is derived--from the opposition, 'as each one is what the other is not' and with both parts acting as regulators for each other. "In the widest sense, which transcends even the idea of signification, a thing 'has meaning' when it is purposely, functionally or otherwise systematically related to something else" (Grant, 390). The phrase 'binary oppositions' is the indication that there are two parts, (or meanings) and that one is always taken to be the literal meaning for it is usually considered to be the most obvious?the one on the surface so to speak, as it may be clearly explicated. This meaning is considered to be dominant because it is the one that is accepted at face value as the true one. But Derrida also points out that there is another--an implied one, unspoken, the symbolic one. This is the part (or meaning) that is not so apparent as to be immediately seen or grasped. And as soon as the symbolic 'other' is acknowledged or referred to, meaning not only becomes inexact, but multiple. For Derrida "invites us to undo the need for balanced equations, to see if each term in an opposition is not after all an accomplice of the other" (Spivak, lix). By allowing for two meanings to exist in tandem and to retain the meaning for both of them--simultaneously?without regard for dominance has the effect of 'deflating the hierarchy'. "The death of absolutely proper naming, recognizing in a language the other as pure other, invoking it as what it is, the death of pure idiom reserved for the unique" (Derrida, 110).

In addition to the important concept of the 'other' is the implication raised by representation as what occurs in the act of writing about something. For doing so calls into play the principles of the signifier and the signified--and their relation to each other as referent and reference. For "writing is dangerous from the moment that representation there claims to be presence and the sign of the thing itself" (Derrida, 144). Derrida cautions against making the error of mistaking what is an arbitrary and artificial construct?as in the act of writing about something, then confusing the act for a veritable event or being. Derrida makes the point that writing about something does not make it true, for words are only capable of producing a facsimile of truth. "What if its force is a certain pure and infinite ambiguity that allows no respite, no rest to the signified meaning, engaging it, in its own economy, to make sign again and to differ? (Dolezel, 638). Leading to the deconstructive conclusion that "any simple, objective meaning is questionable because it can always be transcended, undermined, and turned back on itself by deconstruction" (Noe, 645).

Deconstruction holds in it its power a sense of freedom--for it offers an almost limitless way of seeing how meaning may be created, perceived and appropriated. Almost like that of looking into the fun house mirror that reflects an infinite number of mirrors and reflections. By recognizing the "open-ended indefiniteness of textually--thus 'placing it in the abyss' (mettre en abime), as the French expression would literally have it-- shows us the lure of the abyss as freedom" (Spivak, lxxvii).

The theory of deconstruction grew out of post-strucuralism in the 1960's and is considered by many to be its most radical manifestation. Jacques Derrida is credited for coining the word 'deconstruction', which means literally to 'take apart'. The deconstruction of today however, is not the pure form originally put forth by Derrida. Due in part to other movements, theories and disciplines borrowing components and aspects of it to graft onto their own to form a sort of bricolage. Examples include feminist deconstruction, Marxist deconstruction, and the deconstruction techniques used by psychologists to affect a cure by studying a patient's personal narrative.

Not all are enamored of deconstructive theory as M.H. Abrams points out when he notes that its "predilection [in] not only avoiding clear, concrete language but also for undermining the possibility of clarity in any text" (Noe, 642). But in their own defense the deconstruction theorist have this to say as a rebuttal against the critics, " while clarity of style has indeed been disregarded, other values of language, values also expressed stylistically have taken precedence" (Noe, 642). And in doing so perhaps with the "creative use of subversive techniques... can lead to feasible mechanisms for positive change" (Hope, 1). It is through deconstruction's use of 'subversive techniques' that the text is permitted to have multiplicity of meaning thereby granting the reader a much richer experience than the one offered by the positivists.

Because deconstruction theory on the whole is extremely complex and encompasses numerous fields such as philosophy, linguistics, and theology to name a few, I have chosen to highlight those portions of it that seemed most pertinent to the discussion revolving around technical communicators.

No discussion of deconstruction would be complete without also mentioning post-structuralism for the two theories are closely linked. "Whenever post-structuralism is mentioned, the first trend that comes to mind is deconstruction, perhaps [because] it is the most dominant" (Dolezel, 635, 639). Post-structuralism rejected the existence of absolute, singular truth or realities thereby paving the way for deconstruction's emergence. Post-structuralism's position is that "there is no certain kind of truth or meaning" (Jackson, 325). But unlike the nebulous deconstructive stance of where the meaning lies, post-structuralism felt that finding the meaning was a determinate act. It did not matter whether the meaning resided within the text or outside of it with the reader or a community. The gist of the matter was that if one approached the text in a determinate way then, determinate results might be expected.

This was in contrast to how structuralism established meaning. Structuralism based its theory on of "the understanding of signs, representations, discourse and language" and viewed literary conventions as an elaborate system of codes (Jackson, 330). How the meaning was conveyed--the method of delivery by the use of a literary device was more essential than the meaning itself being conveyed. The flaw was one of centering the theory on the inflation of the 'sign' itself and not the underlying meaning. Post-structuralism's credo set out to revise structuralism--to replace the old way of constructing meaning.

Which brings us nearly full circle to where this treatise began, to the idea of "what is the meaning of 'meaning'...how are meanings attributed and which kind or procedure of attribution is accepted for which reason?" (Schmidt, 623). Why are theories important to discern and practice? Do they have a useful application when it comes to matters of audience/readers and context?

"Theory exists in a system--one that explains the domains in which we operate, the phenomena found in those domains, and the ways in which they might be affected by manipulation or change. Theory is derived from the deliberate, self-conscious, and controlled observation of phenomena, whether this has taken place in the positivist empirical paradigm or in the qualitative paradigm" (Smiraglia, 33).

Theories are a productive way to explain and make sense of things. Using theory to our advantage enables us to be " flexible, thoughtful professionals" (Bushnell, 179). Being well versed in critical thinking skills helps us to be better prepared to meet the challenges and avoid being cast in the role of 'practitioner'.

"What I had been taught was what made me distinctive from the majority of my co-workers, persuasive in print and in the verbal arena of the conference room, sometimes downright impressive and, yes ultimately useful in the non-academic workplace. I had not been trained to follow an efficiency model or to anticipate what "bosses want"; instead, I had been taught to think and write in a way that would make my ideas impossible to ignore and maybe even impossible to resist" (Bushnell, 185).

The knowledge of theory is something that I have at my disposal to use in helping me anticipate the needs of my audience in regards to context and meaning. Understanding theory assists me in creating roles that readers enjoy assuming. It provides the framework necessary to promote my skill set as those of a 'professional' versus a 'practitioner'. Technical communicators may perform editing tasks but they are more than glorified editors. The responsibility for presenting information in such a way as to provide clarity while at the same time retaining the space for readers to experience the richness of the text is a challenge. But one that we as professional technical communicators are certainly up to meeting.

"These three ways of writing correspond almost exactly to three different stages according to which one can consider men gathered into a nation. The depicting of objects is appropriate to a savage people; signs of words and of propositions, to a barbaric people; and the alphabet to civilized people."

J.J. Rousseau

Works Cited

Bushnell, Jack. "A Contrary View of the Technical Writing classroom: Notes Toward Future Discussion". Technical Communications Quarterly 8: 2 (Spring 1999): 175-188

Dolezel, Lubomir. "Poststructuralism: A view from the Charles Bridge". Poetics Today 21:4 (Winter 2000): 632-648.

Grant, Robert. "Fiction, Meaning and Utterance". Inquiry 44 (2001): 389-401.

Jackson, Tony. "Fiction, Meaning and Utterance". Poetics Today 21:2 (Summer 2000): 319-347.

Moore, Patrick. "Instrumental Discourse is as Humanistic as Rhetoric". Journal of Business and Technical Communication 10:1 (January 1996): 100-118.

Noe, Mark. "LitCrit or LitLit?". Style 35:4 (Winter 2001): 641-658.

Olson, Hope. "Patriarchal Structures of Subject Access and Subversive Techniques for Change". The Candian Journal of Information and Library Science 26:2/3 (June ? September 2001): 1-27.

Schmidt, Siegfried J. "Interpretation: The Story Does Have an Ending". Poetics Today 21:4 (Winter 2000): 621-632.

Smiragliat, Richard P. "Further Progress Toward Theory in Knowledge Organization". The Candian Journal of Information and Library Science 23:2/3 (June - September 2001): 31-50.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty trans., Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins Press, 1976

Whitburn, Merrill, et al. "The Plain Style in Scientific and Technical Writing". Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 8 (1978): 39-58.