TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Political Correctness and the Technical Com From:"Dave L. Meek's User Account" <dave -at- ROGUE -dot- DISC-SYNERGY -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 7 Jun 1995 12:10:43 -0700
Stephen Jong wrote:
>I'm more concerned with PC (personal computer) than PC (political correctness),
>but Mike La Torra's comment that he wasn't concerned how his statements might
>be deconstructed struck me as odd.
>A technical communicator is in the profession of communicating with people.
>Communication is a two-sided activity consisting of sending (us) and receiving
>(the audience). Clarity in communication is defined as getting your message
>through without distortion. How, then, can you be a technical communicator and
>not be concerned with how your message is received? It would seem an analogous
>statement would be "Why should I write to the eighth grade level? If they
>can't understand my writing, tough!" or "Why should I include examples? It's
>their job to understand it, not mine."
>I reject those sentiments. I feel professionally responsible for the clarity
>of my work, and I also feel some responsibility with the clarity of my personal
>communication. If I say something that is taken as offensive, I may recognize
>the misunderstanding, but I will apologize for helping to create it.
Mike La Torra was referring to someone *deconstructing* his
statements. That process differs greatly from one of simple
reception and is primarily under the control of the receiver. A
while back, I posted a humorous review of the Dr. Seuss story,
"The Cat in the Hat." The reviewer deconstructed the story to
make it fit Freudian symbolism. Obviously, Theodore Geisel had
no intention of writing "The Cat in the Hat" as a tale of sexual
frustration, nor did he have any control over someone
deliberately distorting the story. In this case, the
deconstruction was done with the intention of creating humor.
Unfortunately, that situation is not always so.
Yes, we as writers have certain responsibilities toward clarity
and accuracy in our work. But the reader is not simply a passive
agent.
If I say something that is *needlessly* offensive, I'll not only
apologize, I'll also make sure it doesn't happen again. But if I
don't recognize how my comment(s) could reasonably be considered
offensive, I won't apologize. Mere accusation is not proof.
/
----- /
c-----O| |\____________________________________________/
L_____| | |
| | |
\__/ |
\ |_______________________________________| |
| | | |
^-- ^--
"Get a long little doggie!"
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Dave Meek
