2008 Woodie Awards
Reel Geek
A Film Geek Writes About Geeks On Film
By Jen Schneider
4/18/07 - Entertainment
I'm going to get around to writing a review of Thank You for Smoking, I promise. It just might take me a minute, so be patient. Read on.
A colleague sent me an article this weekend by Marilyn Dyrud, a professor who teaches technical writing at a university like Mines. In the article, called "Looking Backward: German Technical Writers in the 1930s," she explains how she uses technical writing from Nazi Germany to make the point to her students that all sorts of writing, even writing that might seem apolitical or value-neutral-like technical writing might seem to many of us-can in fact be laden with political context, social meaning, and ethical import.
Technical writing might even be the opposite of value-neutral, says Dyrud. She quotes Stephen Katz, who argues: "Technical writing, perhaps even more than other kinds of technical discourse, always leads to action, and thus always impacts on human life" (3). In other words, the objective of technical writing is to get the writer to know or do something. In that sense, its outcome always has ethical implications.
For example, Dyrud has her students look at a memo written by a Nazi mechanic responsible for servicing "mobile gassing vans," vans used to exterminate people whom the Third Reich had determined unfit, the sick and the weak. The vans drove these people around, pumping carbon monoxide in the back until they had all died. Here's an excerpt from the memo, the goal of which was to encourage drivers to reduce "load space":
So reduction of the load space seems necessary. It must absolutely be reduced by a yard, instead of trying to solve the problem, as hitherto, by reducing the number of pieces loaded. Besides, this extends the operating time, as the empty void must be also filled with carbon monoxide. On the other hand, if the load space is reduced, and the vehicle is packed solid, the operating time can be considerably shortened (2).
Chilling, isn't it? As Dyrud points out, writing like this is actually good technical writing, if we examine it devoid of historical context: it understands its audience and purpose, communicates clearly, and follows the conventions of technical writing. But the objectives achieved, the referring to human beings as "pieces" and "loads," pose grave ethical and moral problems. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates how the contexts in which we operate shape and are shaped by the words we use to describe them.
A colleague sent me an article this weekend by Marilyn Dyrud, a professor who teaches technical writing at a university like Mines. In the article, called "Looking Backward: German Technical Writers in the 1930s," she explains how she uses technical writing from Nazi Germany to make the point to her students that all sorts of writing, even writing that might seem apolitical or value-neutral-like technical writing might seem to many of us-can in fact be laden with political context, social meaning, and ethical import.
Technical writing might even be the opposite of value-neutral, says Dyrud. She quotes Stephen Katz, who argues: "Technical writing, perhaps even more than other kinds of technical discourse, always leads to action, and thus always impacts on human life" (3). In other words, the objective of technical writing is to get the writer to know or do something. In that sense, its outcome always has ethical implications.
For example, Dyrud has her students look at a memo written by a Nazi mechanic responsible for servicing "mobile gassing vans," vans used to exterminate people whom the Third Reich had determined unfit, the sick and the weak. The vans drove these people around, pumping carbon monoxide in the back until they had all died. Here's an excerpt from the memo, the goal of which was to encourage drivers to reduce "load space":
So reduction of the load space seems necessary. It must absolutely be reduced by a yard, instead of trying to solve the problem, as hitherto, by reducing the number of pieces loaded. Besides, this extends the operating time, as the empty void must be also filled with carbon monoxide. On the other hand, if the load space is reduced, and the vehicle is packed solid, the operating time can be considerably shortened (2).
Chilling, isn't it? As Dyrud points out, writing like this is actually good technical writing, if we examine it devoid of historical context: it understands its audience and purpose, communicates clearly, and follows the conventions of technical writing. But the objectives achieved, the referring to human beings as "pieces" and "loads," pose grave ethical and moral problems. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates how the contexts in which we operate shape and are shaped by the words we use to describe them.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Paul
Paul
posted 4/18/07 @ 7:13 PM MST
This is a great article, thus I am taking the time to disagree with you.
I really enjoyed Thank you for smoking. It has a Johnathan Swift-satric edge to it that drove home the point of the movie: Think for Yourself. (Continued…)
Post a Comment