Andrew Feenberg's critical theory of technology is an underutilized, relatively unknown resource in technical communication which could be exploited not only for its potential clarification of large social issues that involve our discipline, but also specifically toward the development of a critical theory of illustrations. Applications of critical theory help strengthen our discipline by forcing us to delineate extant approaches and consider whether democratic goals are being achieved through those approaches. If a critical theory of illustrations can be built from Feenberg's critical theory of technology, it should be useful for classroom instructors and researchers as well as theorists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DarleyA., Simulating Natural History: Walking with Dinosaurs as Hyper-Real Edutainment, Science as Culture, 12: 2, pp. 227–256, 2003.
2.
FeenbergA., Critical Thinking of Technology, Oxford University Press, New York, 1991.
3.
BrasseurL. E., Visualizing Technical Information: A Cultural Critique, Baywood, Amityville, New York, 2003.
4.
BlairJ. A., The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments, in Defining Visual Rhetorics, HillC. and HelmersM. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, 2004.
5.
LannonJ. M., Technical Communication (10th Edition), Pearson Longman, New York, 2006.
6.
HortonW., The Almost Universal Language: Graphics for International Documents, Technical Communication, 2: 4, pp. 682–693, 1993.
7.
SalinasC., Technical Rhetoricians and the Art of Configuring Images, Technical Communication, 11: 2, pp. 165–184, 2002.
8.
TufteE. R., The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (2nd Edition), Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut, 2001.
9.
PortewigT. C., Making Sense of the Visual in Technical Communication: A Visual Literacy Approach to Pedagogy, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34: 1&2, pp. 31–42, 2004.
10.
BurnettR. E., Technical Communication (6th Edition), Thomson Wadsworth, Boston, Massachusetts, 2005.
11.
StylianidousF.OrmerodF., and OgbornJ., Analysis of Science Textbook Pictures about Energy and Pupils' Readings of Them, International Journal of Science Education, 24: 3, pp. 257–283, 2002.
12.
WatkinsJ. K.MillerE., and BrubakerD., The Role of the Visual Image: What are Students Really Learning from Pictorial Representations?Journal of Visual Literacy, 24: 1, pp. 23–40, 2004.
13.
SchriverK. A., Dynamics in Document Design: Creating Texts for Readers, Wiley Computer Publishing, New York, 1997.
14.
HocksM. E., Toward a Visual Critical Electronic Literacy, Works and Days, 17 & 18, pp. 157–172, 1999–2000.
15.
ArnheimR., Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1954, 1974.
16.
MitchellW. J. T., Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1994.
17.
BarthesR., Image Music Text, HeathS. (trans.), Hill and Wang, New York, 1977.
18.
KressG., Visual and Verbal Modes of Representation in Electronically Mediated Communication: The Potential of New Forms of Text, in Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Age, SnyderI. and JoyceM. (eds.), Routledge, London, pp. 53–79, 1998.
19.
KressG., “English” at the Crossroads: Rethinking Curricula of Communication in the Context of the Turn to the Visual, in Passions, Pedagogies and 21st Century Technologies, HawisherG. and SelfeC. (eds.), Utah State University Press, Logan, Utah, pp. 66–88, 1999.
20.
DraggaS. and VossD., Cruel Pies: The Inhumanity of Technical Illustrations, Technical Communication, 48: 3, pp. 265–274, 2001.
21.
WysockiA. F., Seriously Visible, in Eloquent Images: Word and Image in the Age of New Media, HocksM. E. and KendrickM. R. (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 37–59, 2003.
22.
HauserG. A., Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina, 1999.
23.
FahnestockJ., Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts, Written Communication, 15: 2, pp. 330–350, 1998.
