Date of Award

5-10-2026

Date Published

June 2026

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Writing Studies, Rhetoric and Composition

Advisor(s)

Patrick Berry

Subject Categories

Arts and Humanities | Rhetoric and Composition

Abstract

In the field of Rhetoric, Composition, and Writing Studies (RCWS), techne has been a longstanding focus of the field, notably as it pertains to our understanding and practice of rhetoric and how we teach writing and rhetorical practices. Some scholars have focused on techne as it is taught in the writing classroom; others have focused on how rhetoric is understood and applied in the classics. My research builds on previous work by considering techne in connection to embodied practices. I argue that discussions of techne have thus far focused on individual learning, especially in relation to composition and rhetoric. In contrast, I am interested in what happens when techne is examined in everyday spaces and practices, in particular, via cooking and other food-related practices. What happens when we do techne? What happens when our connection to techne is mediated by online spaces and networks? How does techne take on a rhetorical force beyond its literal making? What role do more-than-human actors play in collaboration? These guiding questions inform this dissertation project. Through a series of case studies that move across scale—a YouTube channel of women making pasta; cooking practices among community members in Syracuse, NY; my own experiences with fermentation; and eating disorder recovery—I demonstrate that despite our frequent discussions of techne, we often fail to fully see the impacts of context in material, technological, and embodied ways. Techne comes from the ancient Greek rhetorical tradition. Aristotle says that “every craft is concerned with coming-to-be” (Reeve 54, section 4, 1140a). In other words, techne is concerned with making, which I will illustrate in the case studies I have chosen for this project. Richard Young, speaking about invention and rhetorical techne, questions if it is an art or a knack (344). Susan Delagrange’s definition of techne is useful because techne is characterized as “a productive oscillation between knowledge in the head and knowledge in the hand” (35). This embodied notion informs much of my work in this dissertation. In addition, Janet Atwill’s note that techne is “knowledge as production, not product” and is “defined by its contingency on time and situation” (2) contribute to my understanding that techne is a process and that context is of great significance when considering how we do techne. Ryan Moeller and Ken McAllister characterize techne as “creative, ingenious, tricky, unpredictable, and utterly human” (204). Jonathan Alexander and Jacqueline Rhodes call it a “generative lived knowledge” (211). Kelly Pender highlights many understandings of techne and while saying it must be teachable, also acknowledges Byron Hawk’s stance that it is not (151, 105). I recognize in particular these two understandings of techne and appreciate both. As I will show in the case studies, parts of techne can be taught, and parts cannot. In navigating this tension, I see a larger point: whether teachable or not, if a techne is not practiced, it cannot be fully learned or embodied. Overall, I see techne as a locus of contextual and embodied experiences—combinations of the intellectual and corporeal—that are derived from the art and practice of making. I structure this dissertation using the lens of scale because scale offers an organization that clarifies why different questions must be asked of techne according to the subject: relationships change according to the scale at which they are taking place, and thus, so too must the questions (DiCaglio). The case studies I have selected illustrate techne while taking into account its surrounding relationships and networks according to the scale at which I am relating to it. In this dissertation, I am interested in showing that techne can and should be more widely applied than it is currently in our field, as it is useful for expanding our understandings of material and embodied rhetorics even as it also affords us a perception of everyday practices as art.

Access

Open Access

Download

Share

COinS