Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm

by Thomas Kent

Breaking with the still-dominant process tradition in composition studies, post-process theory—or at least the different incarnations of post-process theory discussed by the contributors represented in this collection of original essays—endorses the fundamental idea that no codifiable or generalizable writing process exists or could exist. Post-process theorists hold that the practice of writing cannot be captured by a generalized process or a "big" theory. Most post-process theorists hold three assumptions about the act of writing is public; writing is interpretive; and writing is situated. The first assumption is the commonsensical claim that writing constitutes a public interchange. By "interpretive act," post-process theorists generally mean something as broad as "making sense of" and not exclusively the ability to move from one code to another. To interpret means more than merely to paraphrase; it means to enter into a relationship of understanding with other language users. And finally, because writing is a public act that requires interpretive interaction with others, writers always write from some position or some place. Writers are never nowhere; they are "situated." Leading theorists and widely published scholars in the field, contributors are Nancy Blyler, John Clifford, Barbara Couture, Nancy C. DeJoy, Sidney I. Dobrin, Elizabeth Ervin, Helen Ewald, David Foster, Debra Journet, Thomas Kent, Gary A. Olson, Joseph Petraglia, George Pullman, David Russell, and John Schilb.

256 pages, Paperback

First published August 20, 1999

Reviews

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is worth a read for composition teachers interested in their craft. As a compilation of very eloquent opinions about what writing is, 14 distinct voices each raise questions that even the most traditional classicalist would benefit from examining; however, the general tone is that of a school of post-modern composition teachers each ardently looking for the meaning of life in their profession, and who commonly hate empiricism and the writing process--but, raised to think, write, and question empirically, ironically (to the reader and, unless I missed it, to just one of the essayists) seek to undermine the very process used to produce what is a formal model of deconstructive criticism. This is a good read just to examine the paradoxes, to address the questions raised, and quite ironically, the essays are models of superb "process" writing.

[Bruce Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most essays strongly argue for a post-process approach. The connection to critical pedagogy needs to be more articulate in some areas, and of course more example of praxis would be helpful. But for being written in 1999, this is still an important book for compositionists.