Houses Divided: Processing Composition in a Post-Process Time

作文(语言) 潜台词 反问句 社会学 表现主义 文学类 媒体研究 哲学 艺术 认识论
作者
Allison Fraiberg
出处
期刊:College Literature 卷期号:29 (1): 171- 被引量:6
摘要

Elbow, Peter. 2000. Everyone Can Write: Essays Toward a Hopeful Theory of Writing and Teaching Writing. NewYork: Oxford University Press. $45.00 hc. $18.95 sc. xxiv + 475 pp. Finkel, Donald L. 2000. Teaching with Your Mouth Shut. Portsmouth: Heinemann. $22.00 sc. xviii + 180 pp. McComisky, Bruce. 2000. Teaching Composition as a Social Process. Logan: Utah State University Press. $19.95 sc. 147 pp. As the field of composition has come into its own in the past decade, so too has what may come to be known as a classic divide. On one side are the folks who have been cast under the umbrella of expressivism, compositionists who focus primarily on the rhetorical contexts of writing. For expressivists, or those cast as such, writers work within an isolated nexus of language and readers to express their ideas. The subtext of this constellation of positions suggests that writers can, indeed, succeed in this endeavor, usually through a process of drafting and revision, and in the end gain control over language and the ideas they seek to convey. Peter Elbow has been the poster professor for expressivism for more than twenty years, sometimes to his satisfaction and at other times to his bewilderment. His newest collection, Everyone Can Write, weaves together previous essays in a way that lets us see the range of his reactions to the position he has found himself in. On the other side we find those who have self-identified as doing post-- process composition studies. As a theoretical position, post-process argues that the theory of writing developed by the process movement over the past thirty years relied heavily on expressivism and, as such, did not attend to historical, social, and political circumstances of writers, readers, and texts. Moreover, expressivist proponents were criticized for embracing a romantic theory of the writer as the individual, genius creator of his or her work. Unfettered by institutional apparatuses, socio-political conditions, and linguistic constraints, this writer embodied an uncomplicated subjectivity as he or she sought the clear communication of ideas through language. Post-- process thinkers rely heavily on critical theory's and cultural studies' critique of subjectivity to articulate a theory of writing based on discursive conditions.Writing, for the post-process composition scholar, is always social: subjectivity is multi-valenced and multi-voiced; writers and readers are always conditioned and interpolated by networks of social relations; and the goal of composition is in part about raising students' awareness of their own discursive formations. For the social, post-process theorists, expressivist process theory seems at best quaint and at worst deluded and irresponsible. As the post-process movement builds its momentum in distancing itself from expressivist process-oriented approaches to writing, signs of a larger divide loom on the disciplinary horizon. In her important work on constructions of authorship, Rebecca Moore Howard contextualizes the two impulses. Composition scholarship, she notices, accords with the 'new' author emerging in critical theory, the author who neither is nor can be autonomous and originary (52). This is the author construct embraced by post-process theorists in composition. In contrast, composition pedagogy continues to uphold and reproduce the 'old' author inherited from Romantic literary theory, the author that still prevails in lay culture (52). What Howard isolates is, in fact, a radical divide between what happens in composition research (social, post-process) and what happens in composition classrooms (expressivist process). Even Elbow remarks on the difference when he suggests in his introduction that the split between scholars and teachers bears pondering (xvi). Essentially, we're writing about one thing and teaching another. Despite their radical differences in theoretical approach, one feature that connects the work of these three writers is their effort to link effectively their theory with their classroom pedagogy. …
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
Z.完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
壮观以松完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
3秒前
温暖亦玉发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
小马过河发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
怡然的映真完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
qingsyxuan完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
6秒前
6秒前
02发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
hzb发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
天天快乐应助清璃采纳,获得10
7秒前
HJJHJH发布了新的文献求助10
7秒前
7秒前
Russell发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
整齐乌发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
多金完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
屿溡完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
11秒前
李红侠发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
yar应助粥粥采纳,获得10
16秒前
16秒前
smottom应助坦率的含海采纳,获得10
17秒前
Luka完成签到,获得积分10
19秒前
JamesPei应助壮观鞋垫采纳,获得10
20秒前
21秒前
21秒前
魏煜佳完成签到,获得积分10
21秒前
开朗山水完成签到 ,获得积分10
23秒前
Oracle发布了新的文献求助10
23秒前
24秒前
水电费发布了新的文献求助10
25秒前
25秒前
LF应助xiaofeiyan采纳,获得10
27秒前
28秒前
SciGPT应助摆烂小子采纳,获得10
28秒前
cwt完成签到,获得积分10
30秒前
邓权发布了新的文献求助10
31秒前
善学以致用应助酷酷妙梦采纳,获得10
37秒前
高分求助中
A new approach to the extrapolation of accelerated life test data 1000
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 12th edition 500
Picture Books with Same-sex Parented Families: Unintentional Censorship 500
Nucleophilic substitution in azasydnone-modified dinitroanisoles 500
不知道标题是什么 500
A Preliminary Study on Correlation Between Independent Components of Facial Thermal Images and Subjective Assessment of Chronic Stress 500
Phylogenetic study of the order Polydesmida (Myriapoda: Diplopoda) 360
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 遗传学 基因 物理化学 催化作用 冶金 细胞生物学 免疫学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3971469
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3516210
关于积分的说明 11181332
捐赠科研通 3251376
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1795810
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 876051
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 805245