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
李筱烨发布了新的文献求助10
刚刚
Jane完成签到 ,获得积分10
2秒前
2秒前
jisujun发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
LXM丶完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
7秒前
ming完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
11秒前
11秒前
Ava应助纯真又莲采纳,获得10
11秒前
12秒前
12秒前
12秒前
Hello应助jisujun采纳,获得10
13秒前
容怀发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
15秒前
15秒前
orixero应助Jun采纳,获得10
15秒前
Linlin发布了新的文献求助10
16秒前
芷莯发布了新的文献求助10
17秒前
18秒前
乐乐发布了新的文献求助10
18秒前
forever发布了新的文献求助10
19秒前
隐形曼青应助lyy采纳,获得10
20秒前
20秒前
21秒前
Lucas应助丸丸采纳,获得10
22秒前
番茄豆丁完成签到,获得积分10
22秒前
走走发布了新的文献求助10
23秒前
容怀完成签到,获得积分20
23秒前
24秒前
25秒前
yalan发布了新的文献求助10
25秒前
liuhuanghuai完成签到,获得积分20
25秒前
26秒前
万能图书馆应助澡雪采纳,获得10
26秒前
26秒前
Fun完成签到,获得积分10
27秒前
啦啦啦发布了新的文献求助10
27秒前
懒洋洋完成签到,获得积分10
28秒前
高分求助中
A new approach to the extrapolation of accelerated life test data 1000
Picture Books with Same-sex Parented Families: Unintentional Censorship 700
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 12th edition 500
Nucleophilic substitution in azasydnone-modified dinitroanisoles 500
不知道标题是什么 500
Indomethacinのヒトにおける経皮吸収 400
Phylogenetic study of the order Polydesmida (Myriapoda: Diplopoda) 370
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 3975816
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3520159
关于积分的说明 11201128
捐赠科研通 3256541
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1798347
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 877539
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 806426