Breuch's essay "Post-Process Pedagogy"

Lee-Ann Breuch’s essay, “Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’” explores the idea that process is not an accurate description of writing. It is not a matter of pre-writing, writing, and rewriting which can be easily taught. Rather, writing cannot be taught because it is “situated, interpretive, and interdeterminate” and because of that, it cannot be taught because nothing exists to teach. One scholar, Kent, distinguishes other knowledge like that of grammar rules which can be taught from the act of writing which cannot be taught. While the implications of writing as a process are that writing can be learned and perfected, in reality, as Breuch, Kent, and other scholars argue, writing cannot be perfected. In accordance with Post-Process theory, there are several assumptions about writing. Specifically, the theory assumes that writing is public, interpretive, and situated. Writing is public because there is an intended audience for everything you write and writers try to communicate their argument to that specific audience. Writing is interpretive because the production of discourse is just as interpretive as the reception. It is even suggested that every interpretation is based on previous interpretations. Finally, writing is situated because it must correspond to specific contexts that naturally vary. Some suggest that teachers should change how and what they teach based on the situation in the classroom, and they do not have to follow any one set blueprint. Breuch argues that you should not take Post-Process theory at face value, simply as a critique of process, but rather that it also implies the acceptance of anti-foundationalist perspective and moving toward language-in-use in order to reexamine the foundations from which teachers teach and how they communicate towards students.

I do agree that it is important to discuss ideas and listen to students open-mindedly, and that the argument does seem valid for students not to have to adhere to a strict theory that writing is a process which can be learned. I still cannot get past the fact that I keep thinking about how much the process of writing has helped me learn to become a better writer. It is true that I am not a perfect writer, but I do not think perfection of the skill is necessarily the goal of writing. This theory presents several good implications of writing with which I do agree, but I still keep thinking about the fact that the actual process of writing is very important, as Murray and Emig would assert. Murray, Emig, and Breuch are student centered in their arguments, focusing on what the student needs, but in very different ways. While Murray and Emig would agree that the process of writing is most important, Breuch would contest that writing is not something that straight-foreword. Emig stresses feedback and the act of writing being inclusive and creative, whereas Murray says that prewriting is the creative process, and takes a much less cognitive approach. Breuch, on the other hand, seems to have a less tangible thought about writing, saying that it is very-much so interpretive and should be molded to the situation at hand, and that it really cannot be taught. Therefore, it is not right for teachers to profess that there is one right or wrong way to write and that the process must be followed.

Based on my writing experiences, I do think that the principles upon which we write can be taught. By that I mean that we can be taught the process of writing, and the rules that so-called “good writers” follow. However, once we, as students of writing, know those rules and processes, it is alright to stray away from them and develop our own voice as a writer. Process is, in my mind, the key to writing. When writers skip the prewriting or rewriting step, their writing is not nearly as concise as when they follow through with the whole process from beginning to end. While I could definitely agree with some of the points Breuch makes about writing, I ultimately think that writing is a process which can be learned but not perfected.