Matsuda on Process & Post-Process

Paul Matsuda's article is not really about the principles of Process and Post-Process approaches to writing, it's about who calls it that, and why. As we can see from the study of history, most things are reactions to the things that were before them.

And so Process was a reaction to Current-Traditional, and Post-Process is a reaction to Process. But Matsuda is quick to point out that not all are in agreement that these "movements" were truly paradigms. After all, the Comp/Rhet police do not travel around enforcing the approved approach of the day. As is often true, what is being practiced by most people is considered old news by those in academia, who have moved on to the next big thing.

It is not as though the Process folks invented the concept of student conferences, and we definitely have not discarded the study of grammar, even in today's Post-Process environment. There have been a "multiplicity of perspectives" (67) since people started paying attention to these things.

Matsuda next addresses these concerns as they apply to second language learners. It seems that writing is the next big thing for these individuals, in reaction to emphasis on listening and speaking that second language. This has led to a Process approach to second language writing, which, oddly enough, is resisted by Process proponents because they insist on their "rigid formulation of the Process approach." (78)

I wonder why Comp/Rhet people are so hungry for labels. Are academics required to identify themselves as one thing or another, and then align themselves with the others who are similarly inclined? And what if they should lose their faith or desire to convert to another approach - will they be shunned or excommunicated?