Old questions, new media: Theorizing writing in a digital age

For those who have followed the evolution of the postprocess conversation in rhetoric and composition studies, this collection's call to move beyond postprocess will strike a curiously familiar chord. In 2003, Theresa Enos and Keith Miller coedited the book Beyond Postprocess and Postmodernism in which contributors reconsidered the work of the late Jim Corder in order to expand the field's research beyond (meaning, away from) postprocess theories and pedagogies. This collection's aim is different insofar as it extends the insights developed by postprocess scholars such as Thomas Kent nearly two decades ago. Nevertheless, this intriguing repetition in titles should initiate some critical reflection. Is this an instance of historical repetition where "only through repetition is this event recognized in its symbolic necessity" (Žižek 1989, 61)? Or, has this collection simply devised another way to stay au courant?1 Perhaps the more pressing concern is what this collection proposes to move beyond, particularly when a host of "postprocess" scholars claim to have already moved process research and teaching beyond its more static instantiations.2 Is this collection therefore meant to distinguish itself from those who identify as postprocess scholars, yet remain committed to the core aims of process theory and instruction? Does the term beyond postprocess signal that "change is in the air" (once?) again (Kent 1999, 5)?