Harris further criticizes Emig and Flower for " positing an ideal text and working backward from that" (90). I don't think this criticism needs much more elaboration to ask the question I have about it, which is, "Is it possible to develop a pedagogy (or even an assignment) without having an ideal product in mind (predetermined as successful)?" Another yes/no question, but I wonder if the answer is "yes," what does that pedagogy or assignment look like? In answering "yes" here and rejecting Harris' Emig and Flower's necessity for an ideal product, do we step into the noodle-aisle-wasteland of the post-process, post-pedagogical Happening?
Finally, Crowley insists that current-traditional rhetoric is very much alive, especially in process-oriented approaches to composition, a la, "I see no evidence that an alternative epistemology has ever succeeded in dislodging the hold of current-traditionalism on writing instruction in American colleges and universities, although one or two paradigmatic alternatives have been suggested since the 1960s" (Crowley 64). If the vestiges of current-traditional rhetoric do still linger (or dominate) in current composition theory/pedagogy, what would the process of truly dislodging it entail? What would be the benefits of doing so? What would we lose, and are we willing to take that loss?