The Entangled Writing Process: Fostering the Writer’s Tacit Skills of Choice
Series Title: Writing: An Art of Making Choices Blog #3
Icon of the Holy Trinity by Andrei Rublev (c. 1360 - 1420)
By Dr. Melvin Hall,
Ph.D. in Composition and Rhetoric
from the University of Wisconsin — Madison.
❞ Writing for me is most importantly [a] humanizing process whose greatest end is the creation of the writer, not the creation of essays.
- D. Gordon Rohman, “The Vocabulary of Becoming: An Existential Approach to Writing”
❞ In composing, everything happens at once or it doesn’t happen at all. We don’t think somehow wordlessly and then put our thoughts into language. We speak and seek for meaning at one and the same time.
- Ann Berthoff, “Images of Allatonceness” in The Sense of Learning
What is a Technique?
As we learned in the first blog, “Plato, Rhetorical Art, ChatGPT, and the Sophist in the Machine,” technology dominates writers’ mode of production. And these dominate modes of production influence writers’ mental lives and actions, especially how they make choices and conceptualize the writing process. Simply put, patterns of production shape patterns of thought. So writers looking through their technological lens potentially see a machine-like writing process that reduces writing to a technique.
Barrett (1978) defines a technique as “a standard method that can be taught. It is a recipe that can be fully conveyed from one person to another. A recipe always lays down a certain number of steps which, if followed to the letter, ought to lead invariably to the end desired. The logicians call this a decision procedure” (p. 19). In other words, a technique is a series of pre-programed choices, which is what a machine is.
Theoretically, learning a technique frees writers from the responsibility of making choices. And they could churn out eloquent articles on an industrial scale by following the technique’s prescribed choices regardless of the writing situation. Large Language Models (LLM’s like ChatGPT) aspire to make the writing process a technique, just a few clicks and prompts. In fact, “good writing” or “good style” is increasingly defined by machine techniques; AI generated texts are becoming our models of style and thought.
Writing, if the goal is to create a writer with critical thinking skills and not just an essay, is an entangled process of skills and steps. Writers assimilate the skills of the writing process as an integral part of their intellectual life, mind, and body. The writing process, in other words, is more than a technique. It is personal, fostering a writers’ tacit skills of choice and critical thinking. The paradox is that the writing process that brings harmony and order to written language is itself somewhat disordered, entangled, and, frankly, unspecifiable.
To describe the writing process as tacit skills of choice, I adopt Michael Polanyi’s theory and concepts of tacit knowledge which can be found in:
Polanyi, M. (1958 / 1974). Skill. In Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. (pp. 41-65). University of Chicago Press.
Polanyi, M. (1966 / 2009). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press.
Part I: What Is the Entangled Writing Process?
Principle 1: The Writing Process Doesn’t Exist Unless It Is Observed/Practiced
One principle of quantum entanglement is that things “come into existence at the moment they are observed” (Brody, 2020, pp. 13-14). If we look away, the thing ceases to exist. The writing process, too, like quantum particles, doesn’t exist until it is practiced. Reading about the writing process in a textbook doesn’t make it so. In each unique writing situation, the writing process exhibits a different order, sequence, duration, and emphasis of components for each writer. A writer transforms the writing process to fit the given situation and the writer’s skill(s) at that moment. To put it another way, a writer simultaneously creates the writing process while drafting the text or essay.
For example, the four main steps of the writing process diagramed in Figure 1 and listed components/skills in Table 1 will follow a different order or sequence for different writing scenarios. The writing process can’t be known before the writing begins. To illustrate, when writers begin drafting an article, perhaps they begin with the introduction. But when they write a second article, they begin drafting a body paragraph or literature review. Or perhaps they don’t begin the writing process with discovery but with socializing, discussing their topic with a colleague. There is no one invariable sequence of steps. This means writing is a personal, recursive process of exploration and discovery. The entangled writing process is like jazz improvisation. We don’t know the tune until it's played.
Figure 1: The Entangled Domains of the Writing Process. Created by the Author. See Table 1 below for a description of each domain’s activities and skills.
Principle 2: The Components of the Writing Process Are Entangled (Allatonceness)
The main principle of quantum entanglement is that particles are powerfully linked to one another – even when they are not at the same location. If particle A turns left, particle B will turn right, even if particle B is in another city. Einstein called it, “spooky action at a distance” (Brody, 2020, pp. 20 and 22). We can say that writers experience “spooky action at a distance.” Because the different elements of the writing process are powerfully linked, whatever changes or developments occur at one part of the writing process will cause equivalent changes or developments in the other parts of the writing process.
For example, as I discover new information or data this will change how I draft my paragraphs and sentences. Conversely, as I draft my paragraphs and sentences, this will disclose that I need to discover new data, examples, or conceptual relationships. And reviewing and socializing my text, of course, will change how I revise and reshape my text by telling me where I need to eliminate words and sentences, rearrange paragraphs, and reorganize the article or essay.
Berthoff named the entangled writing process “allatonceness.” As her epigraph to the blog indicates, everything happening at once (its entanglement) is the writing process’ normal state. For example, as I write this sentence, my focus is on discovery/form – making meaning. But as I am attending to discovering meaning, I am unconsciously aware of spelling, word order, vocabulary, sentence structure, paragraph coherence, touch typing, punctuation, appraising, revising, reader expectations (socializing), conceptual links, analyzing and synthesizing (the skills listed in Table 1 and the process diagrammed in Figure 1).
| Table 1: Components of the Entangled Writing Process | |||
| Discover / Form / Analyze | Draft / Shape / Synthesize | Review / Socialize | Revise / Reshape |
|
|
|
|
Andrei Rublev’s Icon of the Holy Trinity helps me visualize entanglement and allatonceness. There is a single God with three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I can focus on one member of the Trinity, the Father, and it implies the other two members.
The famous rabbit/duck image (Figure 2), too, helps visualize the writing process’ entanglement and allatonceness.
Figure 2: Rabbit-Duck Illusion
The complete image (the Gestalt) is a rabbit-duck. Yet, we can only focus on one or the other at a time. The rabbit and duck are entangled. And the parts of the whole we focus on determine the complete image we see – rabbit or duck. At the same time, the parts are given meaning depending on the whole image we see. For example, the object on the left is either a duck’s bill or a rabbit’s ears depending on the whole image that comes into focus. The same is true of the entangled writing process. All parts of the writing process fall into place when we focus on the whole – which is the goal of making meaning/form. But focusing on the whole process is itself a skill to be learned.
Principle 3: Focusing on a Particular Skill or Domain could Paralyze the Writing Process
Now, of course, writers sometimes focus on a specific skill of the writing process. For example, a writer may pay close attention to word order, spelling, word choice, or sentence structure (first order forms). An exclusive focus on word choice, for example, could halt the writing process if a writer spends 15 to 30 minutes (or an entire afternoon) looking for the mot juste. Or if writers focus on spelling or punctuation, it could derail their ability to compose a paragraph and make meaning. Focusing on a particular skill is the equivalent of a driver focusing on pressing a car’s gas pedal instead of looking out the window. The road trip ends in a ditch before it begins, or the car lurches to its destination. Or focusing on a particular skill is the equivalent of focusing on only a part of Figure 2 so that neither a duck nor a rabbit becomes visible.
Part II: What Is Meant by a Writer’s Tacit Skills of Choice?
Part II: What Is Meant by a Writer’s Tacit Skills of Choice?
All the skills or practices listed in Table 1, for professional or advanced writers, are tacit skills of choice; writers no longer consciously attend to the skills in themselves but only as skills given meaning by practicing the writing process as whole – their focus is on discovering or making meaning, not on the skills themselves.
Four Analogies of Tacit Skills of Choice
b) When players learn to play chess, they must focus on the rules of the game and how each piece on the board is moved: pawns, kings, queens, bishops, knights, and rooks. Slowly with practice and time, the players assimilate the rules of the game and each piece’s movement as part of their intellectual tools. They can now focus on coordinating the pieces into a holistic strategy seeking to checkmate their opponent. The rules of the game and movement of the pieces become a tacit set of skills of which they are only subsidiarily aware. But if the players were to focus on how the pieces move rather than the goal or purpose of the game, they would be unable to play the game with any success.
c) Pianists can play a melody or piece of music if they focus on the music and melody as a whole. If pianists focus instead on their hands and how the hands move to make a note sound, they will be paralyzed. Polanyi points out that this focus on the particulars of a complex craft or ability is what we call stage fright. When pianists (over years and many hours of effort and practice) assimilate the particular skills of how to hold their hands, press the notes, read and listen to the music, as tacit components of their bodies and minds, they can focus on making music as a whole – the purpose of playing the piano.
d) Scientists employing a new theory or interpretive framework must break the theory into its constituent parts until they assimilate the theory as a natural part of their thinking mind. The interpretive framework or paradigm becomes a tacit component of scientists’ working minds and the tool they use to make sense of experience as they come into contact with reality – similar to how blind people use their sticks to interpret the reality they come into contact with.
a) When a blind person first learns to use a walking stick, they are clumsy because they are focused on how the stick feels in their hand, how to hold the stick. They have difficulty focusing on the distant end of the stick as it makes contact with the surfaces in front of them. With time, the stick becomes an extension of their arm and hand. They interiorize or assimilate the tool (stick) as part of their body. They can now focus on (attend to) the distant point of the stick and its meaning when it comes into contact with the surfaces in front of them. The stick is a tacit component of the person’s body. It is present but they are not any more focally aware of it than they are aware of the hand on their body. The blind person’s walking stick is similar to the writing skills of choice. They eventually become an extension of writers’ mental lives.
b) When players learn to play chess, they must focus on the rules of the game and how each piece on the board is moved: pawns, kings, queens, bishops, knights, and rooks. Slowly with practice and time, the players assimilate the rules of the game and each piece’s movement as part of their intellectual tools. They can now focus on coordinating the pieces into a holistic strategy seeking to checkmate their opponent. The rules of the game and movement of the pieces become a tacit set of skills of which they are only subsidiarily aware. But if the players were to focus on how the pieces move rather than the goal or purpose of the game, they would be unable to play the game with any success.
c) Pianists can play a melody or piece of music if they focus on the music and melody as a whole. If pianists focus instead on their hands and how the hands move to make a note sound, they will be paralyzed. Polanyi points out that this focus on the particulars of a complex craft or ability is what we call stage fright. When pianists (over years and many hours of effort and practice) assimilate the particular skills of how to hold their hands, press the notes, read and listen to the music, as tacit components of their bodies and minds, they can focus on making music as a whole – the purpose of playing the piano.
d) Scientists employing a new theory or interpretive framework must break the theory into its constituent parts until they assimilate the theory as a natural part of their thinking mind. The interpretive framework or paradigm becomes a tacit component of scientists’ working minds and the tool they use to make sense of experience as they come into contact with reality – similar to how blind people use their sticks to interpret the reality they come into contact with.
A Writer’s Tacit Skills of Choice
In general, writers become craftsmen and master craftsmen by interiorizing or assimilating the writing process and its constituent skills as part of their minds and bodies. That is, the writing skills become tacit parts of writers’ mental lives. Polanyi (1958 / 1974) beautifully articulates how scientists and writers make their tools an existential part of themselves:
While we rely on a tool or a probe, these are not handled as external objects. We may test the tool for its effectiveness or the probe for its suitability, e.g. in discovering the hidden details of a cavity, but the tool and the probe can never lie in the field of these operations [on the side of external reality]; they remain necessarily on our [personal] side of it, forming part of ourselves, the operating persons. We pour ourselves out into them and assimilate them as parts of our own existence. We accept them existentially by dwelling in them. (59)
The writing process with effort, practice, and endurance becomes a part of operating writers. Writers must accept their tools, pour themselves out into them, and make them a part of their composing minds. The tools writers dwell in and that become a part of their tacit skills of choice can be divided into physical and intellectual tools:
Physical Tools
Pens, pencils, keyboards, books (print and electronic), journals, computers, smartphones, search engines, digital databases, etc. To illustrate with a keyboard: Writers who can touch type (type rapidly without looking at the keys so that their hands keep up with their minds) have assimilated the keyboard and computer as an extension of their bodies. Touch typing remains a tacit skill of choice as it assists writers in making choices without their attending to the keyboard. Writers direct their focal attention toward producing language/thought on the screen and not on the task of finding the correct key to produce each individual letter or word.
Intellectual Tools
Words, sentence patterns, rhetorical schemes, the writing process, and its constituent parts listed in Figure 1 and Table 1. Through enduring practice, writers assimilate vocabulary, sentence patterns, common places (definition/difference, comparison, contrast, and cause and effect) and the writing process as part of their operational minds. For example, after time, sentence structures and patterns become like the blind person’s walking stick. Writers can focus on making meaning while only being tacitly aware of sentences taking shape as they write. Yet their tacit skill with sentence patterns silently helps them make choices as they write. The same is true of writers’ revision skills. With time, the writing process itself becomes a tacit skill of choice. Writers use the skills of discovery, drafting, review, and revision without being focally aware of them. Most especially, writers learn how to accept feedback and criticism from peers as part of their tacit skills of choice.
Perhaps the most important choice that writers make is to practice the skills (intellectual and physical tools) that they want to assimilate into their intellectual lives. Why Is the Writing Process Unspecifiable?
I recommend that writers socialize and observe each other as they write. Socializing the writing process and tacitly learning from one another is the importance of workshops and writing centers.
In the end, only by writing can the writing process be learned. Practice. So in the following blog, we will focus on practicing and internalizing drafting and revision skills used to write paragraphs. The subsequent blogs in general, will focus on a practical pedagogy for each of the tacit skills of choice listed in blog 2 and in Figure 1 and Table 1 above.
References
Finally, these skills become personal – an instrumental and existential part of writers’ minds and bodies. This is what Rohman means when he describes writing as a “humanizing process whose greatest end is the creation of the writer, not the creation of essays.”
Perhaps the most important choice that writers make is to practice the skills (intellectual and physical tools) that they want to assimilate into their intellectual lives.
Why Is the Writing Process Unspecifiable?
Unspecifiable doesn’t mean that we can’t generalize rules of thumb or domains of the writing process. And it doesn’t mean that we can’t analyze, practice, and study its various parts. I have done this in Figure 1 and Table 1. Unspecifiable means that writers will not be able to express how they are following a writing process as they practice it. They can only demonstrate it or try to reflect on it after the writing is complete. If writers, in fact, tried to express the rules of the writing process as they were practicing it, they would likely never complete a draft. In this sense, the writing process remains a Gestalt and tacitly known. This is a reason why Polanyi stresses the importance of tradition and apprenticeship in teaching the craft of scientific research or any craft – it is mostly learned through careful observation.
I recommend that writers socialize and observe each other as they write. Socializing the writing process and tacitly learning from one another is the importance of workshops and writing centers.
In the end, only by writing can the writing process be learned. Practice. So in the following blog, we will focus on practicing and internalizing drafting and revision skills used to write paragraphs. The subsequent blogs in general, will focus on a practical pedagogy for each of the tacit skills of choice listed in blog 2 and in Figure 1 and Table 1 above.
References
Barrett, W. (1978). The illusion of technique: A search for meaning in a technological civilization. Anchor Press / Doubleday.
Brody, J. (2020). Quantum entanglement. The MIT Press.
Date
25 February