Pages: 9

This book brings attention to the communicative process of editing as a dialogic experience that is attentive to the voice of the Other and underlines an ethical turn for the editing process. The metaphor of engaging the trace of the Other marks the significance of the meeting of the voices as editors and authors beyond a habitual, technical process, calling for awareness of ethical responsibility and stewardship. Reading and receiving the voice/trace of the Other and offering feedback toward assisting the text to find a voice without turning it to the voice of the editor is an essential, yet undertheorized, part of the communicative practice of editing. Utilizing the theoretical and philosophical frameworks of a diverse group of leading scholars and philosophers, including Martin Buber, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Umberto Eco, George Bataille, Paul Freire, Mikhail Bakhtin, Ronald C. Arnett, Walter Ong, and Kenneth Burke, contributors to this volume explore the editing process as connected to communication ethics that calls for discernment of what matters—what is valuable that calls for protection and promotion in the context of one’s work and community.

Pages: 56

No chapter abstract available.

Pages: 13

Editing is one of the more mundane, common, and routine actions of a scholar. It is also an exemplar of philosophical hermeneutics in action and an invitation to learn from the revelatory and the dialogic. This chapter explores editing through the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer; he describes the interpretive function of hermeneutics in action, detailing the creative activity of editing that commences with a question rather than an argument. Doing philosophical hermeneutics invites understanding as one engages writing and editing; this form of practical/intellectual engagement is open to the revelatory, the uncertain, and the unknown. Argument is a byproduct of understanding; one stumbles into a persuasive position.

Pages: 12

Dialogic editing can be explored through multiple contexts, each of which offers distinctive coordinates that give unique texture to the process. One context is that of authors who work knowingly from a particular philosophical, theoretical, or theological ground as they carry out their authorial tasks. Authors who work from a faith perspective are situated within two traditions or narratives: one that is religiously informed and another rooted in a disciplinary or professional history. In this context, authors form a dialogic bridge between two traditions, bringing them into conversation with each other through the ongoing writing and editing process. By participating in both traditions, authors contribute to expanded horizons for each. This meeting of traditions offers the potential for incremental change in elements of each narrative, or elements of the reception and understanding of each narrative, made possible by emergent, creative possibilities brought forth by the authors’ professional practice, which is informed by both traditions. This chapter explores the theoretical ground for this approach to dialogic editing and offers Flannery O’Connor as an exemplar of a bridging author.

Pages: 15

There are various approaches to the task of editing manuscripts and other kinds of messaging across various media channels. This chapter explores the practice of dialogic editing through the metaphors of hermeneutic humility, a philosophy toward connection, the application of commitment, and integral engagement. First, this chapter identifies the reason why dialogic editing, as an approach to the editing process, is necessary, especially in today’s multifaceted publishing environment. Second, the metaphor of hermeneutic humility is situated as a necessary coordinate of dialogic editing through the work of Calvin Schrag and Ramsey Eric Ramsey. Third, a discussion around the philosophy of connections is explored through philosophical and applied contexts to demonstrate the significance of learning how to work with others in private and professional contexts. Fourth, understanding the obligations we experience in professional relationships is important to reflecting on the human condition and understanding our individual role of commitment to the Other in building and expanding professional relationships. Finally, connecting hermeneutic humility, building connections in editing, and expanding professional relationships leads to dialogic editing as an example of integral engagement. The chapter ends with an application in practice, providing an example of how dialogic editing might look in real experience.

Pages: 14

This chapter follows the work of Umberto Eco, who contends that meaning and interpretation emerge in the intersection of text, author, and reader. This perspective counters assumptions that confine the authority of meaning to an author, a reader, or a text. Eco offers a perspective of interpretation that is implicitly dialogic. This approach offers a framework that opens a space for editing within this practice of dialogue. Eco’s perspective of interpretation leads this chapter to dialogic notions of the between as a locus where meaning emerges. The chapter contends that Eco offers dialogic insights through which to understand editing and interpretation as a meeting of text, author, and reader.

Pages: 61

No chapter abstract available.

Pages: 11

In the editing encounter, one is exposed to the other through questions and critique that intimate the possibility of a text’s transformation. The communicative space of editing can be a space of labor, struggle, negotiation, judgment, irritation, transformation, and discovery. In this chapter, we explore Georges Bataille’s concepts of fissure and, nonknowledge—the rebellion against the closure of meaning—to bring into view the interplay of diverse voices that may enter the exchanges between authors and editors. We further integrate John Keats’s discussion of negative capability, the ability to be with uncertainties without jumping into quick judgments and conclusions, as a practice of pausing and staying open to the gaps and ruptures in meaning, and engaging the conversation in exploring emergent meaning as part of dialogic editing. We reflect on pausing and inquiring as new flavors in one’s writing become accessible through the “bite” of an editor’s questions and critique.

Pages: 17

Many womanist scholars participate in conversations about the implicit and the explicit responsibilities implicated in Alice Walker’s four-part definition of womanisim. As an editor, the interpretation of these responsibilities includes creating spaces for the lived experiences of Black women, women of color, and those on the margins of society. This chapter explores editing through a phenomenological womanist ethical lens, as both are concerned with the voice and representation of lived experiences. Editors are responsible for keeping the standard of academic integrity and rigor within the scope and vision of an edited work’s theme, approach, and positionality. This dialogic dance must be balanced with the comments and suggestions of peer reviews and editorial feedback while maintaining the original meaning and voice of the contributing author(s).

Pages: 15

Writing pedagogy begins with teachers and students sharing attention while considering a text being composed. Some writing pedagogy simply points out errors, grammatical and syntactical, without an eye for helping a student develop authorial intent. The following chapter argues that editorial work can restore an important feature of writing instruction when instructors evaluate and grade projects alongside students. Shared presence encourages a student to learn from the teacher’s posture and intonation, which mediates teacher-student relationships while emphasizing the student’s authorial volition. Such editorial work also invites dialogic encounters around the craft of writing, enhancing trust in respective roles and casting writing as a discursively conducted enterprise of learning mediated by the mutuality enjoyed by two people working side by side.

Pages: 16

This chapter examines Kenneth Burke’s “perspective by incongruity” and its implications concerning dialogic editing. Perspective by incongruity is an attempt to transform trained incapacity and reorient self into new ways of understanding. In the editing process, the editor and the writer come together with their perspectives. Challenges arise when the writer is a non-native speaker and has not only a shared responsibility to edit but to bring unique cultural perspectives to the writing project. Each brings not only a philosophical perspective and sense of direction that guides a project but also a respective personal perspective entwined with and enriched by cultural embeddedness and bias. The first section addresses the tension in our communicative activity as writers and editors. The next section examines how Burke’s perspective by incongruity creates and promotes a respectful and ethical dialogic editing process. We explore the implications of perspective by incongruity in the intercultural editing process for the relationship between editor and non-native English writer and between editor and an assemblage of diverse voices. Finally, we discuss how Burke’s perspective by incongruity promotes dialogic editing as an intercultural process that constitutes a layered interweaving of disciplinary understandings, cultural perspectives, and (inter)personal insights.