Composition: History & Theory: 1980 - 1989
Faigley, Lester. “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal.” (1986)
Description
In this article, Lester Faigley catalogues three distinct schools of thought/movements in composition that are used to define the concept of “process” in the “process movement” (expressive, cognitive, and social). This catalogue is followed by a response directed toward critics of these movements (including Aronowitz and Giroux) who assert that writing is not an academic discipline but a tool of atheoretical trends in teaching, a discipline which is moving toward “skills-oriented” education. Faigley’s main argument is that the present modes of process, while certainly useful and productive, fail to provide adequate coverage of the past and future of composition studies and practice. For composition to truly achieve disciplinary status, Faigley argues, teaching writing as a process must be examined in a broader view which encompasses process as it relates to context.
- The first approach to teaching writing Faigley describes is the expressive view. The proponents of this view claim that “good writing” must have integrity, must be spontaneous, and must be original (529). This view centers on the writer’s unique voice and encourages “discovery of the self through language” (536). Faigley provides the historical development of expressivism beginning in the mid-1960s from D. Gordon Rohman and Albert Wlecke to Peter Elbow. He is also careful to include a dissenting view from Donald Stewart.
- The second of Faigley’s theoretical positions to be examined is the cognitive view in which there is an emphasis on analyzing a writer’s process and understanding of the psychological processes of composing. Faigley traces how the work of Rohman and Wlecke led others in the direction of cognitivism by suggesting, at least in part, that writing could be linear. Janet Emig clearly disagreed and many have commented on Emig’s importance to the science of composing. Although Emig’s importance to composition could never be underestimated, there were unanswered questions and others like James Britton, Linda Flower, and John R. Hayes stepped up to fill in the gaps. In both the expressive and cognitive sections, Faigley cites Henry A. Giroux as a differing point of view, and by using Giroux, he provides greater context for each area while still maintaining clarity of purpose in describing them.
- Finally, Faigley examines what he calls the social view. Teaching writing from this perspective assumes that all writing is a conversation between members of a discourse community. Reading and responding to texts within a discourse is central to this view. A social view of writing, Faigley argues, derives from the idea that language can only be interpreted and understood through a social context—a society. This suggestion points to how society influences speakers or writers to communicate the way they do and how they are more a product of society than a creator of society. Faigley decides to cite four areas of the social view: “poststructuralist theories of language, the sociology of science, ethnography, and Marxism” (535).
Faigley’s main points are that although process theory has been largely unquestioned in terms of its long-term benefits and implications, it should not be hastily discarded because “[p]rocess theory and pedagogy have given student writing a value and authority absent in current-traditional approaches” (537). He defends each camp by reminding us readers that “expressive theorists validate personal experience in school systems that often deny it […] cognitive theorists see language as a way of negotiating the world […] and social theorists […] have found that children who are labeled as remedial in traditional classrooms can learn literacy skills by studying the occurrences of writing in the familiar world around them” (537). While these tenets are valuable, he maintains that in order for process theory to be relevant and helpful, “it must take a broader conception of writing, one that understands writing processes are historically dynamic” (537).
This article is a helpful overview of the development of different movements in composition theory. Most of the article tacitly attacks Current-Traditional Rhetoric by nothing the evolution of the other theories. The historical background he provides ensures that we know where we have come from and hopes we know where we are going.
Date of Upload
3/14/09