According to Faigley, the positioning of writing as a discipline depends upon an understanding of the writing process. Current understandings of writing as a discipline rest upon underlying assumptions about the importance of the writing process. Faigley situates himself within current criticism by citing a lengthy quote from Henry Giroux. Giroux laments the separation of composition from literature, saying the rise of writing studies signifies the primacy of skills-based education and the increasing technolicization of the humanities. Giroux believes this shift devalues critical thinking skills. Faigley sets out to disagree with Giroux. He outlines three schools of thought on the writing process: expressive, cognitive, and social. Each school of thought offers unique advantages and disadvantages (which we will discuss in class), and represents a specific historical moment. The most recent understanding of process, the social theory, is based on the assumption that humans interact with language on a collective, not individual, level. Faigley further divides the social movement into four distinct lines of research: poststructuralist theories of language and text, sociology of science, ethnography, and Marxism. Faigley concludes by proposing a synthesis of these competing schools, arguing that schools of process are dynamic historical movements. This understanding enables teachers of writing to draw from the strengths of each theory as they see fit. I agree with Faigley conclusion; I don’t see the need to adhere to one school of process exclusively. His piece is a comprehensive overiview of the writing process; I could see myself using this article as a quick guide on the writing process. I only take issue with his failure to take up some of the larger issues Giroux raises in in the quoted passage. Faigley focuses on the importance of the writing process to the rise of writing, rather than the implications of the rise of writing that Giroux seems most deeply concerned with.
Discussion Lead:
Questions:
Do you agree with Giroux that the separation of composition and literature indicates the technicization of education and is an affront to critical thought? Why or why not?
How would you describe the relationship between personal development and writing development?
Does it make sense to have expressive, cognitive, and social views so divided from one another? Are they mutually exclusive, or mutually informative, or a little of both?
How is writing with historical awareness different from writing as part of a social group? Also, whose history do we mean? We all know “history” isn’t so simple.
How would approaching writing as historical change the dynamics of a classroom? Or the kinds of assignments you created?
As we move away from the expressive approach, how can we empower students and their writing while simultaneously denying that they have special ideas floating around in their brain that just need to come out? Basically, how can we teach that writing is contextual and social without telling students that their thoughts don’t matter?
An exercise:
Brainstorm or free write about an answer to one of Faigley’s questions: Why might writing courses be more prevalent in the US than elsewhere? Why are these courses typically taught by grad students and adjuncts? And, if Faigley posed all these questions to empower teachers and students, let’s think about what that might mean. In a dream scenario, how might you address the question of academic labor in the writing room, for instance?
Comments
Hey, Sarah. I, too, wish Faigley had done more to address what you and I both seem to see as the central issue of Giroux’s critique: composition courses as extending the “technicization” of education into the humanities. We’ll consider this issue in some depth when we get to Smit’s book in a couple of weeks.