Faigley, Lester. “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and
a Proposal.” College English. 48.6 (1986): 27-542. Print.
Summary:
While the teaching of writing has earned a place within academic departments, its
status as an area of research has led to questions about the field’s theoretical
underpinnings. Indeed, a 1963 analysis by Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-Jones,
and Lowell Schoer found that despite the number of studies on writing, most lacked
“any broad theoretical notion of writing abilities or even awareness of similar
existing studies” (527). Basing his work on the common assumption that “writing as
a process is good and “current-traditional rhetoric” is bad” Lester Faigley sets out to
examine the three views of composing process (expressive, cognitive, and social)
with “the goal of identifying a disciplinary basis for the study of writing” (527; 528).
Along with his history of each view, Faigley also turns toward Henry Giroux’s
critique of each view presented in Theory and Resistance in Education. Rather than
describing the assumptions of each of the three views of composing, I have outlined
each, along with important names, texts, and Giroux’s critique below. Faigely, who
believes that “the study and teaching of writing should aspire to disciplinary status,”
uses his presentation of each of the three views of composing to ultimately argue
that, “disciplinary claims for writing must be based on a conception of process
broader than any of the three views” (528). This broad view needs to encompass the
fact that, “writing processes are historically dynamic-not psychic states, cognitive
routines, or neutral social relationships” (537). Faigley believes this recognition is
necessary for the reinterpretation and integration of the three views of process
theory. He ends by examining each of the three views of process theory using a
historical and social awareness.
The Expressive View
Basic Description
“the individual
discovers the self
through language”
(536)
Romantic View of
Composing (three
aspects to this view
described below)
Important People
D. Gordon Rohman
and Albert Wlecke
(pre-writing)
William Coles
Peter Elbow
Ken Macrorie
Donald Stewart
Characteristics of Romantic Expressivism
Integrity
Spontaneity
Important Texts
M.H. Abrams in The
Mirror and the Lamp
(Expressive Poetry)
Peter Elbow’s
Writing Without
Teachers and Writing
with Power
Originality
Criticism
“ignores how writing
works in the world,
hides the social
nature of language,
and offers a false
notion of a ‘private’
self” (531)
Is the text sincere
Ex. Donald Stewart’s
1969 student paper
about money
Impossible to assess the
sincerity of a text.
Writers and readers are
bound by culture.
Writing and thinking aren’t
separate processes
Peter Elbow’s Writing without
Teachers
Free-writing
Organic Growth “”good”
writing does not follow rules
but reflects the process of the
creative imagination”
Revision=shapes unformed
material
Cognitive View
Basic Description
“an individual constructs
reality through language”
(536)
Janet Emig was the first to
respond to the call for
research on cognitive
process at the 1966
Dartmouth Seminar on
English
Her work was influention in
that it provided a new
methodology and agenda for
research
Two Cognitive Theories of
Composing (explained
Below)
Important People
D. Gordon Rohman and
Albert Wlecke (heuristics
and pre-writing, Writing,
and Re-Writing model)
Linda Flower, Barry Kroll,
and Andrea Lunsford
Janet Emig
Difficult to adapt to current
theories because it is tied to
the notion of natural genius
Contemporary view of
originality replaces natural
genius with “an emphasis on
the innate potential of the
unconscious mind” (531)
Creative writing can stimulate
originality and selfactualization
Criticism
Problem in trying to find a
universal law underlying
writing since nothing is
universal, but rather social
in nature. In fact, the theory
seems to neglect culture
entirely. Further, the model
neglects “the content of
writing” and downplays
“conflicts inherent in acts of
writing” (534). Because of
this, the cognitive view
overlooks “differences in
language use among
students of different social
classes, genders, and ethnic
backgrounds” (534)
Cognitive-Developmental Psychology
-James Britton and colleagues
-Examination of the developing sense of audience in young writers
-Children have a difficult time as writers because a reactive
presence (which is present when they speak) is not present
when they write
-To help develop a sense of audience children need to imagine real
writing situations
-Barry Kroll
-Studied developmental stages in writing
-Applied Jean Piaget’s concept of egocentrism to writing
- Children develop the ability to imagine another perspective
(decenter) more slowly in writing than speaking
-Andrea Lunsford
-Applied Kroll’s egocentricism to college basic writers
Flower and Hayes Model
-Assumptions underlying their work are based in cognitive research
-Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon’s Human Problem Solving
“the key to understanding how people solve problems is in
their “programmability”” (533)
-Can model thinking and language using computers
-Added to feedback loop theory by explaining that plans come
from the task environment which is “defined in terms of a goal
coupled with a specific environment” (533)
-Norbert Wiener’s theory of Cybernetics
-Beginnings of cognitive science
-“the feedback loop in which the regulating mechanism receives
information from the thing regulated and makes adjustments”
(533)
-George A. Miller, Eugene Galanter, and Karl Pribram
-Plans and the Structure of Behavior
-Brain divided into a memory and processing unit
-Human behavior is “guided by plans that are constantly being
evaluated as they are being carried out in a feedback loop”
(533)
-Flower and Hayes model helped promote a ‘science consciousness’ among
writing teachers” (534)
-Flower and Hayes model was appealing because it “suited a popular
conception that language comes after ideas are formed” (534)
The Social View
-Comes from diverse disciplinary traditions and is less solidified than the other two
views.
-Assumption: “human language (including writing) can be understood only from the
perspective of a society rather than an individual” (535)
-Not simply looking at the context surrounding discourse-looking at “how the
individual is a constituent of a culture” (535)
-Rejects the theory that writing lies within the individual
-Four lines of research characterized by one of four traditions from which they
emerged:
Poststructuralist
Theories of
Language
“Reading is neither
an experience of
extracting a fixed
meaning from a
text nor is it a
matter of making
words mean
anything you want
them to” (535)
-Discourse
Communities
-No universal
definition of an
expert writer
-“any effort to
write about the self
or reality always
comes in relation
to previous texts”
(536)
Sociology of
Science
Ethnography
Marxist Studies of
Literacy
Look at the
composition of
scientific texts
-“challenges the
assumption that
scientific texts are
‘active social tools
in the complex
interactions of a
research
community’” (536)
- Used to “examine
the immediate
communities in
which writers
learn to write-the
family and the
classroom” (536)
-Disparity between
the way literacy is
used in the world
and at home and
literary
expectations at
school
-Also used to look
at writing in the
workplace
-Finds fault with
the other social
positions because
they don’t deal
with concepts such
as power, class,
and ideology.
-“any act of writing
or of teaching
writing must be
understood within
a structure of
power related to
modes of
production” (537)
Questions:
1) Faigley opens with the statement: “voices from outside and from within the ranks
question whether a discipline devoted to the study of writing exists or if those who
teach writing simply assume it exists because they share common problems and
interests” (527). Using the writing we have covered thus far (including the Nystrand
et al. piece) what do you think about this statement?
2) Take a look at the final part of the article titled “Toward a Synthesis.” Faigley lists
a several issues and the way history can be applied to better understand them. Were
there any issues that stood out to you that you would like to discuss? If not, look at
the paragraph about the expressive view in which Faigley ends by questioning how
“the possibilities for individual expression will be affected by major technological
changes” (538). He calls this “one of the most important areas of research for those
who study writing” (538). Using this broad statement can you generate any research
projects or even hypotheses?
3) With each of the three views of process in mind, do you agree with Faigley’s
argument that one needs to take a broader view than any of the individual views
allows, or do you think it would be better to select a single view and augment it to
create a structure on which a disciplinary basis can stand?
One research or pedagogical application you see for the reading:
I believe a research application can be found in Faigley’s final “Toward a
Synthesis” section in which he outlines the direction in which research needs to
take. In this section he outlines several research problems which include an
examination of the concept of “community,” how individual expression is/will be
affected by technological changes, and examining the origins of an individual
writer’s goals.