Spontaneity to Conversation

There were many articles discussing the writing process and how to teach writing in the reading for this week, but I think that Lester Faigley’s article “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal,” bridges some of the presentations that have been given throughout the semester. The two theories that Faigley focuses on that I noticed the strongest connection to the rhetoricians that have bee presented to the class were the expressive view, and the social view. In which he points out views of Coleridge in expressive theory and views of social theory that are similar to Burke.

While exploring exressivsm Faigley demonstrates its possible roots in Romantic expressivsm. “This definition of ‘good writing’ includes the essential qualities of Romantic espressivsm—integrity, spontaneity, and originality—the same language M. H. Abrams uses to define ‘expressive’ poetry in The Mirror and the Lamp,” (Faigly 654). As we learned for Emily’s presentation, Coleridge was a romantic poet and as such finds himself part of Faigley’s essay. “Elbow chose the metaphor of organic growth to describe the operations of composing, that same metaphor Edward Young used to describe the vegetable concept of genius in 1759 and Coleridge borrowed from German philosophers to describe the workings of the imagination,” (Faigley 655). I know I. A. Richards is not classified as romantic poet, but I think that the romantic notion of writing originating with the author relates in a small sense to new criticism. Both views share a slight isolation. Literature should be read by only looking at the written piece, and the generation of writing is solely from the author.

When describing social theory, Faigley points out that most of the studies of social theory are derived from Burke. “I will attempt to identify four lines of research that take a social view of writing, although I recognize these positions overlap and that each draws on earlier work (e.g., Kenneth Burke),” (Faigley, 659). The social view looks at how a writer or writing fits into a society. “The focus of a social view of writing, therefore, is not on how the social situation influences the individual, but on how the individual is a constituent of a culture,” (Faigley, 659). The social view seems to suggest that writing is generated through social situations rather than spontaneously bursting into the authors head. This idea reminded me of Berthoff’s article “Learning the use of Chaos” because we understand our society through language, and Berthoff argued that we form ideas by finding our way out of chaos with language.

Generating Ideas

It seems strange that the focus on the writing process is a somewhat new idea but many past rhetoricians seem to have had the idea tangled amongst their prominent concepts. In Emily’s presentation we learned that there have been many ideas about the stage of invention, and Coleridge was among them with his belief that inspiration flowed through the author. The theory of the necessity of inspiration for writers has been contested by later composition theorists, like Linda Flower. I found that part of our readings included discussions of the writing process. Ann E. Berthoff offers ideas about the writing process at the stage of invention in her article “Learning the Uses of Chaos.” Berthoff’s ideas of the invention stage differ from Coleridge since she suggests that ideas come from language. “We find the forms of thought by means of language and we find the forms of language by taking thought,” (Berthoff, 648). Her ideas, as the title suggests, align with invention from chaos. “…they can find ways out of chaos because language creates them. Language itself is the great heuristic,” (Berthoff, 648). Berthoff does offer a small connection to Coleridge when discussing gaining ideas from the writing of others. “If the authors is saying X, how does that go with the Y we heard him saying in the preceding chapter or stanza?” (Berthoff, 650). This reminded me of Coleridge’s idea of taking two opposite things and creating a metaphor. Finding the connections between chapters and stanzas are generally not that difficult, but I think they both offer ideas about finding connections to generate ideas.

It also seemed that Coleridge may have shown some concern about the suppression of voices that didn’t fit what would have been considered standard. I think Linda Brodkey offered ideas on the same subject in her article “On the Subjects of Class and Gender in ‘The Literacy Letters.’” Brodky examined the correspondence between middle-class teachers and working class students in an “Adult Basic Education” class. What Brodkey noticed was some of the teachers struggled to steer the correspondence and avoid topics that seemed uncomfortable to them. “Don’s response is characteristic of the kind of discursive uneasiness that arises whenever one of the students interrupts the educational practice deems such working-class concerns as neighborhood violence irrelevant,” (Brodkey, 638).

Brodkey’s findings seem to suggest a concern for the isolation of the writing classroom from the real world. She states that the teachers weren’t trying to be crude, but were presenting “…a view that insists that the classroom is a separate world of its own, in which teachers and students relate to one another undistracted by the classism, racism, and sexism that rage outside the classroom,” (Borkey, 645). I have heard many teachers tell their students to leave their personal issues at the door so it doesn’t interfere with their education. This is faulty because even if they can keep their world out of the classroom it still affects their learning. This relates back to our discussion of gender and cultural studies being forced together and possibly still marginalized. As Brodkey states, “What is ultimately challenged is the ideology that class, and by extension race and gender differences, are present in American society but absent from American classrooms,” (Brodkey, 645).

Restriction in the Compostion Classroom

Restriction seems to be common in composition today as well as in the past. Mary Astell encouraged women of her time to disregard “vanities” and do something meaningful. She urged them to write, but it was commonly accepted that rhetoric was only successful in Latin. This posed a problem because most women on the seventeenth century were not schooled in Latin. Astell combated this notion by making the point that rhetoric was part of their daily lives, so it could be practice in languages other than Latin.

Lisa Gerrard comment on the restriction females still seem to meet today in her essay “Feminist Research in Computers and Composition.” Gerrard states, “Computers have long been precieved as male machines, and computers culture as an exclusive boy’s club,” (Gerrard 186). She attributes this to the male domination in computer advertisements. “An analysis of computer advertisements found images of confident male executives interpreting computer output and women as typists, computer phobics, and bimbos,” (Gerrard 186). Gerrard offers that males’ comfort with technology and computers may stem from exposure as children. Gerrard claims that students often begin their computer experience with games. “Students’ first encounter with computers is likely to be games---games designed for boys,” (Gerrard 188). The games target males rather than females, but Gerrard acknowledges that manufacturers have begun to target female audiences. It does seem that women of today are considered masculine if they are competent with computers just as the women of Astell’s day who practiced eloquence would have been. I think that computer use has come along way though because there are many women quite competent in computer use, but I think Gerrard’s article does speak to the need to pay attention to gender in the class as well as culture. Gerrard reminds us “that not all women are oppressed in the same way, that in addition to being female, women may be oppressed because they are lesbian, black, or poor, and that they may---by virtue of being white, heterosexual, or middle-class—be members or groups that oppress other women, (Gerrard 190).

In “The Persistence of Difference in Networked Classrooms: Non-negotiable Difference and the African American Student Body,” by Todd Taylor, the oppression of Standard English is acknowledged. Taylor tracked three students to prove this claim. Stephanie whose “…uses primarily a standard, professional (white) dialect,” but lacks computer experience (Taylor 225). Chris who has greater computer skills than Stephanie, he but is “…less comfortable speaking in class…perhaps due to self-consciousness about his predominately black spoken dialect,” (Taylor 225). Felicia use a “…mostly black dialect…” and lacks computer skills like Stephanie (Taylor 225). Taylor focuses more on body language to express confidence and shyness, but I find the shyness of Felicia and Chris due to their dialect interesting. Perhaps Standard English has been stressed so long and so rigidly that it is beginning to become like Latin, away to prevent certain groups from joining scholarly discussion.