The scholarly community seems to want to find one single process method that will explain the notion of writing in a clear cut and logical manner that can be applied to everyone, student and professional alike, with predictable results. Our readings and theorist presentations have proven that this has been and continues to be an ongoing debate. Does this stem from a desire for scientific certainty, or merely the need to make sense out of our own actions? Whatever the reason, perhaps trying to define one comprehensive method for writing is not what best serves the writing community and composition classroom.
In our Norton readings, both Faigley and Berlin offer comparisons of the Cognitive, Expressive, and Social process theories of writing, while Brand compares cognitive and expressive theories. The cognitive theory focuses on the mind as the center of activity relevant to writing and proposes that writing occurs in a logical process that can be analyzed by contemporary cognitive science. Expressive theory is portrayed as everything from a Romantic notion that writing occurs as a result of Divine Inspiration to the notion that “good” writing is the result of individual expression. Social process or social-epistemic theory sees society as being the source of the writing process and the individual is merely analyzing and interpreting social discourse. Faigley argues that the Social process theory is the superior of the three, while Berlin attempts to prove that each theory has an inherent rhetoric that should be acknowledged. Brand clearly favors the expressive theory and strongly criticizes the cognitive theory. “What the cognitive models suggest is not so much that there are different composing styles but that one is better than the other. Nothing could be further from the truth” (710).
Is that not what all the theory proponents are arguing?
Dewey can perhaps offer a little perspective on the subject. Dewey proposed, as one of the underlying principles of progressive education, that education should reflect society, just as society reflected education. School is for “learning…certainly, but living primarily, and learning through and in relation to this living” (Dewey, School and Society). Each theory process is something that we experience and perform in society: logical processing, individual expression, and analysis of social discourse. Should we not then incorporate each of those processes in our learning to make it truly reflective to what we do outside of the classroom?
Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy also supports this. If a theory has practical application and relevance, then the theory is “true.” And all of these theories are relevant. Each of them successfully examines a portion of the overall writing process. But only a portion. I would argue that all writing contains an element of logical processing, individual expression, and analysis of social discourse. To focus on one alone as the sole determiner of writing process is to define writing as a limiting and limited exercise of relevance and practical application.
The point is that there seems to be this desire to choose one idea, and one alone, as the answer to all of the writing community’s questions about process. If the proposed theory can’t answer those questions, the community decides it must be criticized and discarded while a new answer is sought.
Dewey defined critical thinking as maintaining an open mind and a little healthy skepticism while analyzing the relevant information. "Reflective thinking, in short, means judgment suspended during further inquiry…and suspense is likely to be somewhat painful" (How We Think). We may be uncomfortable with not having the answer to this question of writing process, but that’s okay. That is part of the process of learning, seeking out answers. And it is okay if we make mistakes and propose theories that don’t hold the answers to all of the questions. “Socially as well as scientifically the great thing is not to avoid mistakes but to have them take place under conditions such that they can be utilized to increase intelligence in the future” (Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Dewey has gotten such a bad rep throughout the years because of the way progressive education has been taken to an extreme in some cases. I thought that the most important idea of Dewey's that you outlined in your presentation and again here is that of pragmatism. I completely agree: theories are true as long as we can use them. Although New Criticism is not practical in its entirety, combined with other theories, it can be very pragmatic. Writing teachers should strive to be flexible in their practices.
ReplyDeleteAudrey, I agree. Pragmatism is a fascinating theory, especially when you start using it to analyze other theories and philosophies. As Linda pointed out in her blog, Dewey's educational theories weren't specific enough at times to be truly practical. Flexibility is crucial, I think, in a classroom, but it doesn't appear to be something we human beings are always capable of. Hence the twisting of Dewey's progressive education theories to extreme expressionism at the expense of traditional educational results. We just weren't flexible enough to adapt to the concept of incorporating both in the classroom at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the writing community often looks to one theory as the solution for all its problems, and that this tendency is problematic in and of itself. Your ideas made me think of a metaphor (what? Emily using metaphor?!). I like to think of the various writing theories as a buffet. Most people don't go to a buffet and get a plate full of scrambled eggs. The whole point is to walk down the line and get a little bit of food from each serving tray. You might take more of one thing than of something else, and you pass up the soggy bacon or burnt potatoes. But for the most part, you are going to take a little of everything until your plate is full and you have yourself a well-balanced Sunday brunch. Likewise, I think it is best to choose a "spoonful" of good ideas from each theorist, passing up the unhelpful ones and relying a little more strongly on the best ones. I believe that this makes a good scholar, teacher, and writer.
ReplyDeleteEmily, I love the metaphor! I think that's probably the best way to approach it because there just isn't one theory that is capable of covering it all. I'm not sure if it's even possible to create one that does and still have a coherent methodology. Of course, that doesn't stop us from trying!
ReplyDeleteI've been reading "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan this week. He claims that the important thing to science (which I believe is what we are dealing with in comp. theory, esp. now as we discuss studies on cognition and process) is not the outcomes but the method. In the same way theorists use folks like Chomsky, who never intended for their work to translate to composition or literary studies, I think we can take Carl Sagan's perspective on scientific literacy and apply it to comp. theory. Just as we are looking at writers' processes to judge the value and development of a final product, we must judge our own development of theory similarly. We may never reach answers as concrete as some chemists or astrophysicists, but by simply employing the scientific method, we are looking to propose provable ideas and get the ball rolling in some respect. I'm glad I'm not alone when I think that some of these theorists are looking at their theories like they are the only valid ones. I'm also glad I'm not alone when I see that other people are considering the value of just sharing their findings and seeing that as a big step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI think what a lot of it boils down to is the idea that there is some element of writing that is "mystical." For a lot of writers themselves, there is some element they can't completely explain to the writing process, especially on the matter of inspiration. So it's no wonder everyone from the ancient Greeks to Coleridge considered some kind of divine spark to be involved. However there was a time when the movement of the clouds was thought to be powered by some unknowable occult force. These kinds of debates that we see with cognitive and expressive theories is the kind of thing that might eventually lead to uncovering the nature of inspiration with a scientific certainty.
ReplyDelete