Lester Faigley

Lester Faigley’s 1986 article “Competing Theories of Process:  A Critique and a Proposal” discusses three competing views on writing as a process:  the expressive, cognitive, and social.  Faigley offers what he sees as a “synthesis” of these three views:  a historical view.  Understanding the history of the three perspectives would allow for integration and reinterpretation of the competing theories; writing processes would not be seen as “psychic states, cognitive routines, or neutral social relationships” but as “historically dynamic” (Faigley 662). 

I will focus my discussion on the social view.  The social view sometimes recognizes historical context, but not necessarily all the time.  For instance, “Raymond Williams observes that the term community has been used to refer to existing social relationships or possible alternative social relationships, but that it is always used positively, that there is no opposing term” (Faigley 663).  This offers a rather misleading picture of what a community might entail.  Historically, communities have oppressed groups of people with written documents.   Foucault has pointed out how the “exercise of power” is often what is not discussed, and the social view, according to Faigley, has neglected to confront the invisible or taboo topics within a community. 

Within the community of the university classroom, I feel that I have, in some ways, reinforced certain ideologies by telling my students topics they are not allowed to write about.  When it comes to the commentary unit, I have outlawed the topics of same-sex marriage, abortion, lowering the drinking age, and legalizing marijuana  My reasons for “topic outlaw” have very much to do with my own biases.  Essentially, what I am doing by outlawing these topics is telling my students that within the classroom community, students are not allowed to discuss topics the instructor feels passionately about (I would not be happy, for instance, reading a paper about how discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is ever ok), deems to be unworthy of discussion (I really don’t think whether or not an 18-year-old can go to a bar is worth talking about), or is uncomfortable discussing with students (I do not want to hear about how much Johnny loves marijuana).  I am therefore reinforcing some sort of teacher-student hierarchy (the teacher’s passions dictate what cannot be spoken and the students must obey). 

I can’t help but notice how at least 3 of the 4 topics I have listed (perhaps not the lowering of the drinking age?) are topics that are commonly discussed in today’s cultural climate:  This past November, abortion was a hot topic, Minnesota voted against banning same-sex marriage, and Colorado and Washington voted to make recreational use of marijuana legal. I want my students to understand that writing takes place within a specific context, but I am denying my students their voices in the context we currently live in.