Multivocality in my Theory of Writing

If thought is internalized public and social talk, then writing is internalized talk made public and social again. If thought is internalized conversation, then writing is internalized conversation re-externalized. Like thought, therefore, writing is temporally and functionally related to conversation. Writing is in fact a technologically displaced form of conversation. (Bruffee 91)

There is this cliché image of the writer that seems to follow and plague the writing community. This writer is a lone wolf; he sits in the corner with a dog-eared and scribbled on notepad; a pen clasped resolutely in his hand; the cap is pockmarked with tooth-marks; the writer is alone with his thoughts and, more often than not, he shuns the outside world and the ideas of other in order to realize his own work. His process is highly individual. There is little to no collaboration and, when the time comes to publish his work, the editor’s work is minimal. His work is his.

The stigma of collaboration follows writers, academic and other, in a rather roundabout way. We must cite every thought that is not our own in order to avoid plagiarism and we must be individual and groundbreaking with every idea; to do otherwise is to jeopardize our academic or professional career. There is an example where a poem won a prestigious college poetry prize, but this was withdrawn after it was revealed that the poem was written by three student collaborators (Lunsford 4).

Yet isn’t the goal of the academic community to create discourse around central ideas? To have papers and articles in conversation with one another. These ideas are rarely completely new or groundbreaking, but rather different perspectives and answering thoughts and questions. We are meant to explore and learn, not just to know and create.

I often feel that this - what I believe to be a central focus of the upper echelons of academia, that we are meant to explore and learn, not just to know and create – is often missed in education. I was taught never to use “I,” to never offer my own ideas without support, and, more often than not, I felt like I was expected to parrot the accepted ideas rather than to formulate my own. I was taught to be objective, but isn’t subjectivity what gives our writing substance and texture? To allow ourselves to enter these conversations as ourselves, rather than as pale parodies of previous conversations, would enrich any discourse community.

A conversation where a writer puts forth and explains her thinking is nearly the same thing as the composing process. Conversation is not just a means to an end; it’s a means to writing itself.

(Kostelnik 132)

When you approach a piece of writing, you are bringing with you all your experiences and education and emotions. You will experience that piece of writing differently than anyone else because of who you are. Of course, it is possible to discuss pieces of writing with others and to have enlightening and wonderful conversations around it, but your first encounter with that piece of writing is uniquely yours.

The quote above is pulled from an earlier version of my theory of writing. At this point I believed that an idea, in order to be original, had to emanate from within yourself. At this moment, as I write this, I believe this to be false. An idea is a process, it is not pulled from thin air at a given time, complete and whole like Athena from Zeus. Ideas are always evolving, if not from a conversation you have with yourself, then from a conversation with another (no matter the form that may take), or perhaps a continuing conversation that does not even involve YOU anymore. Do you see what I’m trying to say?

So writing is a form of conversation where we build and expand upon our own ideas and the ideas of others, but with this idea are we losing the journey of the individual writer? Can a writer have a conversation with herself?

A writer conversing with herself is perhaps just the thought process, a process that is highly reflective and often recursive. Yet it would seem that the moment that conversation becomes external is extremely poignant. Voicing, writing, or otherwise expressing a thought can be intensely challenging. Is it perhaps possible that in the act of conversing, whatever form (technological, vocal, telephonogically) that may take, writing is transformed into a social artifact?

What is a social artifact? A cultural artifact is defined as something that is created by humans that gives information about its creator(s) and/or user(s).

A social artifact is something that is created in response to an idea or external stimulus that enters into some sort of discourse. It is not necessarily new, but most likely is derived from multiple other ideas or stimuli that you have encountered. I promise this is not as vague or all-encompassing as it may sound! Let’s take postmodernism for example (since that is a discourse community that I am attempting to enter into). Postmodernism is the response to the idea that everything has already been done. It has an intense ironic presence and draws heavily on previous works - often referred to as intertextuality rather than plagiarism - that are parodied, infused with intense pastiche, or references explicitly. Postmodernism is in a conversation with itself; that conversation is often recursive and often banal and convoluted, but it is attempting conversation on a global and international scale.

Writing is two steps removed from conversation because, for example, my ability to write this essay depends on my ability to talk through with myself the issues I address here. And my ability to talk through an issue with derives largely from my ability to converse directly with other people in an immediate social situation.

(Bruffee 91)

The invention of writing was not always an accepted and easily integrated practice. For example, in Phaedrus, Plato argued that it would bring about the end of true knowledge. He argued that having information written down and easily accessible would allow for students and scholars to read the material rather than memorizing and thus truly knowing. Couldn’t this same argument be made for technology? We have so much information readily available that instead of pondering questions and arriving to our own answers, we Google and look at Wikipedia and then parrot the thoughts of others.

Writing is more than just words on a page, and it is more than just printing out an assignment for class. Since in the invention of writing, and the evolutionary process that has deviated from oral cultures and practices, these conversations span generations and allow for a more thorough and globalized perspective into these issues.

So, if I am to understand what you are saying here, writing is a conversation that allows for the progression of ideas, concepts, and technologies. However, with the advent of globalized technologies that include instant information gratification and communication, much of that conversation is becoming stagnant due to the reproduction of information rather than the participation in the conversation.

So take this blog post for instance. It is a personal rumination on my evolving theory of writing. Perhaps it is a bit intimate since it is a glimpse into my own continuing thought process, but it is also a discussion that I want to have. I am encouraging the reader to take my thoughts and add their own. It is very likely I will never hear your thoughts, but perhaps by leaving these words here for you to find I will encourage you to no longer be that passive reader who takes the words on the page for granted. These words are only half mine, the other half are yours. How you interpret it, and whether or not you choose to incorporate these ideas, in your own life is up to you. Do with it what you will, but I hope you do something.