Stony Brook University - SUNY Digital Repository

work” (318). For me, it is this similarity with Jones that I am
most concerned with. Explaining the purpose of his particular
focus, Fishman writes: “[F]or Dewey, successful composition
courses help students want to do more writing. And to encourage
students to want to do more writing, successful composition
teachers help students gain power to establish and contribute to
writing groups” (316). Upon this, he continues:
[T]he primary motivator and tool for helping students
want to do more writing, Dewey would say, is
students’ learning that writing is a cooperative
process. He would want them to know how to get
response to their work and how to use that response.
[…] In sum, Dewey would tell us that composition
courses, although concerned with each individual’s
writing skills, should primarily be about writing
communities, about developing students’ abilities to
establish, join, and contribute to them. (318)
According to Fishman, these writing communities are formed
through communication, communication not simply through “common
language” but of “common experience.” Simply put, “[O]nly when
people identify with one another can they share experiences and
understand one another’s meaning” (320). For this to happen,
Fishman contends that Dewey had put forward two “principle[s] of
community formation”: “Relativity” and “Diversity.” Of the
first, he explains, “[O]ccasions must be provided for people to
identify with one another’s point of view. [Dewey] tells us
that to form community we must help people engage in enough
joint activities so that they can play different roles” (320).
And the second is complimentary, Fishman explaining:
203