The context of the mutual relationships between composition/literature, process/product, and computer/book, gives us a new frame to read the connection Faigley makes between composition and postmodernity. He notes that composition as a discipline and the three metadiscourses of postmodernism (aesthetics), postmodern theory (philosophy), and postmodernity (sociology), arose out of the same set of circumstances during the 1960s. I read this relationship, however, contrary to Faigley. He states,

But if composition studies coincides with the era of postmodernity, there is seemingly little in the short history of composition studies that suggests a postmodern view of heterogeneity and difference as liberating forces, and there are very few calls to celebrate that fragmentary and chaotic currents of change. (14)
I, on the other hand, look at the situation as a lack in postmodernity rather than composition. It matters little whether you are working off of a linear or a network metaphor, each one creates a modern, individual subject. There is little point in seeing difference or chaos as liberating forces. And this is especially so in the networked classroom. The fact that composition and postmodernity arose out of the same conditions of possibility does not mean the anomaly is composition's lack of postmodern tenets. The interesting possibility is that postmodernity is actually infused with a modernist foundation. The end result of the process (chaos) is simply a reiteration of modernity (order).

The situation that arises out of the modernist project of designating binaries is almost unavoidable. No matter what binary we set up (order/chaos, product/process, individual/social, modern/postmodern), no matter what side we allign ourselves with, no matter what assignment we construe, we are "defining the subjectivity that [we] wish our student writers to occupy" (Faigley 158). By the very fact that we are dealing with an ideology, an epistemology, or an episteme, that subscribes to a notion of "subjectvity" at all, we are implicated in its construction. As Foucault notes in The Order of Things, the idea of humanity or an individual human being is a historical manifestation. Even if we subscribe to a notion of subjectivity as schizophrenic, we are still caught within that historical system. We, like captial, fragment and order as function of our own processes.