Faigley deals with a similar problem to Weisser in his chapter entitled "The Achieved Utopia of the Networked Classroom." He sees that the type of chaotic discourse created by the MOO prescribes a particular type of subjectivity. Even though "electronic written discussions create dissensus because they give voice to diversity" (190), the computer only allows student's to perform a prescribed type of "nonlinear" discourse. It literally forces them to create a particular form of text and only that form. As Faigley notes, this separation and dissensus creates an individualistic subjectivity that is ready made to function in late capitalism. "Electronic written discussions are governed by the logic of consumer choice. Topics are introduced and consumed according to what students like at the moment and what they don't like" (190). MOO discussions make it more difficult for the teachers to prescribe a prefab direction for the students and the class to take, but the computer simply substitutes for the teacher's previous role as prescriber. And like capital, it prescribes social diversity (chaos) in the same breath as individuality (order). Cynthia Selfe makes the comment that computers in rows or cubicles are predicated on a business, math, or computer science paradigm rather than a writing paradigm [^]. But don't both types of structure, rows and circles, function in favor of dominant notions of subjectivity?