Something to Think About.

The three articles that I am submitting for my evaluation are “Peer Tutoring and Gorgias: Acknowledging Aggression in the Writing Center,” “Freud in the Writing Center: The Psychoanalysis of Tutoring Well,” and Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center.” In the first article mentioned, Julie Bokser sets forth a convincing argument about the relationship between tutor and tutee as aggressive. According to Bokser, there is an inherent contradiction in the idea of “peer” tutoring because the tutor is always going to be seen as the authority figure. The idea of authority brings in the idea of aggression. In tutoring sessions, tutors lead tutees where they want and believe they should go in their revisions. This push toward the tutor’s concerns can cause another type of aggression. This is expressed by Paolo’s journal response about what he deemed an unsuccessful tutorial. The tutee didn’t respond the way Paolo wanted; therefore, Paolo reacted negatively. However, aggression can also be used positively to move toward a more collaborative state. The overall theme of article can be summarized in the following quotation: “[W]hen we speak we may either seduce or rape; but in the act of seduction the roots of rape are present” (123). As a tutor, it is important to understand the relationships we have with our tutees in the context of this paradox.
In the next article, Christian Murphy compares the relationship between tutor and tutee as parallel to the relationship between psychologist and patient: “As in psychoanalysis, the quality of that interpersonal relationship between therapist and client, tutor and student, determines how successful the interaction as a whole will be” (97). Whereas the previous article argued that “writing is an act of aggression disguised as an act of charity,” this article is based on the idea of charity (119). The therapist/tutor displays an “unconditional positive regard” for the tutee. This relationship puts the tutee in the position of a vulnerable patient who, with the help of the therapist/tutor, discovers things about his/her own writing style. This article was helpful in understanding the state of mind many students may come into the writing center with. What is also telling about the analogy Murphy uses is that a therapist asks questions first and then listens. I believe a good tutoring session has an equal distribution of listening on both sides, but if anyone is going to dominate the discussion, it should be the tutee.
Andrea Lunsford’s article demonstrates how these two different theories on tutoring relationships can affect the “Idea of a Writing Center.” Lunsford discusses how collaboration can be in reality both negative and positive or perceived to be thus. There are three types of centers discussed: The Center as a Storehouse, Garret Centers, and Burkean Parlor Centers. While collaboration poses a problem in Storehouse and Garret centers, Burkean Parlor centers promote “collaboration that is attuned to diversity” (51). However, while collaboration may not be a problem for this type of center, people’s assumptions about collaboration puts this type of center at a loss: “A faculty member working in a writing center was threatened with dismissal for “encouraging” group-produced documents” (51). This article shows while collaboration has gotten bad revues, the other types of centers aren’t adequate because of the nature of writing. Even when a writer doesn’t physically sit down with another person when writing, say an article for journal publication, they are still collaborating because they are entering into a conversation that is ongoing about a given topic. Therefore, even though the idea of a writing center will change, collaboration can never be taken out of the equation because it is a part of the solution.