Academic Conventions and the Opposition
In Feminism Within the Patriarchy, Meg Woolbright gives the reader an example of a conference between a student writer and a tutor over an assignment, then outlines the conversation between Woolbright and the tutor after the conference, discussing actions that occurred within the original dialogue. Throughout this essay, Woolbright provides implicit guidance to writing center tutors by explicitly outlining what not to do within the tutoring session when the tutor wants to maintain a feminist pedagogical ethic. As a feminist versed in feminist theories and ideologies, I found this essay to be very consistent with contemporary feminist thought. In addition, the implicit guidance provided gave me a stronger sense of how to practice feminist tutoring within the patriarchal academic hegemony of the university.
Probably the most explicit of Woolbright’s implicit guidance is that the tutor must maintain equanimity, with regard to power and control in the tutoring session, while operating within and through the academy. It is often difficult for tutors to stay focused on sharing the power of guiding and leading the tutoring session when the tutor feels the need to provide guidance and direction in order to ensure the student will receive the best grade he or she can receive on an assignment, the focus of academe. Woolbright attempts to clarify that the goal of the tutor within a university writing center—feminist-centered or not—is to help the student, not the text. Writing centers aiming toward a feminist ethic want to focus on bringing out the characteristics of vibrancy, sensuousness, open-endedness, and a personal voice from the student writers that they serve (68). This is set in direct contrast to the “linear, objective, abstract, tightly argued prose” of the patriarchal, phallocentric academy (68). Woolbright wants the feminist writing center to be a place where tutors and student writers are working together as equals to, as Woolbright quotes from Clara Juncker, “liberate the tortured voice” (68).
Another concept that Woolbright briefly mentions in her essay is Nancy Schniedewind’s “five process goals against which we can measure our interactions with students” (69):
1. Development of an atmosphere of mutual respect, trust, and community
2. Shared leadership
3. A cooperative structure
4. Integration of cognitive and affective learning
5. Action
Through these five goals, writing center tutors can judge the sessions that they participate in to determine the amount of equanimity that is maintained, and can make judgments on the changes that may need to occur in order to attain the ideal feminist writing center.
The primary problem that Meg Woolbright reveals is that, too often, these individuals who are working toward a feminist ethic within the university writing center are grappling with a large amount of inner conflict and turmoil when they are involved in a tutoring session. When tutors think one thing and say another they themselves are subverting the feminist goal by not discussing the conflict of interests/ideas with the dominant ideology of the academic setting. When this conflict is unexpressed – and often leading questions asked, leaving the student writer to “guess” the correct answer – leadership is not shared, decision-making is not mutual and participatory, and it places the cooperative structure very much in doubt (74).
A lack of conflict-expression can lead to forcing the student writer to view writing through a very narrow and specific lens of thinking. This constricted method inhibits the student writer’s intellectual ability and can prevent any intellectual conflict, which may lead to cognitive growth (75). Also, ignoring the response of a student to the writing is dismissing, in effect, cognitive and affective responses to writing. A student writer may feel as though the tutor is not authorizing her or his unique and valuable voice. This individual voice is imperative not only to the feminist ideology, but also to the academic sphere for the continuation of academic discourse.
Paraphrasing Schniedewind and others, Woolbright expresses that “interactions with students ought to be conversations with equals, based on the student’s own experience, taking place in an atmosphere of trust, respect, nurturance” (78). This statement, more than any other in this essay, truly gets at the essence of the goal in creating a feminist writing center. Every person has a valid opinion and idea that is listened to by the other individuals around her or him. Ira Shor is paraphrased as saying that “alienation is the number one problem in education today” (79). Until we as writing center staff look at and admit the conflicts we experience while fighting against the patriarchal academic hegemony, the people whom we tutor and work with are going to bear the outcome of that inner conflict by being cheated, shorted, and devalued in their writing center sessions, whether they consciously recognize this or not.
The final point that Woolbright makes is that we must give student writers the power. She writes, “only if we present our students with the options and the power to choose, will we be truly honest and will feminism – and good tutoring – have any chance at all.” (79). This really is a statement that rings true in my mind, being educated in feminist theory and ideology, because it really is about the power being placed in the hands of those who need to make the decisions. Until we as writing center staff give the power and option completely to the student writers, we still carry in our actions the innate patriarchy against which we are fighting.
Through discussing and analyzing the transcript and post-session discussion from a writing tutor who identifies as being a feminist, Meg Woolbright both explicitly and implicitly provides guidance to those of us who are starting out in the university writing center with a desire to work in a feminist atmosphere. Each point that Woolbright makes works with those ideas presented before and after it to create an intricate web of knowledge that is shared to promote subversion of the dominant paradigm, the sharing of power and choice within academe, and to provide a net upon which feminist tutors may walk in order to more fully understand the finite details necessary for gaining equality and equanimity within the writing center, within the academic setting, and perhaps within the nation at large. It is only through open and honest conversation that we are able to learn from one another.
-----
Woolbright, Meg. “The Politics of Tutoring: Feminism Within the Patriarchy.” The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors, 2nd edition. Eds. Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2003. Pages 67-80.


