Writing Tutor as a Psychoanalyst

Writing Tutor as a Psychonanalyst

“A good psycho-analyst and a good tutor both function to awaken individuals to their potentials and to channel their creative energies toward self-enhancing ends” (Murphy, 95).

Six conditions for psychotherapy to be successful: (Adapted as objectives for a successful writing consultation) (1) The tutor and the student are comfortable and open with each other (2) The student identifies an area for improvement, or is generally anxious (3) The tutor is capable of being helpful (4) The tutor experience unconditional positive regard toward the student (5) The tutor experiences and empathetic understanding of the student’s internal frame of reference (6) The student perceives, at least to a minimal degree, the tutor’s emphatic understanding of the student’s internal frame of reference

Six results of psychotherapy: (Adapted to be the results of a successful writing consultation) (1) The student is more open to his or her experiences, less defensive (2) As a result, the student is more realistic, objective, extensional in his or her perceptions (3) The student is more effective in problem-solving (4) The student’s anxiousness is reduced (5) The student has an increased degree of self-regard (6) The student’s writing is more creative, more uniquely adaptive, and more fully expressive of his or her own values

Although an imperfect analogy, it is true that just as psychiatrists aim to make their clients more independent and confident in themselves, writing tutors aim to make students confident in their abilities to produce good writing.

Many other metaphors for the tutor-student relationship can also be helpful in clarifying the objectives of a consultation and the role of the writing tutor.

Writing Tutor: Advisor of Academic Discourse or Censor of Language and Ideas?

(1) How does a tutor respond to student papers that contain language or ideas that can be considered racist, sexist, or in questionable taste?

Libertarian view: Students have First Amendment right to their express ideas, no matter how unenlightened they are. Tutors should alert students to the consequences of their writing and point out flaws in their argument, but avoid encouraging students to change their opinions. Let students learn for themselves, even if their writing ultimately alienates them from their community.

Representatives of Academic Discourse: Urge students to avoid inflammatory and bigoted rhetoric that would disrupt and offend the classroom community.

(2) How does a tutor respond to student papers that employ unconventional language (i.e. slang, foreign words or witticisms) or a risky approach (i.e. potentially offensive parodies on professors or analysis in the framework of pop culture references)?

Libertarian view: Let students experiment and take chances with their writing. Do not dismiss a paper written in Ebonics off hand. Let students know if you thing their style strengthens the paper, or on the other hand distracts the reader, but do not directly encourage students to change their voice. Resist a regulatory role.

Representatives of Academic Discourse: Prepare students for the expectations of academic community. Advise students that their writing may be considered inappropriate by academic standards. Encourage students to adapt their written expressions to the conventions of a college classroom.

Conclusion: Tutors will have to make judgment calls about how to respond to unconventional papers. A possible approach would be for a tutor to explain the reaction a paper elicits, give reasons for why the paper elicits such a reaction, and explain how the paper may be received in an academic setting. The tutor can then offer suggestions on how to improve the paper, while being very clear that the ultimate decisions rest with the writer. In this way, a consultation about an unconventional paper is not very different from any other consultation.

Works Cited

Murphy, Christina. “Freud in the Writing Center.” The St. Martin’s Sourcebook

for Writing Tutors. 3rd ed. Ed. Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood. Boston:

Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 95-100.

Sherwood, Steve. “Censoring Students, Censoring Ourselves: Constraining

Conversations in the Writing Center.” The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for

Writing Tutors. 3rd ed. Ed. Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood. Boston:

Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 129-137.