Keywords
asynchronous, anonymity, online writing, identity, oppression, power, agency, social change
First Paragraph
On-line writing tutorials are evidence of the advance of computer technology into the “safe” space of the writing center. Swirling conversations about writing operate there in a seemingly time-less, space-less space. Given the exciting visions of such possibilities, however, there are still some concerns about the connections between computers and writing which need to be addressed while we also begin re-imagining the idea of a writing center and the idea of computer-mediated conferencing.
Citation Information
Type of Source: Newsletter Article
Author: Katherine Grubbs
Year of Publication: 1994
Title: Some Questions about the Politics of On-line Tutoring in Electronic Writing Centers
Newsletter: Writing Lab Newsletter, Volume 19, Issue 2
Page Numbers: 7,12
Full Article Text in HTML
Because this version of the WLN Newsletter is inaccessible to assistive technologies, we have provided the full text of the article below in HTML.
On-line writing tutorials are evidence of the advance of computer technology into the “safe” space of the writing center. Swirling conversations about writing operate there in a seemingly time-less, space-less space. Given the exciting visions of such possibilities, however, there are still some concerns about the connections between computers and writing which need to be addressed while we also begin re-imagining the idea of a writing center and the idea of computer-mediated conferencing.
On-line writing tutorials bring up several questions about the proposed “free-ing” “powers” of computer technology. In the broadest sense, the question is, how do we “read the writer”? We argue that the apparent anonymity that seems to come hand-in-hand with on-line tutorials creates an atmosphere that “frees” up the student to write whatever he or she wants, to ask questions with no regard for the judgments that are often visibly apparent in face-to-face encounters. Computer anonymity gives us the liberty to play freely with language. Such writing, and the resulting conversation about writing, tears down the barrier between signifier and signified in ways that would make a post-structuralist proud. We are re-visioning what academic writing might be. This can be an exciting, stimulating process, but at the same time I believe that we have to be on guard to ensure that the situatedness of this technology in a postcapitalist academy inclined toward the commodification of writing is not forgotten.
The advent of on-line writing and collaboration presents a potent critique of the specific confines of conventional, institutionally driven writing, but can this critique move beyond cyberspace? Are we taking into consideration the actual material effects of writing in schools, on our writing students in particular? On-line writing can disrupt conventions, can challenge the way we are “supposed to” write, but we must remember that after logging off, the writer returns to her classroom and to the potential repercussions that may surface from “un-conventional” writing. An on-line conversation about writing may create the sense that the writer works and speaks in an “unconstrained” and ideology-empty community of nameless writers, but the writer also remains physically alone, working silently in front of a screen. What kind of community is this? Part of our work is to remain responsive to the space in which the writer writes, the physical space in addition to the technological one.
The only way that we tutors identify the writers on-line is by and through the writing product. The writer becomes experienced through the language of the writing he or she sends to us. The writing actually writes the writer. The writer is constructed in the language used on-line. The philosophical and physical subjectivity of the writer seems to dissipate. The self appears to become dis-embodied and, therefore, detached from ideological constraints, especially of gender, race, class and sexuality. Our writers appear genderless, raceless, classless. It is argued that on-line writing handily dispatches with the constraints of ideological naming. The computer technology behind on-line writing tutorials encourages us to ignore both these material concerns and the oppressive realities that the writers may be responding to and writing out of. We are also encouraged by the “liberatory” status of on-line work to ignore the dynamics of authority between tutor and writer. But are the writer and tutor actually equal in position? And, we must also consider, in what subtle ways, the tutor might strive to assert his/her authority over the writer, in ways that might not be felt necessary in a face-to-face tutorial. In fact, is it easier to deconstruct these types of authoritarian hierarchies working toward a more critical pedagogy, when working in the writing center face-to-face than it is on-line? On-line, differences ominously disappear. Is it more convenient for us to forget that they are there?
And from where, then, comes this need to name our un-named writers? We have found ourselves often looking for the subtext beneath the words of an e-mail paper. Why do we find ourselves searching for a face and body, to satisfy surprisingly essentialist needs for a visible connection between writing and writer? This act of naming could be read as perpetuating society’s ideological namings. By “calling” some anonymous writer “female” or “woman” because of the style of her writing, aren’t we merely re-subscribing to the strategies of the dominant voice, re-inscribing a gendered and race-ed self to the self of the cyber-writer that has supposedly been exploded? Does it give us a greater sense of power “over” the writer if we can categorize him/her in a particular way? Why is it important for us to “know” the writer in order to talk about writing?
These questions must be asked as we work on-line because we know that ideological issues do not disappear magically when we begin computer conferencing. They remain embedded in our writing, in the language we use and the way that we use it, and in the relationships we construct through words and in our minds with our co-writers on-line.
Yet, a shifting space does present opportunities for social change. The shivering and shaking in the foundations of conventional writing that the on-line writing tutorial presents does open up encouraging gaps if we take them carefully into account. If we can, through our efforts on-line, actively and consciously expose and subvert the “nature” of writing as defined by the institution, we are taking steps toward a new definition of writing that uncovers, instead of masks, the social situatedness of students and writing in school. Unmasking power relations instead of ignoring them, can provide shifts in power. The immediate problem is that when a paper is transmitted to us over e-mail, we are not directly confronted with the visible evidence of conventional demands, such as might be found within a teacher’s red, margined comments. There is not an obvious place to begin the unmasking that comprises institutional critique. On-line writing does not provide these “easy” imprints of institutional patriarchy. Is this why we search for an identifiable writer? Is a body connected to writing necessary for the practice of liberatory pedagogy in computer-mediated communications? Can we reconceive our place as teachers within the institution while we are on-line? How are the signs of authority and ideology re-configured through computer writing tutorials? We must continue this conversation so that we can combat the seductive ambiguity of cyber-space even as we luxuriate in its relative absence of boundaries, and remember that we are still working within the academy with real writing and real writers.