On the ideal: ethical self, ethical writing center

In response to empathetic expressions that result from challenges brought to the individual's ideal of an ethical self, as Priscilla had mentioned, it seems that for the feminist and antiracist writing center, the goal is similar, to strive for that ideal: to be feminist, to be antiracist, to be just from every angle, and to create and maintain a peer-to-peer environment.

So if a peer-to-peer environment is equivalent to the ideal ethical self, the implication is that challenges brought to the peer-based writing center may be met with similar emotional responses, such as crying or anger, all of which express some kind of resistance and ultimately shuts down conversations about subjects like race, which have the potential to be productive. And how do centers respond to these challenges? How should they respond?

In Sarita Srivastava's twenty-year research within Canadian feminist organizations, she has found that "in the face of antiracist challenges, many white feminists may feel that it is their self-image--as good, implicitly nonracist people--and particularly their shared moral identity as feminists that is under siege" (30).

So this self-image, this moral identity, not only directs the conversation back to the individual, and often, back to the white individual, but it also hinders us from moving towards organizational change. And if we are talking about creating this set of ideals, does it suggest that we become conscious not of what's "good" and what's "bad," but how we can avoid appearing bad?

For example, in some sessions, I've encountered writers who had to write about a subject like disability, and they will use language that they believe sounds "right," that sounds "good," but at the same time, that language reveals their hidden biases.

In one particular session I had recently, a writer had to support the building of a memorial for the disabled, and he wrote that the able and the disabled are all equal, that they deserve to be treated equally, but at the same time, he was writing for the able, and he wrote that the able can still help out the disabled and raise awareness for them without bringing out their checkbooks. He wrote this as if building a memorial could solve discrimination towards the disabled.

And as Victor Villanueva points out: is this language Politically Correct, or is it a Policed Conversation? And how does it influence the conversation within a session? How could I have disassembled the writer's sentences about the disabled to show him where I thought I saw a conflict? And when this applies to race or class or gender, how should we approach non-P.C. undertones masked by P.C. language?

Srivastava writes that in order to achieve the ideal space, or "the good place," that "social movements require a vision not only of a community of individuals but also of shared ideas, morals, and ethics" (34). And going back to the creation of an ethical self and the creation of a peer-to-peer writing center, the thought of those two seems impossible. Though, with a writing center that tries to create diversity and to continuously improve, I suppose it is possible for us to try.