Joanna

Sheesh. I don’t think I’ve ever read such a detailed description of discourses as Gee’s. Isn’t it nice how well that fits in with my teaching lesson for today, and Liza’s for tomorrow? What I want to first point out is his discussion about “language” and how it can be misleading. The basic idea I got from this was that it is all about context. As Gee says, you’ve not only got to know what to say and how to say it, but also have a good “saying-writing-doing-being-valuing-believing" combo (Delpit 546).

He uses some pretty sweet (to steal Garrett’s word) examples to get his points across. One analogy I particularly like is describing Discourse (with a capital D) as an “identity kit” that has a “costume and instructions” for being a member of that Discourse community (526). He spouts out all these different terms for categorizing Discourses, such as primary, secondary, dominant, or nondominant Discourses.

I liked how he compared Discourses to languages, specifying some of the differences to make it clear that it is not a perfect analogy. For example, he lists some theorems to define “literacy,” one of which says that “Discourses…are not like languages in one very important regard…someone cannot engage in a Discourse in less than fully fluent manner. You are either in it or you’re not” (529). I had trouble with this idea at first because of the whole apprenticeship idea, that one can be in the process of acquiring the Discourse, but I think I get what he’s saying: you are not an actual “member” unless you are “fluent.”

I also liked the word “mushfake,” which is defined as “making ‘do with something less when the real thing is not available’” (533). In relation to a Discourse, this means “partial acquisition couple with meta-knowledge and strategies to ‘make do’” (533). He recommends that teachers use mushfake as part of a plan to make students successful. I’m wondering if this is similar to what we are doing in our plans, such as with the feature story. They are partially acquiring the Discourse (but not fully because they are not apprentices to experienced professionals) as well as thinking about what they are doing (the meta-knowledge).

It’s interesting to me that one of the main issues I had with Gee, the idea that “you cannot overtly teach anyone a Discourse, in a classroom or anywhere else,” is an issue that Delpit looks at. Because of this, I felt that Delpit answered, or attempted to answer, some of the questions I had pertaining to Gee’s claims. I like the points that Delpit makes: “teachers must acknowledge and validate students’ home language without using it to limit students’ potential” while teaching students “to learn the discourse which would otherwise be used to exclude them from participating in and transforming the mainstream” (553; 554). I think this is one of the goals of what we are trying to do in Composition courses. It’s like the concept of transcultural rhetoric or hybridity that we have been studying when we read about Borderlands in Dr. Etheridge’s class. The students can bring their identities, they do not have to totally ignore them; however, they have to find a way to make sense of the conflicts between their primary Discourse and the discourse of the university in order to be successful. The students have to find a balance, so that neither part is sacrificed. As Delpit says, this would “make available one more voice for resisting and reshaping an oppressive system” (554). If changing the system is the goal, it seems like it can only be done from within, from someone that understands the inner workings of the Discourse. That is how they can make it to work to their benefit.

---

Chelsie

Gee gave us an awesome explanation of discourse communities. He tells us that sometimes two communities belonging to one person can come into conflict with each other based on “values, beliefs, attitudes, interactional styles, uses of language and ways of being in the world” that both discourses occupy. This could be a different discourse of religion than what they were brought up with. This would be a struggle for the person apprenticing in their new Discourse.

I like what Gee says about understanding Discourse. Once you understand the concept of Discourse, you know what you need to get done to be a part of that discourse. This is going to sound like a really inappropriate example, but I think it will be entertaining. I have these two friends: Mark and Mike. Mark is very good with the ladies. He knows when to say the right things, when to not pay attention to them, when to pay attention to them, etc. He is in the Discourse of getting dates. My friend Mike, who is a friend of Mark, is trying desperately to learn how to be as smooth as Mark. Mike understands that he is not a part of the Discourse of picking up the ladies, but is trying to take tips from Mark. Mark and I have discussed this situation. We think that because of some of his other Discourses, he may never really fit into the Discourse that Mark is a part of.

“A Discourse is an integration of saying, doing and valuing, and all socially based valuing is political” (533). He then says that successful teachers teach Discourse and therefore teach the political. I want to explore the ways that Discourses are political so that I can use this information with my students. There is the social status aspect of Discourses. As Gee mentions there are sometimes tests to keep Discourses out of others. Political Science examines the acquisition and application of power. I guess because Mike isn’t a part of the same Discourse as Mark, Mark could exert his power over Mike.

I thought it was extremely interesting when Gee notes that one Discourse community cannot change another without a member that is a part of both discourses. The first example I could think of is Martin Luther King, Jr. Made major changes in Discourses. According to this statement King must have had meta-knowledge of the white Discourse. Extremely important. Our students have us to show them the language of the academic discourse.

I like some of the arguments that Delpit comes up with against Gee, he makes it difficult for the underdog to see any sort of out. Delpit gives suggestions for teachers to use to make Discourse attainment easier on certain groups of students.

• teachers must acknowledge and validate student’s home language without using it to limit students potential.
• teachers must recognize the conflict Gee details between students’ home discourse and the discourse of the school.

(553)

She also gives examples on how to make students feel empowered in the classroom. I want to know how to make this happen in a multi-cultural classroom. Do you need to wait to recognize who your “audience” is before you can really plan to help empower them? I think first-year teachers have a really tough job. Maybe experienced teachers have tactics they’ve already used in the past. It’s going to be a definite learning experience.

---

Liza

I like looking at literacy studies as social practices. I agree that it is very important to understand that communication is more than language use. Reading that explanation and the examples of the friends at the bar made me also think about sarcasm. I know this is not exactly a literacy, but it is helping me try to unravel the learning versus acquiring explanation.

My little cousin did not know what sarcasm was so when I used it, she believed everything that I said. After a thousand of my sarcasm-filled remarks, she started to notice the patterns of sarcasm. One day she asked me, “Liza, what is that thing that you do where you say something like you mean it but you don’t really mean it?” I knew then that she was finally a member of the sarcasm club (or in this case, discourse community). Her mom hates me now.

Although this is probably not the best thing for a child to acquire, she did actually acquire rather than learn this, didn’t she? The definitions of “acquire” and “learn” are really tight. For the purposes of this article, it seems to mean that acquiring something is done through “exposure to models in natural, meaningful, and functional settings” so even my sarcasm example would fit (542).

I totally agree that you should have to be “fluent” in a discourse community in order to critique it (542). This will facilitate understanding of other’s discourse communities before lashing out for no reason. One of the problems that we are learning about in the other class is how cultures are failing to acknowledge each other. I’ve said before that I think the problem is lack of communication.

I don’t see why we can’t acquire the knowledge necessary to function in any discourse community. There will obviously be language or social practice issues for some but I would like to think that they can be overcome with proper acknowledgement and instruction. I agree that “We can again let out students know that they can resist a system that seeks to limit them to the bottom rung of the social and economic ladder” (554). Students need to be encouraged to reach beyond what they already know.

I wonder if having students write about the discourse communities they are ALREADY a part of but not really talking about communities they WANT to be a part of limits them in some way. I’m going to have to think about integrating that in some way.

---

JENNIFER

I have experienced the “fossilization” in learning a new language. (Gee 529) I think that is also called “plateauing.” I agree with Gee, when he says “true acquisition will rarely if ever happen.” (532) I personally don’t believe that anyone can ever speak a second language fluently if they start learning the language in high school or later.

But fluency in relations to Discourse communities is a whole other thing. I agree with Gee that “someone cannot engage in a Discourse in a less than fluent manner. You are either in or you are not.” (529) Discourse is cutthroat, and it has every right to be. Why slow it down for weaker members who are not engaged enough or have minimal interest? It goes the same for people who try and become “pseudo intellectuals” in the Discourse.

Because they are not as fluent as the primary members, they will get washed out really quick because of the lack of credibility. Same with social groups. This is interesting. Let’s take the Greek system at college for an example. People want to be part of this discourse community, but not all of them are going to fit with the fraternity that is their first choice, or even second choice. That is why they have Rush Week, where frats and pledges get to know one another. At the end of Rush Week, the pledges either get asked or axed from the frats they pledged, due to if they were going to fit in our not with the primary members. Then there are those who would never have anything to do with something so elitist, so they make their own social discourse groups for people of like interests, like chess club, religious organizations or fencing.

I like what Scollon and Scollon say, and this is especially important when talking about material or physical discourse communities, such as sports, band, or anything else you have to practice: “we are better at what we acquire, but we consciously know more about what we have learned.” (540)

Delpit, on the other hand, questions Gee’s assertion that if you are not born in our closely associated into the social discourse group, you will not get it. She quotes one of her colleagues, who says, “Instead of being locked into “your place” by your genes, you are not locked hopelessly into a lower class status by your discourse.” Delpit also questions Gee on the absoluteness of activity in one social discourse will not allow for or mesh with membership in another community with another set of values. (547) Delpit says if teachers assert these claims would not only view the acquisition of a new discourse in a classroom impossible to achieve, but they might also view the goal of acquiring such a discourse questionable at best.” (547)

---

Sean

After reading Gee's essay, I was motivated to examine my own concept of literacy and my own teaching philosophy in terms of his definition. I couldn't help but agree with most of his argument, especially when it came to the importance of meta-knowledge. I think we discussed that very point during the first couple of days in this class, that meta-knowledge will help students to apply their understanding of their own discourses (or Discourses, as Gee says) to the discourses they hope to enter into. I think this is the most lucid and well depicted element of Gee's article, but, like Delpit, I had issues with his stance on values.

Delpit makes the point, through examples of Discourse "subverters", if you will, that the subtleties of dominant Discourses can be taught, but only with the attitude that you needn't lose your identity in the process. It seemed to me that the students who successfully stepped into Discourses which were in conflict with their primary Discourse values had a keen sense of the meta-knowledge that allowed them to hold on to their beliefs while still operating within the rules of someone else's. And this, it seems, is where true leaders are born. The examples Delpit gives are inspiring, to say the least, and I can only hope that I can become the kind of teacher that fosters that kind of result in my students; with the groundwork laid out here, I think I have the understanding to do just that.

Gee's argument about the same issue is that these kinds of performances are "mushfaking". He implies that this practices is in some way inferior to actual assimilation, and yet, in Delpit's examples, we see that true empowerment is not found in assimilation, but in this kind of subversive "mushfaking". The quote he uses to highlight this, to me, is quite telling: using Oscar Wilde (who had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek most of the time) to show that "education produces no effect whatsoever" misses the point that much of the social revolution of which he advocates (although he says he does know how to) is evidenced in the kind of learning/acquisition that he says is not possible; The civil rights movement was based on eloquent (read: "whitely educated") Black and Female advocates using the dominant Discourse to reveal its flaws.

---

Garrett

Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics

Interesting reading, even if I don’t necessarily agree with all of it. I like the idea that “a discourse is a sort of ‘identity kit’ which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize,” but I’m also not sure if I agree with that. Is something as strong as a belief system like a costume? Is that really an appropriate metaphor? That being said, the discussion of primary and secondary Discourses made a lot of sense. The first Discourse is family, or some environment where we were raised, and the second is some group into which we were “apprenticed.” I also thought it was cool that he outlined the idea that there is often tension between one’s primary and a dominant secondary Discourse. This accounts for students coming to college and resisting the learning process because it can often fly in the face of what they’ve learned in their home Discourse.

Where Gee gets a little iffy, and the argument posited by Delpit, is his assertion that “Discourses are not languages…someone cannot engage in a Discourse in a less than fully fluent manner.” Herein is where the argument doesn’t really stick, especially when it comes to education. Does this mean that no one not originally versed in the Discourse can learn it? Is all learning then necessarily a “mushfake”? I think I agree, we do appropriate the academic discourse at first, but with enough time and practice, don’t we become a member? Also, what about the idea that “Americans tend to focus on the individual, and thus often miss the fact that the individual is simply the meeting point of manu, sometimes conflicting discourses that are socially and historically defined” (539)? I believe this, in some respects. We typically are made up of what we are raised with, but education help us build on that, and move past it?

The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse

I read this article, and pretty much heard an echo of the entire discussion we had in Dr. Etheridge’s class yesterday. “Does it not smack of racism or classism to demand that these students put aside the language of their homes and communities and adopt a discourse that is not only alien, but that has often instrumental in furthering their oppression?” (545). Our discussion was basically, “where do you draw the line?” Too much, and the teacher is accomodating, too little and the teacher is not taking into account the student’s heritage. But what if the student doesn’t define themselves ethnically, isn’t that just as exclusionary? This is a tough question.

On the flipside, it was funny to see Gee’s article immediately torn apart by Delpit. Who edited this book?! She basically states her case by restating Gee’s: “That is, to learn the ‘rules’ required for admission into the particular dominant discourse, individuals must already have access to the social institutions connected to that discourse-if you’re not already in, don’t expect to get in.” (546). I know the discussions is about academic discourse, but I tried to think of it in terms of the guitar-playing discourse community. In order to be admitted, you have to first have some innate talent. You can learn all the surface rules you want, but I have seen people flounder for years at this stage, and not for lack of practice-they just didn’t have it. So, in that way, I could see a discourse excluding people, but with enough practice, you can become passable, if not fluent. Don’t know if that analogy even works. I think what it all comes down to, as Delpit concludes, is the teacher’s willingness to teach that extra lesson and to believe in the student, and the student’s desire to learn. It’s also funny to see the reverse side of trying to host a multicultural classroom: “Here students vociferously objected, demanding that they be taught grammar, punctuation, and ‘Standard English.’ The teacher insisted that such a mode of study was ‘oppressive.’ The students continued venting their objections in loud and certain tones.” (551). I think this gets back to our (semi) conclusion from yesterday’s class discussion with Etheridge: do nothing until you hear from the students. Don’t assume anything about their culture or background, but just listen to them.

---

Eva’s Response Journal Gee / Delpit

Gee’s essay proposes a new approach to literacy as a psychological / sociological process. When I thought about this at first it did not have any real meaning for me but as I went along with the reading, I realized that that is exacty how we gain access to literacy , verbal or written. We allow ourselves to enter into new uncharted social environments and explore how ‘they’ look at things,

Gee’s claim that the focus on Literacy studies /applied linguistics should be studied as a social practice is a valid one since literacy is not an isolated practice. How can we contextualize anything we see or read or hear if we do not have some sort of social awareness of how others ddo things and how our own schema fits into those practices or not?

I thought that his idea that Language not grammar (perfect grammar is not perfect use of language) and that having the Right idea/wrong grammar, and right grammar / wrong idea (job interview) made his point about how it is necessary to recognize the Discourse (D) and the Discourse community (DC) you are interacting with in order to be considered a member of that DC The interview example showed me that: • Interviewer aware that language is important, • But, unaware that communicating an idea is better than language use This is usually how society reads other people and if this is the case, then we all need D skills so that we can fit into as many situations (D) as possible, which makes us a more marketable entity in every sense. The main points of Gee’s theory is that in order for us to be considered literate, we need to get into society and acquire other D skills that are foreign to us. By doing that, we learn to “Say the right thing, the right way” and in the proper social context (appearing to share values, beliefs, goals, attitudes) to be successful

It is important to recognize discourse community you are in and Gee’s “identity kit” includes right clothing, how to act, talk, write, so others can see you as part of that community. Even though some people feel that to be individualistic is more liberating, when I thought about how society really works, I knew that Gee is simply saying that to fit in to those DC’s we want to infiltrate, we need to play the game of wearing , speaking and acting like the DC we want access to.

I thought that his idea of Learning discourse awareness is like acquiring second language (socially situated cognition) was very enlightening. I could make all sorts of connections to my linguistics knowledge of acquiring a second language. He takes his theory right off of language acquisition and it does make perfect sense when we consider how we go about learning a new D

Gee’s argument that a new D is gained not in classroom but by enculturation. Sort of threw me off the Gee path. I feel that awareness comes from many sources. Even when we read a book in class, we are absorbing something about someone or someplace that shifts our mota-knowledge so I sort of dispute his argument that D is learned only socially, or at least I want to expand that and say that D is learned at any , any contact zone.

The concept that we Branch out from own D by getting into other situations (scaffolding) was excellent. Our ‘s D may overlap or may have some tensions re values/ beliefs etc, but we assume that we are compatible Each have a home-D, sense of identity, aquire others later

Dominant /nondominante D

Explore the tensions that exist in order to become part of that D or not

Dominant usually’test’ others for membership into their D. Are “gates” to exclude non-natives

If trying to gain access to D, and not used to their D, falling back to own d, disasterous, use another related D, use a simplified, stereotyped D (like pidgeon, creolization, language contact )

• Gee’s belief that any socially useful definition of literacy must be contextualized in terms of D, thus defines literacy as mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourses (plural and involving / including print and / or language )

Theorem 1. Either in or out, must be fluent?? Not really fully . Learners ‘fossilize’ at some stage of acquiring second d, marks you a non member. Theorem 2. D must be plural in order to critique. Primary D alone does not constitute literacy

Connection to schools

Schools- Middle class mainstream- stress D correctness, superficial features instead of meaning to test ones belonging to that DC. Superficiality is a necessary function to gain new skills in literacy/

Gate keeping to get the ‘right’ people into ‘right places’ in our society. Superficiality needed to be mastered in schools so that rivialities can work for them later in gaining access to other D. to resis superficiality is to not get plural D and remain at bottom of social scheme. Can’t be taught in school but can be in socially situated practices in daily lives

Teachers role in D

De-center student D to raise awareness of primary d and gain meta –knowledge of othe D. Learning other d raises own D awareness. Mal adaption better than adapttiveness

Big Question. What can be done to gain access into other resistant D (gained not in learning but in social practices) ? I think it is like a contact zone where entrance must be negotiated in stages. Like SL, second D true acquisition not possible, fake it ok

Muchfake, resistance, meta knowledge work together to improve plural D and social entrance to D

Delpit “the Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse!!