Month: February 2019

Gee explores the place and functionality of literacy when he writes, “I define “literacy” as the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse.” (Gee 9) While one can agree with Gee’s idea for the most part here, with the exception of the words “mastery” and “fluent control,” as it is often found that you do not have to be a full on professional or master of a secondary discourse or subject to be literate in it. For example, one can be literate in microsoft excel, but by no means a master or have fluent control. Though I concede that literacy is defined by one gaining some form of control over a secondary discourse, I still insist that Gee’s reasoning faults in his terms of it being based on fluency/mastery.

Quite contrary to Gee’s and some of Jordan’s views on the subject, Delpit writes, “Despite the difficultly entailed in the process, almost any African-American or other disenfranchised individual who has become “successful” has done so by acquiring a discourse other than the one into which he or she was born.” (Delpit 550) This is a strong point because Delpit successfully analyzes how the concept of discourse is applied to society through interactions of discourses. It is unfortunately a requirement in western society for many if not all to acquire some form of the dominant standard english to become versed and successful in society. I have seen and heard the same concept confirmed in practical everyday application from some of my personal colleagues who are among these disenfranchised individuals. This connects directly to Jordan’s piece, where she explores how the acquisition of discourse changed her classroom.

In reviewing major literary articles by June Jordan, James Gee, and Lisa Delpit, all on the meticulous art of systematic oppression, there is much reference, both direct and indirect, to the presence of discourses in our society. Discourse means, however in this sense, a way of defining the ways that we portray ourselves as defined by a “set” background. While most of the authors agree with the definition, others struggle to understand the necessity and/or function of the word itself, and this in and of itself is where the problem lies for some of the authors. Gee’s paper, despite providing some of the foundation for further studies and analyses, faults at its inability to be flexible in reasoning, and rather provides a immovable structure to base it on.

• In writing my draft, my major concerns revolved around making sure I was properly using the works of each author, and drawing the right connections between them in a way that would set aside my own opinions regarding the subject. 
• My peers, specifically Owen, seemed to really like the way that I was able to describe the authors’ views on the subject, and weave them into my essay in a way that did not give too much away but made the reader want to keep reading. 
• I find that I am working best with Gee in reference to Delpit, and the discussion between pieces thereof. Specifically Alyssa noted this, and how this is, of course, one of the easier connections to draw as Delpit explicitly uses Gee’s work to criticize. 
• I am working best with Jordan, again, when I put her piece side by side with Delpit, as I find that Delpit’s piece is a perfect connecting piece between Gee and Jordan, and thus deserves the most analysis. 
• As a result of peer-review and my own judgement, I find that I certainly have my work cut out for me in terms of my needed revision. A couple of goals I have set for the next few weeks are to extend and add depth to my paper in many ways. I found that I concentrated too hard on providing background information on the pieces, and from here I should focus more on the analysis thereof. Bringing in more connective evidential quotes and depth to the paper will certainly do it justice. 
• My perspective is thus: the articles/works that we have read have created a very noticeable dichotomy between ideologies. Gee’s work, while providing an interesting base definition for discourse, struggles to elaborate and apply the concept to society, as he creates all-too concrete answers to any questions regarding the subject. 

Delpit’s objections to Gee begins on Page 546, in the third paragraph, “There are two aspects of Gee’s arguments which I find problematic. First is Gee’s notion that people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse.” Delpit goes further with this on the coming pages when she argues the cases of many students coming beginnings contradictory to the “dominant discourse,” such as the case of Clarence Cunningham, an African-American man, who “grew up in a painfully poor community in rural Illinois. He attended an all-African-American elementary school in the 1930s in a community where the parents of most of the children never even considered attending high school.” (Page 548) This indicates harsh and humble beginnings, of which there is a connotation of never being able to exit. Delpit goes in great depth to explore how among him and his peers, there was no drive to aspire beyond this environment. Despite this, the school system provided the more “subtle aspects” of dominant discourse. Jordan’s text would blend very well with this piece in some aspects, as they both discuss the problem of a dominant discourse being taught in school systems as the primarily tool for learning. Jordan’s piece could, however be argued as a contradiction to Delpit’s piece, as Jordan began using “black English” as a primary learning tool, rather than the combination of the two together, for the student’s learning. Jordan might argue that Delpit’s ideal learning measures of even the “subtle aspects” of the dominant discourse could lead to one or more of the student’s struggling to understand their own. 

Delpit’s second objection to Gee lies further down the page, when she writes, “The second aspect of Gee’s work that I find troubling suggests that an individual who is born into one discourse with one set of values may experience major conflicts when attempting to acquire another discourse with another set of values.” This is focusing more on the change to another discourse, rather than to the primary discourse, as mentioned above. This is explored when Delpit discusses the “radical or progressive” teachers who choose to further separate from the dominant discourse by solely teaching the “language and style of the student’s home discourse.” This is, of course, a huge issue as teaching only one discourse leads to seclusion from the diverse amount of discourses provided in society, and in some cases can be almost as bad as teaching the dominant discourse primarily, by creating a small worldview and less depth for learning. This is obviously a huge contradiction to some of Gee’s views on the subject, as she argues these points to his work. The more subtle reaction we can derive from Delpit’s work is towards Jordan’s piece, in which their works would primarily agree. Jordan was able to get many students to understand their discourse, and in a way make a transition from one to another. While they may disagree on the teaching techniques, it does prove they agree on the ability for fluid transition in the learning and acquisition of discourse. 

1. 1. I find that two of my personal Discourses do actually conflict. I was raised at my home (Primary Discourse) to be, among other things, a very inclusive person. I have always found myself as a person of great fortitude when it comes to things important in my mind, such as respecting the feelings of others. “Some people experience more overt and direct conflicts between two or more of their Discourses I’ve found that here at the University of New England, one of my Secondary Discourses, many people come from less inclusive backgrounds and thus have a certain apathy and lack of sensitivity towards some things I have always considered important. Not to say it is anything I cannot handle, however, but it is a noticeable shift from my home and I find worthy of the label of a certain “tension or conflict.” 
   2. I believe on of the most important concepts for discourse to use as a lens for the case of June Jordan is the presence of a “tension or conflict between Discourses,” which in this case are very strong. Jordan references how the “White standards control our official and popular judgements of verbal proficiency..” (Jordan 364) This is a direct link to the tension between English and Black English Discourses, where the White standard of English is the one that gets taught in schools, is the main language, etc. That is why often other cultures struggle to survive at many schools in America, sure we push diversity, but many instructors are unequipped in the ways of supporting all the cultures. Gee writes, “I argue that when such conflict or tension exists [Between two of one’s Discourses], it can deter acquisition of one or the other..” (Gee 8) Because of this, of course we see major points of conflict between student and teacher. And, as we see in the text, this problem is not always external; “I wanted not to make them self-conscious about their own spoken language—not whole they clearly felt it was ‘wrong.’” (Jordan 364) Unfortunately this shows how often and how many are unaware how they have been systematically made to not support or indulge in their own culture, and in some cases, even live against it. 
   3. In Jordan’s piece, when her and her students “translate” the piece from The Color Purple, it is indicative of a bigger problem. The Standard English is something that is/was taught primarily in schools and other secondary Discourses. Gee writes that “These [Secondary Discourses] may be local stores and churches, schools, community groups, state and national businesses, agencies and organizations, and so forth. Each of these social institutions commands and demands one or more discourses..” The problem is that these discourses appear to contradict one another in nature, such as the English and Black English discourse, whereas the former is used and taught across many secondary Discourses, the latter is thus in a struggle to be present. 

Typically an isolated worker, it was an interesting experience bringing other people into my work process in a way I haven’t before. To be honest, I think it helped improve my confidence in my voice in a podcast environment. I used to do morning announcements at my school, but for that I would go into an isolated room with a microphone. I am used to speaking in front of people and to them directly, yet somehow it was different having people around me while speaking into a microphone for a recording. I enjoyed how it pushed me to take my own personal writing and make it come to life in a semi-public environment.