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.
