To begin I would like to say that I would definitely need to re-read "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy?" by James Paul Gee to get the full understanding of the article because it included a lot of information and a lot of different points. But there was one thing that I found to be true although I thought the idea could have been explored more. Gee talks about how discourses can be in conflict. He says that "...some people experience more overt and direct conflicts between two or more of their Discourse than do others" (Gee, 628). I believe this is true because many people talk one way at home and then have to speak differently when in other settings (which is a topic that we have been exploring throughout the course).
Although I find this to be true, I do not like how Gee uses black people as an example of this. He says that "this is much less true of the primary Discourse in many lower socio-economic black homes, though this primary Discourse has influenced the secondary Discourse used in black churches" (Gee, 628). Whether or not this is true, even after re-reading the page I do not quite understand how he can justify this opinion and I wonder where he got this information to put this in his article. I think this idea would need to be further developed so that it doesn't come off as being racist. Gee also talks about "women academics [conflicting with] feminist Discourses" which without further explanation comes off as a bit sexist.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong or help me to understand what Gee is talking about!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For sure you are not alone in your thinking that Gee's ideas may be construed as racist. Maybe it is unfortunate that he only used the example of Black people whose primary Discourse is not a dominant, mainstream Discourse as an example. That surely is not true of all Black people, but it is true for many. And it is true that people (whether or not they are Black) have to somehow master a dominant, mainstream Discourse if they hope to ever transcend very narrow socio-economic constraints.
ReplyDeleteI agree!!!It was difficult to read because all of the details that Gee gives in paper but I found it difficult to read something like this because Gee sounds a little racist and sexist and he descriminate a lot African American and also women... and in my concern Gee is a little narrow minded. All of that made the reading painful!
ReplyDeleteThough, I agree with some of what he says about the differences of discourses when and how, etc...but to say that people can't adapt and write in different discourse this is BS!!!Motivation is the key of all no matter the social level and environment a child is raised in. Everything is possible if there is the desire to and the support system for that's all!
I would probably have to reread the text too but after these 2 painful hours I think that I would have to be very agressive with myself...
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who had a little hesitation to Gee's ideas. As much as I agree with most of what he says, the one-sided-ness of some of his points made his argument a little weaker, I thought.
ReplyDeleteAnd Cy...rock on! I love your enthusiasm! Anything is possible with the proper amount of motivation!
I'm just now coming back to this blog weeks later but I think Delpit does a good job of putting his ideas into a nutshell and then expanding his concepts into a more optimistic view.
ReplyDelete