Originally when I read Gee’s article about Discourse I understood the points he was making. I didn’t always agree with his reasoning, but I understood the things that he felt and believed about discourse and understood why he felt that way, even though I felt differently in some cases. After reading Delpit’s article I really understood Gee a little better and actually agreed a little more with Delpit then I did with Gee. Though I agreed with Delpit, there were things that I didn’t agree with. Delpit says “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.” And “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 value.” I Don’t exactly agree with these statements. There are people who have been born into a certain discourse who have been able to adopt a different discourse then the one they were born into. And not every person who has been able to do this has had the terrible experience that Delpit talks of. I guess it’s more of a generalization, but I think that she should have focused on both sides of the cross over from one discourse to another.

I was born in a small town in North Eastern Illinois known for being a working class type of place. I was born to young parents much like many of my classmates. I was born into a discourse that wasn’t for me. I saw my classmates not thinking of school as important, dropping out of school, getting jobs, having children young, joining gangs, getting into all types of trouble. I knew that wasn’t for me. So I made a conscious effort to not fall into that discourse that was basically set up for me. Yea, once in a while I was questioned for being different then everyone else and going about things a different way but I was never hassled or given a hard time because I wanted to be different then my peers. Now, when I go back to my hometown to visit friends and family and I run into old friends and classmates they all seem to have the same thing going on in their lives, not much of anything. Still living in that same discourse that I saw as not for me. I actually ran into a girl I was best friends with in elementary school. She was so surprised at what I was doing with my life, working and going to school. She actually told me that I was lucky to have gotten out of my hometown and doing something productive with my life. Maybe my transition into a different discourse wasn’t typical, but I don’t think it is as tough as Delpit makes it out to be.

Blog #4 ben pankratz

After reading Lisa Delpit’s article “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse” while agreeing with much of what Gee writes she points out two points that she takes issue with. One of which 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" (546) and the second being 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 value." (546-547). Delpit then goes on to give examples of specific individuals who with the right guidance and education were able to overcome the obstacles that Gee claims are near impossible to overcome. Using other readings Rodriguez, Mori, and Abinader can fit into this category because all of them have had to acquire a new and different discourse than the one they were born into. Although I agree that with the right conditions a person can move beyond the discourse they were born into i think her overall critique of Gee is missing the main point.


Gee's article can be seen as an overhead view of society and the education system and although pointing out exceptions is valuable in analyzing the system, it does little to actually affect how that system operates. Gee wasn't advocating the system just outlining how it works. Kind of an Educational Marxist, with an educated/non educated, primary/secondary dominant/non-dominant discourse. So when analyzing gee's writing I personally take a different more cynical  broad approach. I would argue that although great, inspirational, instructors are essential to helping those less fortunate learn a discourse with more social value there are many more factors that play a role. Such as the political climate and the education system (much like what's going on with Walker),the family life of the individuals which is affected by the Jobs market particularly in cities where Jobs are becoming more and more scarce, and prejudice and racist policies that still exist such as police in cities taking a militaristic policing strategy as opposed to public servant. These along with many other structural factors like them can weigh heavily on a child's mind for one reason or another and affect their ability and desire to learn. Delpit addresses and picks a part of the problem to define and makes a convincing case for but only analyzes part of Gee's "educational Marxism".

Delpit Blog Post

In “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse”, Delpit evaluates Gee’s theories of discourse and questions some of his perspectives. Although there are two main aspects that Delpit finds troubling, she does agree with most of Gee’s arguments. In Gee’s article he argues that literacy is more than just being able to read and write. It’s having these discourses or “identity kits” that are ways of “saying-writing-doing-being-valuing-believing”. Delpit agrees with this portion of Gee’s article, as well as his perception of primary and secondary discourses. After reading the two articles back-to-back I feel like I share the same understandings of literacy and discourse as Delpit. In the last blog post I expressed how being able to interact with others outside of your Primary Discourse really does allow one to be literate. We don’t all possess the same Discourses but being able to adjust to the surrounding social situations and deal accordingly is extremely important. Using discourses to help define literacy is the main point in Gee’s article that myself and Delipt both seem to agree with most.

While Delpit agrees with these two general ideas of Discourse, there are two that she finds troubling. On page 546 we can see the two notions that she opposes; 1) “…people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse.” and 2) “…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.”. Delpit finds discomfort in these arguments and can sense Gee’s discomfort in them as well. Although these ideas of Gee’s can be very convincing in his article, Delpit uses many examples to prove his theories wrong. She goes on telling story after story about individuals who truly changed their lives through school and learning. One example Delpit uses is of two successful African-American men who challenged this belief that literate discourses can’t be learned in a classroom. They attended an all-African-American elementary school where most people didn’t consider attending high school. Their teachers successfully taught them small portions of dominant discourse. But more significantly it was what their teachers believed, and not just what they taught. One man states, “They held visions of us that we could not imagine for ourselves. And they held those visions even when they themselves were denied entry into a larger white world. They were determined that, despite all odds, we would achieve.” I find this quotation and the experience of these two men inspiring. They had instructors that cared for them and their futures, and expressed this to them. The men grew up and became extremely successful through this learned discourse. Within this article Delpit gives us numerous examples of how people have learned a discourse in the classroom setting.

I agree with Delipt on so many levels. Those who are born into non-dominant discourses have that opportunity to learn dominant discourses. I can’t exactly relate to this on a personal level, but with all of the examples given in the text I’m not sure how I couldn’t agree. If the teachers are encouraging and the students are willing to learn, there should be no question of whether or not one can learn. Discourses do have their way of interfering, but with the right approach and mind-set one can gain this discourse within a classroom. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily easy, but with a determined child and teacher I think a dominant discourse can be taught and learned successfully.

Delpit

In Lisa Delpit’s article “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse”, she identifies two characteristics of Gee’s argument of literary discourse. The first aspect is explaining that if someone was born into a certain discourse, it would be almost impossible for them to acquire a higher level in “class”. The second part is that when someone is given a discourse after birth, if they so choose, they would difficulty in trying to find another discourse for them to live their lives upon. According to these aspects, we can just imagine someone who was born and raised in the lower middle class, even if they would pursue great goals and accomplish them; they would still find the same trouble as an average Joe attempting the addition of another discourse. It could be a burden and even a waste of someone’s time to find and acquire another dominant discourse.

I would like to say that I do agree with Delpit, because she brought out two of the most important factors about Gee’s idea of discourse. I think that most people would like to find a better discourse, or so they would think. The discourses that we all have and use in our lives vary from person to person all around the world. If we decided to change or even acquire another dominant discourse we would find road blocks that would try and keep us from reaching our goal. Of course there can be certain circumstances that someone successfully added another dominant discourse, but for the most part it will be difficult. In my opinion, I could see that finding and maintaining a dominant discourse that fits you can be extremely difficult, but the way we are born into this discourse doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t work our way out of it, let alone acquire another one. As most of the students in our 201 class are pursuing to become a teacher in the future, they will most likely have the opportunity to help those searching to find a new discourse. Teachers can have a huge impact that can last a student’s whole life, if we can teach our students that they shouldn’t be tied down to any one discourse, but to work their way at bettering themselves.

Delphit

I firmly agreed with Delphit's criticism of Gee's theory of Discourse. Her initial criticism was of Gee's idea that "...people who have not been born into dominant Discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible to acquire such a Discourse," further explaining that "...if you're not already in, don't expect to get in." (p. 546) This notion is extremely dangerous for teachers to adopt, because it makes teachers feel as if there is no hope for their non-dominant students to acquire traditionally dominant knowledge and skill. This may lead to teachers having a "why even bother?" attitude towards their non-dominant students, which is an obvious and detrimental problem.

Delphit also disagrees with Gee's suggestion "...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." (p. 547) Again, if this philosophy was adopted by a teacher, her students with minority primary Discourses would get left behind. Furthermore, I strongly believe that individuals can acquire multi-cultural, multi-class, and differentiated Discourses throughout their lives. Determining an individuals potential in the world based off of which Discourse they were born into is not only a stupid idea; it is dangerous.

I was born into a dominant Discourse. I've never experienced an educational discrimination personally, but I (unfortunately) have witnessed the type of dangerous determinism in a classroom. My high school chemistry teacher was an extremely racist, sexist, homophobic man. He only called on white boys to answer questions or participate in demonstrations. His favorite white boys were those who were overtly Christian. He was the worst teacher I have ever had, because of his (and Gee's) perception that the dominant Discourses are those with the greatest importance, and all other Discourses don't really have a chance at competing, so why even try?

Why even try? Because I truly believe that it IS possible to acquire a new Discourse with different sets of values than one's own primary Discourse. My mother is my proof. She was an English as a second language teacher for 10 years. Her job was to teach non-dominant students a dominant Discourse, including both language and culture, which she did successfully. She herself took an interest in learning about other languages and cultures. She speaks fluent English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, and Hmong, as well as basic Mandarin, Swahili, and Russian. Growing up, she taught my sister and I French, and she taught us to value diversity and to seek acquisition of multi-cultural Discourses. She travels 80% of the year for her IT job, and has spent up to 7 months as a time in Paris, and in Sydney. She married a French-Algerian man who speaks no English, and the majority of her friends are not American. She has successfully adapted to both French and Australian ways of life, without losing any of her Americanism along the way. She was born in Beaver Dam, WI to English-speaking Jahovah's Witnesses and has since then transformed into a multi-lingual, multi-cultural Buddhist, who has crossed in and out of various classes and Discourses along the way. She refers to herself as a "citizen of the world," and I couldn't agree more.

Delpit Blog Post

“There are two major 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……….The second part 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 value.” (pg 546-547) Gee is saying that it is almost impossible for anyone to acquire a Discourse that they are not born into and that if they do try to acquire so, they will experience major conflicts. In a way, I do agree with Delpit. Delpit gives many examples to prove that you can acquire a Discourse even if you were not born into that Discourse. For example, Marge had trouble with academic writing, reading, and talking but she got help from Susan and became one of the most sought-after research assistant in the college, Clarence Cunningham, who went to an all-African-American elementary school where the parents of most of the children never even considered attending high school, had a picture of about 35 students and almost all of them left their home community and achieved impressive goals in life, and Bill Trent along with his classmates who had no aspirations beyond their immediate environment yet completed college and were successful and notable. They were all able to transform their lives with the help of their teachers. Their teachers had faith in them and put that faith in their students. The teachers put in extra time and effort to help the students.

I believe that if teachers were to put in time and effort to help me and have faith in me, it will help me and make me want to learn more. Putting time and effort to help students does not mean spending more time than required. As long as the student know that you have faith in them and that you are there to help them when they need your help. I can honestly say that if it was not for my elementary teachers, I would not be continuing my education and would not be majoring in early childhood education. My elementary teachers were very nice and kind to us and they had faith in us. I went to a very diverse elementary. Our teachers knew that it was harder for us to learn because of our background. They took their time with us, made sure we knew what they were teaching us, and had faith in us, that if we work hard, then we can do it. I had a fourth grade teacher that was very nice to us, she was very patient and had a lot of faith in us, who had to move out of state and we cried when she told us that she had to leave because she was our best teacher, she understood us. I want to be able to help other students succeed and make a difference on life too, and that is why I’m majoring in early childhood education. I believe that early childhood education is a time in a student’s life where you can really make a difference in their life. They explore many new and different things and they start to decide what career field they want to do in the future.

Blog Post #4- Delpit.

Kate Kernien

In “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse,” Lisa Delpit discusses James Paul Gee’s “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Delpit agrees with the majority of the things Gee states, but has two main arguments against Gee. The first argument is with Gee’s statement, “…people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse” (546). Gee believes that people can’t rise above the discourse they were born into. He is saying that if you are born into a non-dominant discourse, then you will be most likely stuck in that discourse. Delpit disagrees with this belief of determinism. I agree with Delpit. I think people can work hard to acquire a discourse that wouldn’t normally be attainable to them. I do not have any personal experiences to relate to this, however Delpit shares many examples. Clarence Cunningham and Bill Trent were two of the examples she gave. They both came from families with low education backgrounds, but they both managed to become powerful, wealthy people. Delpit says, “Both attributed their ability to transcend the circumstances into which they were born directly to their teachers” (549). Their teachers were the ones who made it possible for them to succeed in secondary dominant discourses. They taught them the basics and they believed they would make it. Cunningham and Trent did not get that kind of encouragement from those around them; it was only the teachers that believed in them.

The second problem Delpit has with Gee’s writing is the fact that he does not believe that if you have a discourse of one set of values that one can attain another discourse with another set of values easily. “…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,” (546-7) Delpit states. Gee feels that if you have two discourses of different values then you are not going to be able to be fully part of both of the discourses because the values will conflict and go against the fact that to master a discourse one must truly believe in the values. Delpit thinks differently about this situation, “I also believe there are many individuals who have faced and overcome the problems that such a conflict might cause” (547). I consider Delpit to have a better sense of the complications Gee’s statement brings up. If what Gee says is true than discourses would not have changed as much as they have and women and minorities would not have changed their circumstances as much as they have. Women and minorities have been able to get better jobs and have more opportunities now that it is normal for them to get a higher education. They have been able to get jobs that may think women or minorities are unqualified. Their discourses may have different values, but they still are able to succeed in both discourses.