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.

Blog Post #3 - Delpit, Brittany Schmidt

Lisa Delpit wrote an article titled, "The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse," which includes many arguments about discourse and literacy. Many of these arguments provide different aspects of Gee's arguments that Delpit disagrees with. Delpit makes two important arguments concerning Gee's theory of Discourse, and whether or not it is possible for those born into non-dominant Discourses to learn dominant Discourses. I agree with Delpit when he finds Gee's argument problematic that states, "First is Gee's notion that people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse" (546). In other words, Gee is saying that people are incapable of learning or changing throughout their life. If teachers today had the mind set that their student's will not be able to learn new discourses or even change them, they would fail miserably. It will become impossible for them to succeed when their teachers give up on them. I believe that if a person truly to change themselves and work hard at doing so they will be able to acquire a discourse that they weren't naturally a part of. I can think of one example of this. My Mom grew up with eight brothers and sisters and were never extremely wealthy. At the same time, they continuously picked on their brother Rick (my uncle). Rick would be singled out and made fun of numerous times. This led him to prove them wrong and be the best that he could. He did extremely well in school and it has paid off. He now makes the most money out of his family and is extremely well off. This shows that he was able to prove himself and try extremely hard to become wealthy.

Delpit's second aspect of Gee's work that he finds 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" (Delpit 546). I agree with this statement that people may acquire difficulties and conflicts when acquiring other discourses. On the other hand, these difficulties may only be small bumps in the road. I do believe that people will overcome these difficulties because when a person truly wants to change they will make adjustments in their life to do so. If we thought that it was impossible to acquire different discourses without experiencing conflicts, then teaching would be easy. If we agreed with this statement, then it would be impossible to teach students new discourses.

Blog Post 4-Delpit

“The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse” by Lisa Delpit is composed of some counterarguments to James Paul Gee’s article, “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What Is Literacy?”. Throughout Gee’s article, he expresses the struggle of minority or non-dominate students to achieve success through the dominant discourse. He further goes on to explain that it is virtually impossible for someone outside the dominant discourse to become a part of it, since discourses cannot be taught.

However, Delpit refutes some of Gee’s claims in two ways The first being that people outside the dominant discourse will have a hard time getting in. “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” (546). Delpit attempts to disprove this by offering examples of people who have overcome these obstacles and achieved the dominant discourse with high proficiency. She uses the example of a girl named Marge who struggled to get into a doctoral program, but after some assistance from another peer, became the most sought after researcher on her campus. Delpit also states that teachers need to, “...bring to the fore stories of the real people whose histories directly challenge unproductive beliefs” (547). She continues throughout the article to state that teachers are the solution for achieving success.

The second way Delpit challenges Gee’s ideas is through his notion of different values between discourses. “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” (546-7). Delpit again states that teachers are the solution to this and tells teachers what they must do so that their students can enter the dominant discourse. “First, teachers must acknowledge and validate students’ home language without using it to limit students potential...They must understand that students who appear to be unable to learn are in many instances choosing to ‘not learn’”(553). In addition, Delpit redefines Gee’s notion of values in different discourse. “Acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but are shaped, however reluctantly” (552).

It is hard for me to say whether I agree or disagree with Delpit’s opinion since I do not have any life experiences that would validate my opinion. From an outsider looking in to the struggles of people in a non-dominant discourse, I would have to say I agree with Gee more than I agree with Delpit. However, I do not think that it is impossible for someone to achieve the dominant discourse like what Gee believes, merely that it is extremely difficult to obtain. I also think that this whole debate is an issue of nature verse nurture, to which I agree more with the nature side. When I say nature I am not referring to genetics or blood, I am referring to the primary discourse, and the initial teachings from the home. I do believe that it is extremely troubling to be taught one thing from birth and then have someone else who is not a family member tell you otherwise. Consequently, this is sure to be met with resistance from the majority of children. Although Delpit does offer some examples of people from a non-dominant discourse who have successfully entered the dominant one, each one success story is probably met by at least a hundred failures. I am not trying to be pessimistic about non-dominant students, just realistic as to how difficult it is for them and teachers in today’s education system. As much as Delpit stresses that teachers are the solution, I think that community is the solution. A child is raised by his or her community. Although teachers can assist students to achieve success, the values and beliefs taught in school must be reaffirmed by the community for a student to succeed without any remorse. Both Gee and Delpit bring up too many questions about education and literacy for any one person to be able to fully comprehend or begin to explain. There is one thing that is apparent however, which is that something needs to change in the educational system or we all will fail.

Blog #4: Delpit

Yes, I do agree with Delpit. When it comes down to the question if I disagree or not to Delpit argument and weather or not if it is possible for those born into non-dominant Discourses to learn dominant Discourses. As Delpit mentions in her article, “instead of being locked into 'your place' by your genes, you are now locked hopelessly into a lower-class status by your discourse,” (Delpit 546) which I believe a lot of urban students now in days are categorized into these categories by discourses. Children who were born and raised into a lower-class don't wish for themselves to be born into a lower-class home. These lower-class children have to work ten times hard to reach that Discourse, where they could have access to social power and money, not much will succeed while reaching to the discourse with a capital “D.” Due to of weak minded, lack of education, and etc.

The reason I agree with Delpit, was because I was one of those children born into a lower 0case “d,” going up on welfare and having to struggle to reach the higher education level. My parents did not hold me back from receiving my education, I could say it was their way of growing up. They grew up in a working family, so they believe working, paying bills, and buying personal things was a way of life. I knew since I was young, I wanted to go to college, but on my way to college I have had a rocky road. Notice in elementary, was wonderful, had good grades and passed the required state test. On my way to middle school, that's when things got shaky. Went from being an “A'” and “B” student to a “D” and “F,” notice myself getting into trouble and not caring bout school. Coming from a discourse home and having my parents separating, made it a bit harder for me to concentrate on my education.

When Gee argued, that you can not learn a discourse, honestly have to say I did not understand exactly what he was trying to get his point across. After our English 201 professor, broke it down and hearing the rest of the students opinion, it came to a better understanding the difference between “D” and “d” discourse. Reflecting back to my personal experience, even though I came from a discourse home, going through high school it was pretty mellow but not what I was expecting. Even though I graduated as a honor roll student I had to repeat some high school level courses in college but did not get any credit from it. Thought I was well prepared, but reality hit, I really wasn't. Sad to say, thought was well prepared for college, even though that had happened. Went from a discourse home to a Discourse education. That being said, I agree with Delpit, on how you could learn from a discourse and adapt yourself into a Discourse. Not everyone comes from a Discourse and have it made, from my point of view and life experience, you could learn how to adapt into a Discourse.

Blog Post #4: Delpit

Ryan Popp
Delpit’s first argument against Gee’s ideas is that people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse (Delpit 546). She finds this problematic because the people who are not born into a dominant discourse are locked hopelessly into a lower-class status by their discourse. Delpit argues that such a stance would leave a teacher feeling powerless to effect change, and a student feeling hopeless that change can occur (Delpit 546). I agree with Delpit that Gee’s idea of how it is nearly impossible to learn a dominant discourse is problematic. The demographics in today’s schools are changing. Most of the students in schools are from minority groups that are not the same as their teacher. Students in most schools are not born into a dominant discourse, so then what’s the point of teaching them if it is nearly impossible for them to acquire a powerful discourse. The point is that these students can learn a dominant discourse if the teachers lead their students in the right direction. It’s almost not about how well the teacher teaches, but how well they inspire and motivate their students. Delpit uses an example about how a teacher told her students, from minority groups, that they have to work harder and be tougher than their peers because they are already at a disadvantage. I believe that if teachers practice this they can help some students work their way into a dominant discourse. But it is a very difficult thing to accomplish and takes a lot of hard work from the teacher and student.

The second aspect of Gee’s work that Delpit disagrees with is 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 (Delpit 547). Delpit argues that when teachers believe that this acceptance of self-deprecatory values is inevitable in order for people of color to acquire status discourses, then their sense of justice and fair play might hinder their teaching these discourses (Delpit 547). If teachers would believe Gee’s idea, then they would see teaching a new discourse as almost impossible. I believe that Gee is right. I think that most students who are not from a dominant discourse and are trying to acquire a powerful discourse have a lot of conflicting feelings. Students feel that they are betraying their families, who are all using non-dominant discourse, by leaving that discourse behind them. When these students become older and have acquired the dominant discourse, they feel a part of their culture is missing. They have feelings of hate towards themselves for leaving behind a piece of themselves. Rodriguez was a great example of this determinism. He started out as a Spanish speaking young boy, but as his schooling started, he began to idolize his teachers. He saw them as powerful and well-educated due to their mastery of a dominant discourse. Rodriguez then exiled himself from his family. At the end of this academic career, he regrets leaving behind a piece of his culture. So I do believe that Gee is correct when stating that people who are trying to learn a dominant discourse have conflicting feelings.

Delpit/Discourses- robert jarosz

Hoping that I will become a teacher someday I would say that I agree with Delpit. After taking out the words “dominant and non-dominant” and “discourses” Gee is pretty much saying that people can’t learn and can’t change. If people can’t learn from what they already may have been able to figure out then the world would feel very empty and progress might as well be stagnant in fields of human relation, the sciences and technology. I disagree that people can’t be inspired to learn.

I can’t say that I have be involved or witnessed many cases of someone learning a new discourse solely because I have not lived a full life of holding a number of different jobs and moving to different cities. I believe this because for someone to learn and change it takes many years and much practice, it’s not something that happens over a summer vacation. For someone to learn and know a discourse it’s got to take at least close to a decade. Maybe Gee finds it impossible to teach or learn a new dominant discourse because he had not stuck around long enough to witness any results. I will use one of my discourses as an example and I have been practicing this trade for around eleven years solid. I use the word solid because for eleven years I would practice this trade in the fall, winter, spring and summer. Now after years of this trade I am still no professional, just a little better than maybe an average person. This trade has become one of my dominant discourses and it still took me awhile to learn and I did not have to block out previous discourses I’ve learned, which can slow down a person’s progress even more. As a teenager in college I can’t say that I have witnessed someone completely learning a new discourse besides my own.

I agree with Delpit about how it is possible to learn new discourses but I am not one to say that it is easy to learn a new discourse. I have yet to learn a different discourse from what I know and I have not had to teach someone something they are not necessarily comfortable with. I have only taught kids and adults what I know about my trade and it was not like they were forced to learn from me, they wanted to get better for themselves. I have only had the pleasure of teaching my trade/discourse to those who are listening and I have not taught them everything they know but I slowly see this trade become a little more dominant in their lives. When teaching someone anything there always has to be a degree of patience and when the magnitude of what is being taught is greatened the same has to happen with the level of patience. Teaching one who wants to learn a discourse is different from teaching someone something they do not necessarily want to learn and a life they do not necessarily want to live and that can be very difficult, not impossible.

Delpit

Delpit disagrees with Gee; Gee claims it is difficult if not impossible for someone born into a non dominant discourse to transfer into a dominant one. I agree with Delpit, that this mind set causes predetermination. If you think your students will fail and treat them as so then it isn't possible for them to succeed. I believe that Gee was incorrect. It isn't as difficult to transfer between discourses as he portrays.
Delpit gives plenty of example of how minorities have over come and transferred into a dominant discourse. Rodriquez is another example of someone who has transferred into a dominant discourse. I believe that for some it is difficult but it is not impossible to transfer from one discourse to another.
I believe in a way I have too. I was not born into a upper-middle class white suburban family. I may be white, but my family definitely struggled. As a young kid, my dad was a factory worker and part time druggie/drug dealer. My mother was constantly in out of different factory jobs. My dad quit doing drugs when I was between 5 and 8. My parents never went to college and barely made more than minimum wage. When my parents got divorced is when financial troubles really hit. I moved in with my dad. We struggled for years before he decided to just sell the house. My senior year of high school we moved in with his boyfriend. By the time they moved to Florida this past year, my dad was barely making a dollar more than I do at Walmart.
My mother on the other hand is on SSI and housing and food stamps. She lives in the "ghetto" and struggles month to month.
So I don't come from a dominant discourse. I come from a lower-middle class boarder line poor family. My parents never went to college, didn't even consider it for themselves. I have aunts and uncles who have transferred into dominant discourses but my parents did not. I come from a divorced family and gay parent, not exactly a suburban white kid. Now I am in between transferring to a dominant discourse. I work and go to school so I do not repeat the cycle of poverty in my family. I know I am smart, and I am lucky I did not go to a school where my teachers held me back from my potential. They didn't just see a poor little white girl.

Delpit/Gee Blog

Gee and Delpits ideas and opinions on the overall study of discourse and how it defines you as a person really interested me and helped my understand why we change in different situations. Honestly, I didn't know what a discourse was and meant at first. I just knew and had experienced having to shift your personality around different people to fulfill the need to "fit in." Then reading Gee initially I realized that I have experienced this type of Discourse he taught of. Reading the entire article I didn't really analyze, I mostly just took in what Gee had to say and soaked it in. Then knowing I would have to read Lisa Delpit's "The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse" I knew that there would be some objections having to do with Gee's ideas and opinions. So knowing this I thought about all of the things I didn't agree with in Gee's article. The number one thing that stood out to me was his idea that he stated his notion that people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse. Which I totally disagree with, isn't this the whole point of a discourse? Shifting yourself to fit into different discourses? I also disagree with his idea that, "To learn the 'rules' required for admission into a 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," (Delpit 546). I think that if you are born middle class or some other social standard, it may be hard, but you can connect to another place and class. That is the whole point of discourse, mastering it may be impossible, but nobody will ever know because you never 100% know if you are really on the same level as someone else. Only that person knows what it's like be in their own shoes.

Another part, that I find even more troubling is the idea 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," (Delpit 546). I was born into one discourse, and I have my own set of values but this doesn't limit me one bit in attempting to acquire other discourses with the friends and peers around me. Especially the fact that I wish to become a teacher, I can't limit myself to just to connect with kids who "have the same ideas" as me and look like me with my skin color. I as a teacher need to be on the same level with all of my students and even parents. This causes me to acquire several discourses so that my students and parents can feel that they can relate to me. From the outside looking in, I don't think that either writers have their ideas as to where I can 100% agree but I can for sure wee where both of them are coming from.

Delpit Blog Post

I have said this before, but the biggest problem that I had with Gee was him saying that it was close to impossible if not so for someone of a non-dominant Discourse to effective learn and live in a dominant Discourse. I was very concerned with this statement because of the fact that I want to go into Teaching. And more specifically I want to teach English. So how am I supposed to effective reach out to my students and teach them when in the end I am doing a fools errand? Like Delpit said it, a “teacher feeling powerless to effect change” may just give up because of what Gee is saying (546). From Rodriguez’s example, I was confused. If he was successful in attaining a new Discourse from school, then how is Gee correct in what he is saying?
That’s why I was so happy to have read this article to make sure that teachers and schooling do in fact make a difference. I was extremely pleased to have read all the examples of minorities coming from some of the worst backgrounds that anyone can go through to eventually rise to the top. All of those examples had a teacher behind them that was always pushing them for greater things no matter who they were. “They set high standards” and the students wanted to live up to those standards (549). If you set low standards for any student no matter what age or background the student is, that student is going to be bound for disaster. The teacher has to respect the student no matter who they are, and push them for greater things. Nothing in life worth having is easy. You have to work for it, and I do not know when this article was written, but it makes me kind of optimistic to see people are striving for a better future in our children (cause Lord knows we need one).
The other part that I really enjoyed with Delpit’s article was the idea of a good teacher “cheating” the system for his or her students. The idea of “to cheat is to learn the discourse which would otherwise be used to exclude them from participating in and transforming the mainstream” (554). I don’t think I could even comprehend how great that one statement makes me feel that I am going into English Teaching. The whole reason why I decided to become a teacher was to try and make a difference in someone’s life. Whether it’s through handing a student a book that will change how they see certain things in life, or even better now to help them achieve a better life. To help them use the system that so widely holds them down to rise above it makes me more than glad that I am becoming a teacher. And we all know that especially now that teachers to be need a big motivator like this.

Delpit

I would have to agree with Delpit that those born into non-dominant Discourses can learn dominant Discourses. For Gee's first argument on how discourses cannot be taught in the classroom, they can only be acquired in their home settings, i strongly disagree. Students change their Discourses every day in school because they want to fit in with their peers. A friend of mine is observing in a kindergarten class here in Milwaukee, and she was remarking on how when one student asks to go outside or go to the bathroom or listen to music, everyone else will chime in. I feel that this isn't just them all sharing the same opinion at the same time, but wanting to be the same as the rest of their classmates and share the same interest. I agree that you're primary Discourse may originate from your lifestyle at home, but it is also defined by Gee as the one you are most comfortable in and I feel that most students try their hardest to set up their student-Discourse as one within their comfort zones.

However, with Gee's second argument that individuals born into one discourse may experience conflicts when attempting to acquire another discourse with different values, I completely agree. As we've read in the article, with certain backgrounds and family values students some times refuse to learn certain subjects because they believe the teachers are trying to transform them (which they are) and they won't allow it.

I believe it is very possible for those in a non-dominant discourse to transfer into a dominant one. With a non-dominant discourse they have the solidarity with a social network. With dominant discourse they bring in social goods like money and status. I feel that in order for someone with non dominant discourses to learn dominant discourses they need to have the proper education which will allow them to move from their current social network into a high status social network. And with that higher social status they would hopefully have a better job which would allow them to bring in more social goods. They just have to be given the proper support. It may prove difficult due to acquire a new Discourse if it conflicts with their values and or home and community Discourses but I feel that as long as they are able to mold the two together and neither forget their own previous values nor ignore the new ones they must acquire then it is very doable to make it a dominant Discourse. An example of this could be for any student of a different race, they have their home values and way of speaking and learning and then they are forced to contort to "American" and "English", for those who succeed into moving from a non-dominant to a dominant we see spanglish and mixed learnings such as that, where two languages and cultures join together.

Delpit Blog-Lauren Miller

Delpit's response to Gee's essay not only cleared a lot of Gee's essay up for me, but showed me how much more optimistically Delpit looks at this idea of children, especially children of color. Gee believes that if you're born into a discourse you stay there for life. Delpit on the other hand sees that children can succeed despite what social class or race they're born into.
One quote in this article made me agree with Delpit. "...Gee's argument suggests a dangerous kind of determinism as flagrant as that espoused by the geneticists: instead of being locked into "your place" by your genes, you are now locked hopelessly into a lower class status by your discourse. Clearly, such a stance can leave a teacher feeling powerless to effect change, and a student feeling hopeless that change can occur" (546). I may just be an optimist, but if I did not think that I could change children in any way, I wouldn't want to be a teacher. Despite all the challenges these kids face, I truly do believe that they can get out of their non-dominant discourses. We would not have so many success stories or teachers even wanting to teach if this wasn't true.
The story that Delpit shares of Clarence Cunningham and his class of thirty-five also stands out for me as proof that Gee’s theory does not hold true in many cases. “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. There is a school picture hanging in his den of a ragtag group of about thirty-five children…Almost all of the children in the photo eventually left their home community, and almost all achieved impressive goals in life” (548).
I grew up in an almost all white community, and most of the black kids I went to school with were adopted by white parents. The two girls and one black kid I personally knew all were. Because of this my personal experiences related to this are limited, but two out of the three of them are enrolled in college right now. One got a scholarship to run track at Steven’s Point and the other one goes here. However, the differences between these two people and the children in Delpit’s article are vastly different. These people grew up in a community that is 98% white and grew up with white parents. They were raised in a small town and our high school pushed us to go to college; it almost seemed like the only option. Because of all the good experiences I have had in school and the horrific scary contrast some other schools are to mine, I want to help. I want to give these young, sometimes hopeless children a chance at what I was just given. I know it’s not humanly possible for me to help many of them, but if I can give a few of them a chance at getting out of their non-dominant discourse and achieve success it’s worth it for me.

Blog Post #3 - Gee, Brittany Schmidt

After reading the article "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy," written by James Paul Gee I have a better understanding of not only literacy and linguistics, but also this new idea of discourse. There are two different discourses, "Discourse" and "discourse." "Discourse," with a capital "D" is said to be, "ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestrues, glances, body positions, and clothes" (Gee 526). We look at a "Discourse" kinda like an "identity kit," which teaches us how to act, talk, and write. A few examples of a Discourse would be: a student, teacher, man or woman. It is important to point out that one can not truly be taught a Discourse. At the same time, there are primary Discourses, as well as secondary Discourses. We can look at primary Discourse as the one that we were born with and is our original sense of identity. A secondary Discourse is one that we acquire over time. On the other hand, "discourse," with a lower case "d" to Gee means, "connected stretches of language that make sense, so 'discourse' is part of 'Discourse.'" (526). In other words, they are a group of words that are strung together that make sense.

Throughout my life, I have not only acquired many Discourses, but also witnessed many others. I am a student, friend, daughter, cousin, employee, and even American. It is common for people to act differently based on each Discourse. For example, I would not act the same around my friends, being in the friend role, as I would at work, being in the employee role. The way people use their Discourse is not only the way they talk, but also the way to act and portray themselves. Therefore, at work I am acting more professional and polite, than I may around my friends. At the same time, I wouldn't use profanity at work, while I may use it around my friends.

Lastly, in the article Gee defines literacy as the mastery of or fluent control of secondary Discourse. I agree with Gee about this definition for many reasons. First of all, as we have learned in previous readings, literacy is more than just reading in writing. Instead, it is the deeper understanding of what is being read or written and playing around with what the author is trying to portray to readers. It is important to realize that no matter what primary Discourse one has, it will not change. For example, I am a woman and that will not change. People are able to truly be literate by being able to talk to others and learn from eachother, especially outside ones primary Discourse.

Blog #3 "Gee"

The “Discourse” means “ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate

words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body

positions, and clothes,” (Gee 526), describing an identity which one would put themselves into.

Gee also explains the “identity kit,” he explains that the Discourse is a combination of on how to

talk, act, and often write. (Gee 526) From what I got out of it was, you are taught to write, read,

and act in a certain way. Then again, the “discourse” is s connection which is stretches of

language where it would make sense , in other word “discourse” is part of “Discourse.” (Gee 526)

Everyone have their own way of expressing themselves through different style of language,

putting up an act to fit in, in a certain group, etc.

From a personal perspective, the discourse I have would be the discourse with a capital “D.”

Reflecting back to the definition to the Discourse, when it explains the combinations which is

comfort into an “identity kit,” as a Hispanic woman given the title to be a house wife and not

being able to educate myself. Living in a world or country of stereotypes and discrimination, by-

passing all of the negativity and proceeding to go to the highest level of education and given the

opportunity to work for my own belongings. Have witnessed the discourse of the language in the

education area and back at home. Having that discomfort from not being understood at home,

but being able to speak my mind and having others at school understanding me from when I

started to the end of the conversation.

I could say I agree, from my understanding from Gee essay, of the mastery in literacy or a

fluent control over a secondary discourse; when Gee goes on and explain his definition of

“literacy,” he goes on and say that “a socially accepted association among ways of using language,

of thinking, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially

meaningful group or 'social network' ” (Gee 537), explaining oneself has their own identity and a

group the belong too. Social network influence people to speak and write. For a example, a lot of

people love to write in short hand, what I mean by this, is the word “school and tomorrow”, in

short hand it would spell “skoo or skool and tmrw,” for those who don't know how to short hand

through the social network. I agree with the mastery of literacy and the in fluent it has on the

people as a secondary of Discourse. In a way it did not change my opinion on literacy, because

without the training on how to speak and say certain things, people would be confuse on

understanding ones opinion. Also, without the different language and dialects, a majority of the

people wouldn't be able to learn the different cultures and lifestyles.

Gee

In James Paul Gee’s article Literacy Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy, he talks about how there are two different types of discourse. Discourse with a capital “D” refers to the “ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures , glances, body positions, and clothes” (526). Gee brings in the idea that Discourse is an “identity kit” that we use in our day to day life, it can be a label and our personality. When thinking of discourse with a lower case “D”, Gee remarks that it is just a group of words that are compiled to make sense. Both Discourse and discourse are used to elaborate on how literacy is portrayed in Gee’s mind.

Throughout my life, I have encountered numerous Discourses that people have had and even myself have had, many people follow their primary Discourse which makes sense of the world through interaction. Most people do not just follow their primary Discourse, there are also secondary Discourses that are nondominant and are used whenever the primary Discourse isn’t being used. Let’s say a man who worked in a bank would be professional to the standard and ethics of his work place, but as soon as he was out of work his personality changed, his identity kit changed. It does not make someone “unprofessional” in my opinion because, people should live their lives around their standards and not everyone else’s.

I would say that I would somewhat agree with Gee’s definition of literacy and how it is shaped by our Discourse and our discourse. We use them frequently, without thinking sometime because that is what we are used to. Gee reflects that “we acquire this primary Discourse, not by overt instruction, but by being a member of a primary socializing group” (527) and this can be put into relation with how our lives shape our personalities. My other half is pushing that literacy is more than just reading a book or writing a paper, it is about the comprehension of the material and making an idea for a person. Gee’s essay did not change my overall opinion on what literacy is, but he did provoke some topics that others might find more moving.

Gee's Blog

Throughout Gee’s article we see the terms “Discourse” and “discourse” used to describe literacy and the way we communicate with one another. When I began reading this I found no difference in these two words, besides the obvious capitalization of one. But after the first page of this article Gee explains the meanings of these two significantly different terms. He uses the following quote to help us better understand Discourse; “A Discourse is a sort of “identity kit” which comes complete with appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize.”(526). I feel this “identity kit” comparison is so accurate and relatable. It’s referring to the language we use when playing the appropriate social role while trying to portray a certain image. It’s the way one acts in different social situations and being able to play a role accordingly. Gee explains how we all have a Primary Discourse that we are introduced to with our first interactions with family and close loved ones. And after our primary, we have the opportunity to develop Secondary Discourses. We develop this secondary discourse through continuous experiences and actions, like attending school, church, etc.

Gee talks in depth about the term “Discourse” and makes slight mention of “discourse”. In this quote we get a better idea of how the two are related; “ …”discourse” with a little “d” to me, means connected stretches of language that make sense, so “discourse” is a part of “Discourse”(526). From this quote I understand that discourse is simply the communication through speech or writing that has substance and can be understood.

Most people have numerous Discourses, and I myself am one of them. The Discourses I have and the ones I use most include that of a student, daughter, friend, and employee. With each of these Discourses I act slightly different. As a daughter and friend I am completely comfortable, open, and emotional. While I feel similar comfort around my friends and family there is also some differences. I have the utmost respect for my parents and the sometimes the language spoken with my friends wouldn’t necessarily be appropriate around my parents. Topics of discussion may differ between the two as well. But I do feel as though these two make up my Primary Discourse. As a student and employee I am again, respectful. While I express opinions openly to my friends and family, in my school and work environment it’s quite different. At school I’m more reserved and aware. As an employee in sales, I put on a role greeting others and offering assistance. These different Discourses are things we adapt to and gain over time. They become our Secondary Discourses without us even realizing it. I think there are a variety of different Discourses that people can contain. I’ve of course witnessed the Discourses that I already maintain but I have also seen Discourses I do not. I’ve witnessed those of other cultures and descents, athletes, musicians, etc.

In his article Gee describes literacy as being fluent in a Secondary Discourse. I feel this is quite valid on many levels. When I think of literacy I feel it is more than just reading and writing and includes the use of the language we know. No matter what we all have that Primary Discourse that we will always know and will probably never be changed. 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 really is important. As complicated as this “literacy” definition may be, I think it’s a very good comparison and is a very interesting point of topic.

Gee describes Discourses as “ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes” and discourses, “with a little ‘d,’… mean connected stretches of language that make sense” (526). This is to say that discourses are just the sentences and Discourses are the entire paragraph. You cannot have a Discourse without the discourses. Gee used several examples of what this meant in his article. He said that you could say the right thing, with the right grammar (discourse) but have it be completely wrong (within the Discourse). The Discourse encompasses everything that the words mean. Every way you say something, says that something just a little different. If you say, “I really like how you handled that”, with a smile and happy tone, it means something completely different than if you said it while extending your middle finger and in a sarcastic tone.

As far as the Discourses that I have, I think I have quite a few. Just in one week I switch several times. I have my primary, personal Discourse that I have with my family and close friends, I have a mommy Discourse which is slightly different than my primary Discourse. I also have one that is used at school and one at work. I would say my primary Discourse, like that of others, is impersonal, relaxed, and may even contain some expletives and other slang. My mommy Discourse includes soothing tones, small words, no expletives, and an informal way of going about things. My work Discourse is more polite, helpful, and less relaxed than what I use at home. My school Discourse is more relaxed than that at work, but less than it is at home and the speech is different. I have also witnessed more Discourses than I could count. Every culture has its own way of expressing the views of its members and each part of the city has a little different way of going about things. I have a coworker who has a unique situation that allows her Discourse(s) to be different and understand things a little different than the rest of us. She was born in Scotland and lived much of her childhood there. She then moved to the states and lived in the south (Carolinas to be specific). Now, she lives in Wisconsin and has so much to expose us to each day. I have learned a little about the Scots and how they speak and even more about her feelings as a southerner here in the north. She still talks with an accent, though you never know which one will pop out, even though it doesn’t fit in. It’s her Discourse.

I don’t know that I agree nor disagree with Gee’s definition of literacy being the mastery of a secondary Discourse. I think that the mastery of a particular Discourse could be considered could make the person literate in that Discourse and that’s it. Mastering more than one discourse would just make you more literate in general and more versatile but not having complete mastery over more than one wouldn’t make someone illiterate.