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.