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.