Gee uses (D) discourses as a way of talking about literacy. Discourses, with a capital “D”, are the many different social practices one has in life, and discourses are sub-sets of these larger more broadened Discourses. Gee describes Discourse as a combination of “saying, (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations” (526). Thus is concept of discourse with a little “d”, to him, “means connected stretches of language that make sense, so ‘discourse’ is a part of ‘Discourse’” (526). If this is not completely clear for some, as it was not for me, a good method for understanding Discourse is associating the term “identity kit” with it. (526) Sometimes I go as far as just replacing Discourses and “identity kit” to help myself get an understanding while reading Gee’s article, and if Discourse is equal to “identity kit” then discourse can be associated with how one acts, talks and writes.

Personally I have Discourses, many different ones, as everybody does. As upsetting as it may be for some probably one of the strongest (primary) Discourses in my life would be athletics. Not just going out to play pick up games with friends everyone and a while but living in a community of companionship. I grew up in a family of four boys and one girl, and she was the youngest, its play the sport of the season and root for the local team in season. For example, I can remember growing up that Sunday was the day we all got together and gathered around the television and either celebrated a Packer victory or sulked in a defeat, but we did it together. And we are not the only Packer family in the area and would often get together with other families, creating our own Packer community. Being a Packer fan would definitely be a discourse for me in a larger Discourse of athletics. I realize that there are those out there that hate everything about sports, athletics, athletes, losing, winning, companionship but it’s those people that make it special, that make it a Discourse.

I cannot say that I necessarily agree with Gee’s definition of literacy but I don’t disagree with it completely. I think that literacy is not just the mastery of a secondary discourse. The mastery of any Discourse is just a step in literacy, applying the knowledge of mastered Discourse into another Discourse I believe to be a more definite description of what it means to be literate. Gee’s definition of literacy did not really change my opinion of what literacy is, but then again I cannot say I really have an opinion on it, just an understanding. His definition did push forward my progress of understanding literacy and maybe it will help when someday I form an opinion. Before this class I thought I knew what it meant to be literate but as this class goes on it feels like the concept of literacy gets deeper and deeper.