In his article, Gee's main focus is Discourses, with a capital "D". He describes his whole theory of literacy around Discourses, a word he coined himself. However, discourses are also mentioned numerous times within his article. The difference between the two confused me at first because Gee seemed to stop referring to Discourses in his essay "What is Literacy?". He didn't use the capital "D" anymore. However, after re-reading bits and pieces, especially of the first essay, I saw that discourses were a small part of Discourses. "These combinations I call "Discourses," with a capital "D" ("discourse" with a little "d," to me, means connected streches of language that make sense, so "discourse" is part of "Discourse")" (526). When I think of discourse I think of talking and communication. From the beginning of this class, orally communicating thoughts was part of my definiton of literacy. That has not changed.
What has changed, however, is the addition of new criteria of literacy. When I first read and thought about this essay, I viewed it as social psychology; as stereotypes, personality types, and the ability to fit in. After discussing the article with the class, I figured out that I read the article as a psychology student, not as a composition student. I took two or three psychology classes in high school, loved it, and took a lot from the courses. I was used to reading articles like this is psychology, not composition. Ironically, I was using one of my Discourses, psychology student, while being confused about Discourses.
I view Discourses as a whole package of personality still, but I can now connect it to literacy. The way someone talks, dresses, acts, the vocabulary they use, and the ability to change this in various situations all goes back to being literate. Knowing when and how to use all these tools is part of critical thinking. Because of this I agree with Gee when he says that, "I define "literacy" as the mastery of or fluent control over a scondary Discourse" (529). With Discourses, you use the ability to write, read, understand, and change as well. In this sense, being literate is being able to look at a situation, knowing which Discourse is appropriate, and using it effectively.
Throughout my life I have seen tons and tons of Discourses, I just called them "identity kits" like Gee would say or more simply, personalities or stereotypes. I have seen people use them effictively and I have been a witness to someone failing at a Discourse making things awkward for everyone. The academic Discourse, the thousands of various professional Discourses, the class clown Discourse, the athlete Discourse; there are so many different Discourses that I have been exposed to. Step into a high school and you'll see tons. The students have many different ones as well as the people teaching them.
I have many Discourses just like anyone else. I believe that I have an intimate, primary Discourse that I use with my family and close friends, I have various Discourses for different subjects in school, I have a professional Discourse that I use at work and with people of authority, and probably many more that I'm not even aware of. Gee describes the various Discourses connected to schools. "It is often felt that good listeners and good readers ought to pay attention to meaning and not focus on the petty details of mechanics, "correctness," the superficial features of language. Unfortunately, many middle-class mainstream status-giving Discourses often do stress superficial features of language" (531). This statement sums of the education system pretty well. I think schools focus on the "petty details" because it is someting concrete to base learning on. It can easily be graded and then easily label someone as smart or stupid, literate or illiterate. Educators need to get out of this rut and look beyond the concrete, easy points of school. They need to use a better definiton of literacy and education to guide their teaching methods and skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment