Gee's Discourse

Gee explains Discourse saying "Discourses are 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.” (p 526)

My understanding of Gee's Discourse is simply a personal and public role that is implicit to one's cultural and environmental surroundings. (Heuristic???) It is knowing how to act in various social situations, and the ability to adapt easily from one situation to the next. Gee describes that one has a primary discourse (that of their family,) and accumulates secondary discourses through repeated societal trends and experiences such as church, and school.

Simply defined, discourse is the correct linking of sentences in way that makes sense. I think back to the days of my high school philosophy class, where my teacher would encourage us to participate in philosophical discourse, which would then turn into philosophical debate. It is simply a term, and has little to do with Gee's definition of (big D) Discourse.

I would then describe my personal Discourses as those personal and public roles that I experience frequently. I believe that we have many Discourses, but my main discourses would be that of daughter, sister, student, caretaker, and girlfriend/friend. I act differently in each of these Discourses, and while my roles as daughter, sister, friend/girlfriend can be similar in some situations, they are different in others. My role as a caretaker to individuals with special needs requires a complete break from my Discourse as a friend, as does my switch from friend to student. I think that our ability to adapt and switch within each situation is learned overtime and becomes mastered to automaticity. Secondary Discourses are implicit to an individual.

I think that people can have many small, less encompassing Discourses as well (movie theater goer, shopper, bar patron, sports fan, music fan, etc.) To me, Discourse is all about adaptation. We have evolved over time and adapted to our environments, which includes adapting to various social situations with the appropriate social slang, gesture, attire, attitude, and tongue. I also think that over time once can lose interest in a Discourse, and grow to losing fluency in a Discourse (which Gee would describe as the total loss of Discourse, due to his assertion that in order to be a part of a secondary Discourse, one must be fluent in that Discourse.)

Although I have never been a part of such Discourses, I have observed many interesting Discourses including minorities, foreigners, elderly, teen parents, and drug addicts. Each Discourse has a sort of membership that is exclusive to those who experience the Discourse. It seems to be a little bit like a club to me. Outsiders can get the "gist" of the Discourse, and empathize with what it might be like to be a part of such Discourses, but unless they have a direct personal experience within the Discourse, they don't understand what it's like to be a part of the Discourse.

Gee's definition of literacy as the fluency of secondary discourse is different than my personal definition of literacy. I suppose being "literate" to a Discourse would require the mastery of fluent control over a secondary discourse, but in my opinion, it does not define literacy as a universal term. To me, literacy is more than the ability to read and write. It includes the ability to understand, and think critically about what an individuals reads, writes, says, and thinks. Gee's discussion of Discourse has not changed my definition of literacy, however, it did make me think. I remember a few years ago, my sister took a linguistics class at UW-Madison, and she told me that the African-American vernacular is just as grammatically accurate as American English, and it just has different grammar rules. Literacy, therefore, can be identified in terms of one's culture. Thinking of Gee's discussion of Discourse, and the membership of Discourse, I would think that Gee would find it acceptable for an African American to attempt to master the African American vernacular, but unacceptable (not natural?) for an African American to attempt to master "white" American English.