Month: February 2019

Old: When I was initially assigned to read the papers of James Paul Gee, June Jordan and Lisa Delpit I had no idea what I would be learning about. I had no idea what Gee’s idea of a Discourse was and I had no idea that I interact in multiple discourses on a daily basis. Gee describes a discourse as “a sort of “identity kit” which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize” (7). In my own words and what I gained from the reading was that a discourse is an environment that you may or may not be accustomed to. It is how you interact with a certain group of people or a certain community. That is why Gee also introduces the themes of primary and secondary discourses. Primary is the one you are most comfortable in and the one you were most likely born and grew up in. A secondary is one you acquired along the way but you fit in like you have been a member forever. A good example of this for me personally would be how I talk when I am talking to my friends. If I am saying I’m going home I’d say “I’m bout to go back to the crib in a minute”. But if I was at school talking to my professors I’d say “I’m going home soon.”

New: When I was initially assigned to read the papers of James Paul Gee, June Jordan and Lisa Delpit I had no idea what I would be learning about. I had no idea what Gee’s idea of a Discourse was and I had no idea that I interact in multiple discourses on a daily basis. Gee describes a discourse as “a sort of “identity kit” which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize” (7). In my own words and what I gained from the reading was that a discourse is acquired in an environment that you may or may not be accustomed to but soon become a part of. It is how you interact with a certain group of people or a certain community. This can include and influence your behavior, mannerisms, beliefs, personality and many other things That is why Gee also introduces the themes of primary and secondary discourses. Primary is the one you are most comfortable in and the one you were most likely born and grew up in. A secondary is one you acquired along the way but you fit in like you have been a member forever. These secondary discourses can be acquired by being around a certain group of people a lot or playing a sport and learning the terminology of that sport. A good example of this for me personally would be how I talk when I am talking to my friends. If I am saying I’m going home I’d say “I’m bout to go back to the crib in a minute”. But if I was at school talking to my professors I’d say “I’m going home soon.”

Old: When comparing the many themes Gee introduces to the beliefs of Jordan and Delpit we see that there are some issues that are clear with Gee’s theory about how discourses work. Gee’s first theorem states this “Discourses (and therefore literacies) are not like languages in one very important regard. Someone can speak English, but not fluently. However, someone cannot engage in a discourse in a less than fully fluent manner. You are either in it or you’re not” (9). What I took from this upon reading was that if you aren’t born into a discourse or adapt to it quickly then basically you aren’t and never will be a part of that discourse. But I wasn’t sure if I felt this was entirely right. See Jordan and Delpit show very good evidence that argues against Gee’s claims and it got me to think.

New: When comparing the many claims Gee introduces to the beliefs of Jordan and Delpit I realize that there are parts of Gee’s views that I don’t agree with. As G’s first theorem states, “Discourses (and therefore literacies) are not like languages in one very important regard. Someone can speak English, but not fluently. However, someone cannot engage in a discourse in a less than fully fluent manner. You are either in it or you’re not” (9). What I took from this upon reading was that if you aren’t born into a discourse or adapt to it quickly then basically you aren’t and never will be a part of that discourse. But I felt this was entirely right. See Jordan and Delpit show very good evidence that argues against Gee’s claims. Delpit expresses her disapproval of Gee’s claim when she argues, “Clearly such a stance can leave a teacher feeling powerless to effect change, and a student feeling hopeless that change can occur” (546). Delpit then goes on to provide evidence to further prove this wrong when she introduces the story of her friend Bill Trent, “His father, a cook, earned an 8th grade education by going to night school. His mother, a domestic, had a third grade education.” She continues to explain how Bill Trent was able to graduate from college along with some of his classmates even though his parents hadn’t even made it to high school. Even though Trent’s parents had never been involved in such a sophisticated and advance discourse such as a college classroom that didn’t stop him from pursuing it and being successful. Success is a mindset and if you put your mind to it anything is possible. While the road to climb to peaks you want to reach might be difficult that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

Old: Another common theme that I saw throughout the reading was embracing one’s own discourse. June Jordan invites us to a time when Willie Jordan was shot and killed by the cops. Jordan discusses how the community that was in uproar decided what manner to write their letter addressed to the cops and anybody else that would listen. They feared that if the letter was written in “black english” that their message wouldn’t reach the audience they wanted. “Now we had to make more tactical decisions. Because we wanted the messages published, and because we thought it imperative that our outrage be known by the police, the tactical question was this: Should the opening, group paragraph be written in Black English or Standard English?” (Jordan 371) Eventually, they decided that they wanted to write the letter in Black English because by doing so they were not only standing beside Willie but all the others like him. I agree with this decision that was made because I believe that no one person should have the power to make a specific discourse acceptable. Who cares how someone talks? If we are able to communicate isn’t that all that matters. It is the power behind ones message that makes it important more than the content itself. You can tell if someone’s words has authenticity behind them and that is what we should strive for. Not for everyone to speak in a “proper” manner.

New: Another common theme that I saw throughout the reading was embracing one’s own discourse. June Jordan invites us to a time when Willie Jordan was shot and killed by the cops. Jordan discusses how the community that was in uproar decided what manner to write their letter addressed to the cops and anybody else that would listen. They feared that if the letter was written in “black english” that their message wouldn’t reach the audience they wanted. “Now we had to make more tactical decisions. Because we wanted the messages published, and because we thought it imperative that our outrage be known by the police, the tactical question was this: Should the opening, group paragraph be written in Black English or Standard English?” (Jordan 371) Eventually, they decided that they wanted to write the letter in Black English because by doing so they were not only standing beside Willie but all the others like him. I agree with this decision that was made because I believe that no one person should have the power to make a specific discourse acceptable. Who cares how someone talks? If we are able to communicate isn’t that all that matters. Gee introduces the theme of resistance and provides an example. “Now one can certainly encourage students to simply “resist” such “superficial features of language. And indeed they will get to do so from the bottom of society” (Gee, 12). Gee is saying that if these students aren’t taught the “correct” way to speak or just choose to ignore it then they will never be able to pick it up ever again. In other words he believes that it is too late for them to learn how to do so when they are out of school. Once again I believe this is incorrect. Gee only says that this is not possible because the task is a difficult one. Just because it is difficult does not mean that it isn’t possible and hasn’t been done before. People learn a whole new language years after they have been out of school. Though it might not be perfect it is enough to communicate with another who is fluent in that same language. As long as there is a way for us to communicate it does not matter how we do it. What matters is that we understand one another. It is the power behind ones message that makes it important more than the content itself. You can tell if someone’s words has authenticity behind them and that is what we should strive for. Not for everyone to speak in a “proper” manner.

I agree with Delpit because she provides multiple examples of how someone who doesn’t grow up in a certain environment can adapt and become a part of the discourse they aren’t expected to be involved with. By doing this she proves that Gee’s claim is wrong multiple times and now just on a rare occasion. I also agree because I have personal experience with this. Personally I know how it is to be different and not in a bad way. You just have to work towards changing the things that need to be changed while at the same time not losing yourself

I used June Jordan’s story of Willie as an example of people being comfortable with who they are. I believe that being yourself is very important because if you don’t accept yourself how do you expect other to? This story has so much power behind it and though they had the “accepted” discourse they didn’t give in to others beliefs.

I disagree with Gee’s argument that certain people wouldn’t be able to join a certain discourse because it isn’t what they’re used to. I believe that any one will be able to do this so long as they try. Gee’s words make someone feel like they have little to no chance of being successful if they aren’t put into the “right” situation. In my opinion there is no right situation. There is just life

The one thing I do agree with in Gee’s claim is that there may be some difficulty with adjusting to a certain discourse. If Gee would have worded this as “Many won’t be able to acquire a new discourse because of the difficulty that will be presented” I believe that there would be more of an agreement on my side. There is room to make that argument because many people are too stuck in their ways or are just lazy and don’t want to change certain things.

Google Doc Chart: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tBIwaYr60GfayPzCBVCkzjPmGKAJ7VwndkqlQx17JZo/edit?usp=sharing

I feel like I did a decent job of establishing a point of view but i’m not sure if it is entirely clear to the reader. I also want to make sure all the information I gathered is correct and defined properly so that I don’t provide false information. From what I understand my peers really like my paper and think I am headed in the right direction. The one thing I read and was told consistently is that the examples I used were really good. I enjoy putting in my own personal examples because I feel that if I do this then the readers can relate if they’ve been put in a similar situation. Chloe told me that one of the quotes I used was good for establishing my claim against Gee. On the other hand Francesca told me I can improve this even better by stating that I don’t agree with Gee and then go from there. For Jordan Liam recommended I provide some background for one of the quotes I chose so I don’t risk reader getting confused. Two things I need to work on is using barclays formula and establishing my argument with clear words. I didn’t use the barclays formula at all and I need to include that within my essay in order for it to be clearer and have a stronger argument. I also dropped hints at what my point of view is and I guess you can establish my side in the argument. But the argument could be clearer if I state my view in it’s own sentence instead of making the reader search for it within my own words. In order to get the reader to understand my perspective I will try to be straight forward and directly state my claim and the side I agree with so that way it is established. I will also try to introduce some of my quotes a little better so that way the reader isn’t confused as to why I introduced certain quotes.

Jeremy Diaz

Dr. Michael Cripps

English 110

January 31, 2019

Gee, Jordan and Delpit

When I was initially assigned to read the papers of James Paul Gee, June Jordan and Lisa Delpit I had no idea what I would be learning about. I had no idea what Gee’s idea of a Discourse was and I had no idea that I interact in multiple discourses on a daily basis. Gee describes a discourse as “a sort of “identity kit” which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize.” (Gee 7) In my own words and what I gained from the reading was that a discourse is an environment that you may or may not be accustomed to. It is how you interact with a certain group of people or a certain community. That is why Gee also introduces the themes of primary and secondary discourses. Primary is the one you are most comfortable in and the one you were most likely born and grew up in. A secondary is one you acquired along the way but you fit in like you have been a member forever. A good example of this for me personally would be how I talk when I am talking to my friends. If I am saying I’m going home I’d say “I’m bout to go back to the crib in a minute”. But if I was at school talking to my professors I’d say “I’m going home soon.”

When comparing the many themes Gee introduces to the beliefs of Jordan and Delpit we see that there are some issues that are clear with Gee’s theory about how discourses work. Gee’s first theorem states this “Discourses (and therefore literacies) are not like languages in one very

Diaz 2

important regard. Someone can speak English, but not fluently. However, someone cannot engage in a discourse in a less than fully fluent manner. You are either in it or you’re not” (Gee 9) What I took from this upon reading was that if you aren’t born into a discourse or adapt to it quickly then basically you aren’t and never will be a part of that discourse. But I wasn’t sure if I felt this was entirely right. See Jordan and Delpit show very good evidence that argues against Gee’s claims and it got me to think.

Jordan has us as readers sit down in her classroom and look on as she experienced one of the most astonishing moments in her teaching career. She had her students read the book The Color Purple as a homework assignment and the reactions that she received were quite astonishing. When asking her students her students what they thought of the book she was expecting positive feedback and instead was presented with the opposite. Students said things like “Why she have them talk so funny?” (Jordan 364) Another agreed and said “It don’t look right neither. I couldn’t hardly read it” (Jordan 364) The issue was that the book was written in a discourse the students grew up and lived in everyday and they rejected it. I speculate that this was because they have always been told in school the way they talk was wrong and incorrect. They were always told that “Black English” was the reason they wouldn’t be successful. Due to this, seeing “Black English” in the classroom scared them. All their life they were told it was wrong to use their primary discourse in the classroom so of course they would reject it. Now this further proves that Gee’s theory could possibly be wrong. Why? Because these students learned to separate their primary discourse from their school work and learned the “accepted” discourse so they could pursue success. It may take some longer than others but you can’t put a time limit on how long it

Diaz 3

takes to acquire a discourse because everyone learns and adapts on their own time. For someone who is very outgoing it is easier to adapt than for someone who is reserved and doesn’t talk as much.  

Lisa Delpit also has some issues with Gee’s ideas and she provides some important evidence as to why Gee’s first theorem is possibly incorrect. Delpit introduces someone who she names Marge. Marge succeeded in her past studies and received a special fellowship to continue her learning and receive her doctorate at Midwestern University. Since Marge was an African American woman her expectations from the professors at the college were very low and at first she wasn’t doing too well. But when one professor at the college who Delpit names Susan began to help Marge she saw success and eventually rose to the top of her class. “Susan began to work with Marge, both in and out of the classroom, during the following year. By the end of the year, Marge’s instructors began telling Susan that Marge was a real star, that she had written the best papers in their classes.” (Delpit 548) This is one example Delpit gives to us but there are countless examples of people like Marge who succeed even though the system and environment isn’t built for them. Life isn’t fair but you can choose to accept it or you can try to change it. Marge was put into a discourse that was foreign to her because she most likely grew up in the inner city where the school buildings and supplies were not in good condition. The teachers probably did their best to help her but there’s only so much you can do when given those circumstances. I personally can relate to Marge’s situation because something similar happened to me when I was given a football scholarship to a prep school in Pennsylvania. From the moment I stepped on campus I could tell I was “different” but I didn’t let that affect my success.

Diaz 4

I was a four year varsity football player and I held my own in the classroom. Going there taught me how to adapt to any situation I am put in and not be uncomfortable. I adjusted to the new discourse I was presented just like Marge did. Therefore I agree with Delpit’s claim that some parts of Gee’s first theorem is incorrect. I lived through it myself and that’s enough evidence for me.

Another common theme that I saw throughout the reading was embracing one’s own discourse. June Jordan invites us to a time when Willie Jordan was shot and killed by the cops. Jordan discusses how the community that was in uproar decided what manner to write their letter addressed to the cops and anybody else that would listen. They feared that if the letter was written in “black english” that their message wouldn’t reach the audience they wanted. “Now we had to make more tactical decisions. Because we wanted the messages published, and because we thought it imperative that our outrage be known by the police, the tactical question was this: Should the opening, group paragraph be written in Black English or Standard English?” (Jordan 371) Eventually, they decided that they wanted to write the letter in Black English because by doing so they were not only standing beside Willie but all the others like him. I agree with this decision that was made because I believe that no one person should have the power to make a specific discourse acceptable. Who cares how someone talks? If we are able to communicate isn’t that all that matters. It is the power behind ones message that makes it important more than the content itself. You can tell if someone’s words has authenticity behind them and that is what we should strive for. Not for everyone to speak in a “proper” manner.

 

Diaz 5

I have learned a lot from the readings of Gee, Jordan and Delpit. What I realize is that people see power in which discourse you grew up in and how you speak. I believe that as a world we need to be more open to understanding each other. Some people aren’t provided with the same helpful tools as others. But they work just as hard if not harder to be successful. We need to value and envy one another instead of doubting each other and putting each other down. I believe that if we can truly do this than we will be one step closer to a discourse that everyone can communicate in.

Delpits first objection to Gee is “There are two aspects of Gee’s argument that I find problematic. First is Gee’s notion that people who have been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse.” A way Delpit objects this is when she tells the story of Marge who wasn’t expected to succeed but ended up becoming the top student in her class and her professors wanted to work with her. She was able to achieve this goal with the help of a woman named Susan. “Susan continued to work with Marge, both in and out of the classroom during the following year. By the end of the year, Marge’s instructors began telling Susan that Marge was a real star, that he had written the best papers in their classes.” This shows that Marge was able to get accustomed to the new discourse and succeed even better than the white students who that environment was built for. Jordan would agree with Delpit on this matter. This is because her students have personally adjusted to that discourse in the classroom to the point where the reject their own discourse in the classroom.  

Delpits second objection to Gee is when she argues against “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 gives evidence of this when she talks about E. Franklin Frazier. “He learned lessons so well that his achievements provided what must be the ultimate proof of the ability to acquire a second dominant discourse, no matter what’s one’s beginnings.” Delpit continues to explain Frazier’s accomplishments and how this further proves Gee’s claims to be incorrect. Jordan would once again agree with Gee because as a teacher she has personally seen this happen with her own students.

Gee’s theory represents different dialects and how someone may or may not become accustomed to them. He refers to these different dialects as discourses and believes that everyone has a discourse, they are comfortable in but can learn a new one at any point in time. Jordan describes a specific discourse which is referred to in her story as “Black English.” She introduced her students to the book the color purple thinking that her students might relate to it better since they talk in a similar way but instead the students didn’t like the way the characters talked and found it funny and wrong. I think these views are seen as controversial because people believe that the way someone talks would be very easy to understand. But Gee says in some instances it’s very hard to adjust to a discourse that is not our own. But sometimes it can also be easy if you accept it with open arms. For example, when I was a junior seven football players from Canada, and they had some very odd slang when I first heard it. As I got to know them more, I also began to understand the slang and using it myself. Those guys became some of my closest friends and sometimes I use that slang currently. Jordan’s opinion on the book was controversial because she assumed that the students would like the book and relate to the characters. The students instead did the opposite and wanted no parts of the book.  

Mush fake is when is when someone basically tries to fit in. They make up speech to try and seem like they know what is going on. That is why it is mush or a bunch of nothing and also fake because it is not actual terms used by anyone.

Gee mentions the common theme of discourse throughout the article. What I got from reading is that discourse is like an identity that one owns. The example given are a teacher or a factory worker. Each one of these play a crucial role within the daily lives of people. When thinking about my own discourse the first thing that comes to mind is my beginning years in school. My teachers played a crucial role in my development learning wise and they are mostly the reason I have so much knowledge today. The lunch ladies were responsible for making sure I was fed and got the proper nutrients every meal I ate. The bus driver made sure I got home and into my house safely. All of them played a prime role in my development as a young child and many other children. Gee describes this kind of environment where we all depend on one another for something and it is not uncommon. People have been doing this since the beginning of times. Men would go hunt while Women would stay home and took care of the children. They relied on each other to get through life.

 

Primary and Secondary discourse is a smaller theme that is presented by Gee. He mentions the conflict between them as this is something that is very common in young kids life. They are presented with multiple different view and things and they have to choose the one that they think is right or most fits them. An example of this for me was when I went to school. My mom had always told me not to fight unless it was self defense but I had a hot temper and got into trouble a lot. I started to form my own view on why I would fight and argue with other students. I usually had a good reason in my mind but my mother didn’t want me getting into altercations. Eventually as I got older I learned to be more calm and pick and choose which arguments to get into. My mother respected this and though she did not agree with my fighting she saw that I had a reason to do so as self defense which was exactly what she taught me. Another example of this is when I was playing football. My high school coaches always taught me that as a corner you should back pedal and turn once the wide receiver threatens your leverage. Once I came to UNE they showed me a shuffle technique which I hated at first but learned to adapt to and got good at.

 

Jordan tried to change her students view on the book the color purple because they didn’t like it and said they talked funny. She figured that by showing them it in a way they could understand it better that they would possibly like it. This is a form of discourse because the book was showing the English language in a southern dialect and then Jordan showed them it in a current dialect. The students had the option to try and read it the way it was written in which the message behind the book was more powerful but instead they chose to learn it in their own way which is not necessarily bad but in my opinion the message is as powerful.

 

Gee would say that by Jordan translating this “Black English” to “Standard English” is teaching her students that this is the proper way to speak and pronounce words. But in reality there is no proper way to speak and pronounce words since they were just made up by us. If we taught everyone to talk in slang terms that that would eventually become the right way to talk and then “proper” pronunciation of words would become slang instead. In my personally opinion the only reason I see for Jordan to translate the words is because her students didn’t understand the work that had been written. I remember when I was reading Huckleberry Finn there was somethings that I couldn’t understand. My teacher at the time who’s name was Mr. Fisher helped translate what Jim was saying so that way we could understand the message behind the book and what he was trying to express. What this does teach us that if you don’t understand something from one point of view try to change it or understand it from a different perspective. By doing so you can formulate your own opinion and get a better understand yourself.

 

 

 

This podcast tells a story of how I greatly disliked reading. It goes through the journey of how I found my way to enjoying reading again and the book that helped me achieve this goal.