Author: Jeremy

Kayla

Victim Narrative

“The popularity of the victim narrative in student texts indicates that student associate school based literacy practices with oppression and even cruelty.” -Alexander

“All I would see was”bad use of language” or “explain more,” but explain what!”

This student is clearly playing the victim narrative in their literacy narrative. They introduce a teacher who doesn’t care about the students or their work and made everyone’s life “miserable”. The student is pleading their case for the reason they believe they dislike English and the teacher is that source.

Sam

Hero Narrative

“The hero cultural narrative was incorporated at least once by 85% of the students and emphasized the individual and his or her specific literacy achievements and accomplishments.” – Alexander

“Miss Foster showed me, writing was more of a creative way to express one’s thoughts and feelings”

This shows Miss Foster as the Hero in the narrative as well as a good sponsor. Without her Sam wouldn’t be successful and actually like reading. These qualities make her the hero because she establishes the building blocks for Sam’s English career and paves the way for his success.

Hannah

Victim Narrative

“The popularity of the victim narrative in student texts indicates that student associate school based literacy practices with oppression and even cruelty.” -Alexander

“I was told I needed to make my paper stand out more. I was told I needed to make it more meaningful than it already was.”

Hannah is expressing a victim narrative but a different one from Kayla. In Hannah’s case it’s not the fact that the teacher doesn’t care. In fact I think the teacher does care and is in fact a good sponsor by telling her all of this. The reason why Hannah is the victim is because this narrative was so close to her that she felt as though no one would criticize it but in all honesty I think she needs to take the constructive criticism.

Blake

Sponsor

“In whatever form, Sponsors deliver ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have. Of course sponsors can be oblivious to or innovative with this ideological burden.”

“At the time I didn’t really like her, although now looking back on it I realize how awesome she was.”

Blake is describing a sponsor. Someone who influences your opinion on something because of the position of power the are in. In Blakes case this is a positive sponsor because she teaches him to take his time with English and that by doing so he is more productive and the quality of his work is better. This is a good sponsor because Blake describes the positive effects she had on his life.

Literacy is valued highly by many and it makes us wonder why certain individuals have dislike it and have issues with it when it is being taught to them. I personally believe that the reason why this is such an issue is because in certain instances people are forced to read something that they don’t like or can’t relate to. I have seen examples of this personally because as a young child I enjoyed picture books and as I grew older I realized that I would have to stop reading these and move on to chapter books. While I knew I was capable of the work I didn’t want to let go of the picture books like diary of a wimpy kid because I found a sense of enjoyment in books like these. Many people write in their narratives that they found a way to get around not liking reading but in all honesty I think we choose that in order to be “successful” we must move on from what we like and are comfortable with and accept what is being thrown at us if we want to progress. I do sometimes find enjoyment in reading but at the same time I don’t think of it as something that I always want to do. It feels as something that is forced at times and that’s why these is such a conflict with it.

 

Alexander discusses the contrast between Master narratives and little narratives and the effect of this. Master narratives are about success and are the most commonly told narratives. Little narratives are “more specific, narratives of literacy that contrast with and challenge the master narratives” (Alexander 611). The contrast between is that while most tend to use the master narrative the little narrative seems to be more original and have more personal content behind it. Due to this it is a more interesting story to tell then the common success story of prospering through a time where one didn’t like reading or writing regardless of cause. What Alexander does point out is that while some use the less common little narratives there is still a sense of that master narrative in there. On certain occasions one may tell a whole story about how painful reading and/or writing was for them. But the success narrative is still found in the conclusion of the narrative when a sentence is worded “In the end I was still able to get by this and find a love for reading.” Alexander shows an example of this when talking about the outsider narrative. The outsider narrative is someone who feels like they don’t have a place or they haven’t found their place yet. But when Alexander points out the example for the outsider narrative we can see that there is clear use of the Master narrative.

 

Two of the “little” narratives that I found quite interesting were the outsider narrative and the hero narrative. The outsider narrative is someone who feels as though they don’t have a place or have not found their place yet. Therefore they are an outsider to everything because they don’t feel as though they are a part of anything. Alexander points this out as a “third space” (622). He still sees this narrative as one that uses parts of the master narrative and believes though there is a negative experience “an outsider is framed through the lens of success” (622). I found this interesting because I feel as though these people will at some point move into another narrative once they find their place and I want to know if this is possible. The other narrative I found interesting was the hero narrative. This one was interesting because it almost correlates directly with the Master narrative except there is a sense of accountability and ownership one take as a “hero” would. The reason I found this so interesting was because I feel like everyone has dreams and aspirations to be a hero. But most heros end up up getting the title by just being themselves. A fireman is a hero as well as a doctor. I really enjoy the potential of this narrative and think it has more to offer than the typical master narrative.

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.