Category: Eng 110 Blog

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.

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.