Introduction to Gee's "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction"

James Paul Gee: Born April 15, 1948. He’s “currently the Mary Lou Fulton Presidential Professor of Literacy Studies at Arizona State University” (Wikipedia). You can see some detailed biographies here:

James Paul Gee on Wikipedia, Arizona State University

Also, he has his own webpage/blog: http://www.jamespaulgee.com/

Some Definitions (mostly in Gee’s words):

Discourses (with a capital D) – “saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations” (6). “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. A Discourse is a sort of ‘identity kit’” (6-7).

Primary Discourse – “the [Discourse] we first use to make sense of the world and interact with others” (7).

Secondary Discourses – those Discourses we acquire in various “non-home-based social institutions…in the public sphere,” including at churches, schools, community groups, etc. (8).

Dominant Discourses – “Secondary Discourses the mastery of which, at a particular place and time, brings with it the (potential) acquisition of social ‘goods’ (money, prestige, status, etc.)” (8).

Nondominant Discourses – “Secondary Discourses the mastery of which often brings solidarity with a particular social network, but not wider status and social goods in society at large” (8).

Literacy – “the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse” (9).

Mushfake – “‘Mushfake Discourse’ means partial acquisition coupled with meta-knowledge and strategies to ‘make do’” (13). Gee quoting Mack: to “do with something less when the real thing is not available” (13).

Some Problems with Gee

Although I find Gee’s understanding of Discourse to be fascinating and important, his understanding of Discourse is also problematic. He is so absolute saying who can and can not acquire particular secondary Discourses. For Gee, unless you acquire fluency, you can’t be a member of a discourse: “There is, thus, no workable ‘affirmative action’ for Discourses: you can’t be let into the game after missing the apprenticeship and be expected to have a fair shot at playing it” (10). In this way Gee is deterministic.

Lisa Delpit is one scholar that has critiqued Gee for such determinism, especially in regard to it being impossible for some minorities in nondominant Discourses gaining membership in dominant Discourses.

Delpit says, “Gee’s argument suggests a dangerous kind of determinism as flagrant as that espoused by the geneticists: Instead of being locked into ‘your place’ by your genes, you are now locked hopelessly into a lower-class status by your Discourse. Clearly such a stance can leave a teacher feeling powerless to effect change, and a student feeling hopeless that change can occur” (298).

Further, Gee asserts that when one tries to acquire a secondary (dominant) Discourse, there may be major conflicts between one’s primary Discourse and this secondary Discourse.

Delpit goes on to critique this also: “Gee defines this as especially pertinent to ‘women and minorities,’ who, when they seek to acquire status Discourses, may be faced with adopting values that deny their primary identities. When teachers believe this acceptance of self deprecatory values is inevitable in order for people of color to acquire status Discourses, then their sense of justice and fair play might hinder their teaching these Discourses” (298).

Works Cited

Delpit, Lisa. “Acquisition of Literate Discourse: Bowing Before the Master?” Theory Into Practice 31.4 (1992): 296-302. Print.

Gee, James Paul. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Journal of Education 171.1 (1989): 5-17. Print.

Some Discussion Questions:

1. How does Gee’s conception of Discourse differ from “discourse community” discussed in Porter and Devitt, et al.?
2. Gee defines literacy in terms of mastering a secondary Discourse. How can this complicate/further our understanding of literacy as discussed in our readings last week?
3. Do you agree with Delpit’s critique of Gee?
4. Gee places the burden of effecting change on those who (attempt to) teach Discourses, which, he admits, is an “impossible job” (12). Do you agree with Gee that Discourses can’t be taught? Are we teaching “mushfaking” instead?
5. If, as Gee asserts, we can’t becomes members in a Discourse if we’ve missed the apprenticeship, then can we every truly acquire new secondary Discourses after childhood? Are we all mushfaking?