![SASC - Student Academic Success Center - UNE [logo]](https://files.uneportfolio.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2022/02/SASCLogoSquare_Smaller-3-e1644936452801.jpeg)
Gee argues that “true acquisition of many mainstream [dominant] Discourses involves, at least while being in them, active complicity with values that conflict with one’s home- and community-based Discourses, especially for many women and minorities” (13). Delpit responds to Gee, countering that “acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and the form of their participation” (552).
In a comment on this post, write a two-paragraph sequence in which you:
- First, use Barclay’s Formula to make a text-to-text connection and teach your high school reader the substance of this particular disagreement between Gee and Delpit, being sure to explain why their disagreement matters in the real world. Be sure to use Gee’s and Delpit’s own language, while at the same time making it accessible to a high school reader. Don’t forget to try out some of the Introducing Quotations templates on pp. 46-47 of They Say/I Say, and choose strong signal verbs (TS/IS pp. 39-40; The Little Seagull p. 103),
- Second, write a TRIAC paragraph in which you test Gee’s and Delpit’s claims against a clip from the film you’re on which you are working. The key to this paragraph is to use keywords from Gee and Delpit in the sentences you use to describe, analyze, and interpret your clip. [Note, the passage table or concept maps you worked on between Monday and today should be helpful here].
Gee and Delpit disagree with one another in wether one must subside their home or primary Discourse in order to truly acquire the new dominant Discourse. In Gee’s view “true acquisition of many mainstream Discourses involves, at least while being in them, active complicity with values that conflict with one’s home and community-based Discourses, especially for many women and minorities.” In other words Gee believes that in order to acquire a new dominant Discourse you have to put your home based Discourse to the side so it does not conflict with the new dominant Discourse that is trying to be acquired. Depit disagrees with Gee when she writes ” acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identities and values, for Discourses are not static, but shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and the form of their participation.” The essence of Delft’s argument is that you do not need to reject you primary discourse for the acquisition of a new dominant Discourse. This argument is important because is does bring up a big question of whether we have to give up a home based discourse to acquire a dominant Discourse.
With Gee’s and Delpit’s argument of whether you have to give up your primary discourse in order to acquire a dominant discourse. This conflict of discourses that Delpit and Gee argue about can be evaluated in the movie Dead Poets Society. Many of the boys in the film have a certain primary discourse from their homes and school of the values of discipline and conformity. When their teacher brings a new dominant discourse to the table it is conflicting to the boys. What was noticed in the film was that some of the boys rejected their primary discourse to acquire the teachers new dominant Discourse.
Delpit was stating against Gee in saying that you don’t have to change your background, and where you come from in order to get a mainstream discourse. What you should do in order to get it is be who you are and you will find the discourses. Delpit argues against what Gee was saying because she felt that when he said that mainstream discourses only come to those with “conflict with one’s home- and community” (13), that he was wrong. Reason for him being wrong from Delpits eyes is that discourses aren’t going to come out of thin air, when you do anything and pay close attention to what you’re doing, then you will find your discourse.
As stated above Gee liked to think that discourses were a given thing when the time deemed necessary. Also, stated above, Delpit believed that you don’t have to be taken out of a life changing situation to find your “inner” discourse. In “Zootopia”, Judy Hopps finds her inner discourse when she see’s her would as a bigger place; with a bigger meaning to it. She breaks that “active complicity with values that conflict with one’s home- and community-based Discourses, especially for many women and minorities”( Gee 13) stereotype and goes into being what she wants to become. If Delpit could see what Judy has done to get to where she is now, she would believe in Judy was doing the right thing. Judy fought off the stereotypes, left her old life of being a carrot farmer,(showing she left her primary discourse), followed her dream job of being a cop(secondary discourse), and squashed Delpits theory like a bug. However if Gee could look into what Judy was doing he would tell her that by her not sticking to the path of staying as a carrot farmer she already strayed off the path of finding her dominant discourse. If Gee could debate off of what Delpit says he would say that by her saying “acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values…but shaped…by those who participate within them and the form of their participation” (Delpit 552) is wrong, and that when she says this she is giving false hope to a dying dream. What I mean by that is, he would see her ways as a helping hand to a failing topic. While both these authors write in there own ways, they see things in a new point of view. Delpit see’s the world for how it is, Gee on the other hand see’s it on how it should be.
James Paul Gee and Lisa Delpit both argue that the acquisition of a Discourse has to be done a certain way. In “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction,” Gee introduces us to the idea of a “big “D” discourse”(2). What the Discourse can be explained as is the way you live out your life. How you act, speak, and dress is the Discourse of your life. According to Gee, the only way to get these Discourses is, “true acquisition of many mainstream [dominant] Discourses involves, at least while being in them, active complicity with values that conflict with one’s home- and community-based Discourses, especially for many women and minorities” (13). What Gee means by this is that you can get these Discourses from being completely submerged in the culture of your home and community. On the other hand Delpit feels that one can gain their Discourse by other means. In Delpit’s eyes this can be done by, “acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and the form of their participation” (552). What Delpit means is that one learns Discourses from their experiences. While Gee writes the idea that the only way to gain a Discourse is from your community and home life. Delpit comes in with the notion that Discourses are free flowing like ones life. Both feel that Discourses are important. I personally believe is Delpit’s idea of them more then Gee because the person gets shaped by their experiences.
Gee states that, “Two Discourses can interfere with one another,”(9) meaning that when you have one set Discourse and try to add another it tends to get out of control. For example, one of the places that we see this happen is in the movie Legally Blonde. A sorority sister turned Harvard lawyer shows how different Discourses can clash at times but end up helping in others. In one of the parts of the movie we see our main character walking across the Harvard campus in a hot pink suit where as everyone else is in darker more neutral colors. Delpit sees this moment as, “That is, to learn the “rules” required for admission into a particular dominant discourse, individuals must already have access to the social institutions connected to that discourse —- if you’re not already in, don’t expect to get in.”(546) What Delpit means by this is that Elle Woods was in a set Discourse but over time had to change to fit a new Discourse. That by completely putting yourself into a new culture you then can learn from it. Both Delpit and Gee make interesting cases about how one can gain a new Discourse and the issues that can arise when trying to fit it in with the old Discourse of ones life.
Gee and Delpit’s argument are similar but yet conflicting with one another. Gee goes on to explain his understanding of his conflict, “true acquisition of many mainstream Discourses involves, at least while being in them, active complicity with values that conflict with one’s home- and community-based Discourses, especially for woman and minorities.”(13,Gee) Gee is trying to explain the simple fact that with your next main stream discourse there will be a conflict with your primary discourse and your main stream discourse. A conflict will arise because of the differences between the discourses. Delpit concludes to never forget your primary discourse, “acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and the form of their participation.”(552,Delpit) Delpit’s main point is to not forget your primary discourse but use it to your participation for the next main stream discourse. Gee explains that with a new main stream discourse the primary discourse maybe forgotten causing the conflict. While Delpit describes that the primary discourse should never be forgotten and to use your primary experiences with the new discourse.
Gee and Delpit have two different ways to explain the encounters between different discourses. Gee describes his encounter with a conflict, “true acquisition of many mainstream Discourses involves, at least while being in them, active complicity with values that conflict with one’s home- and community-based Discourses, especially for woman and minorities.”(13, Gee) He explains the conflict between your primary discourse to the new mainstream discourse. Delpit describes the “conflict” as a tool to help with the new main stream discourse, “acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and the form of their participation.”(552,Delpit) Delpit’s argument explains that the primary discourse should be used to help with the new main stream discourse. Gee’s argument is that there will be a conflict between the primary discourse and the new main stream discourse.
Gee and Delpit are of two different views. Gee is of the opinion that the “true acquisition of many mainstream [dominant] Discourses involves, at least while being in them, active complicity with values that conflict with one’s home and community based Discourses,” (13). His idea rejects the idea of evolution and adaptation while Delpit refutes that “acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but shaped” (552). This leaves the reader with more hope of acquiring more from life than Gee whose static views will inhibit growth from any person. This disagreement is an important piece to consider. One view claims that you must disregard personal views and beliefs to change out your discourse while the other claims that discourses can evolve to merge together. I go back to my connection of Gee’s discourses rebutting evolution. Evolution is a process that takes many steps and minute changes to reach an end result that will with time be changed again. Language and Discourses are similar in that they can never stop changing. They evolve. If two claims were entirely incompatible, then true acquisition would fail. But the idea of Discourse prevents complete incompatibility.
The movie that I chose to work with, “White Chicks,” takes two individuals and tosses them across the spectrum of Discourses. They enter into a world that is so far off from their own that it is comical to watch them mushfake their way through. One of the scenes that best depicts this is when they are introduced to the friends of the original girls. Gee would claim that all they are doing is mushfaking. And that they are disregarding their personal beliefs and values to maintain this ‘new discourse’ (13). The problem with Gee is that his ideas are so complex and create so many loopholes that it is difficult to pin down exactly what he means with what he says. His thoughts on Discourse contradict with his claim of mushfake and his ideas of apprenticeship. Delpit would likely point out that for the people in the movie, this is an opportunity “to add other voices an discourses to their repertoires” (553). Which is proven at the end of the movie when the results of their mushfaking a discourse is shown by the accomplishments of finding the villains and their deeper understanding of another discourse. Due to their experience and acquiring of another discourse, they can now better communicate with members of that discourse. This is also something that Delpit predicted, that “individuals can learn the ‘superficial features’ of dominant discourses, as well as their subtler aspects” (554).
With both Gee and Delpit readings they both agree the dominate discourse is an importance in every bodies knowledge but the way that it is learned can come from many different forms. In ” Literacy Discourse and Linguistics” Gee explains that if you introduce the someone of something into something new. Is it impossible for that person to learn and pick it up easier then a person that has been doing it for a longer period of time. Gee states “That the question is to big for me, but I have two views to push nevertheless. First is true acquisition and second is muskfake discourse”(Gee 13) With true acquisition it is the full fluency of something but with this acquisition its extremely rare because for this acquisition the classroom must be active apprenticeships(13). With the second acquisition although the first acquisition might not be impossible muskfake discourse is possible(13). Muskfake is simply put do with something less when the real thing is not available(13). According to Delpit “acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and the form of their participation” (552). While Gee looks more at the fact that if you don’t start at something early then you won’t do as well someone that did. While Delpit says that no matter what someone can be as good as the other person they just need to be formed into that person(552).
With both Gee and Delpit they agree that a dominate discourse is important for people to learn. What they don’t agree on is the fact in which someone should learn this discourse. For example in the movie “Bend it like Beckham”, one of the main characters Jess has to figure out to balance out her life for soccer, family, and relationships. Throughout the movie she tries to hide the fact that she’s playing but it ends up being to much for her and she slips up and her parents find out and start to get up set with her. With her not telling them anything it takes Jess more time for her to learn it instead of doing it from the start. Didn’t get to my conclusion
Two writers that don’t see eye to eye are Gee and Delpit. These two writers both have very different view about our discourses and how they affect us. Gee claims that we have everyday values/discourses that occur within our community that conflict with our values we follow within our homes. Gee believes it is very difficult to fit in with these other set of values as our own personal discourse are our discourses and once we adapt to our discourse we tend to always stick by it. Although Gee thinks he is right, Delpit claims other wise. Delpit says that although we most likely will have other home discourses that doesn’t mean we can fit in anywhere else within society. In order to fit in with other social settings we must simple shape ourselves to there discourse. Delpit believes we don’t have to throw our beliefs away but have to try out best to participate in the other discourse we maybe experiencing.
It is not uncommon to hear about conflicts involving discourses. We see it everywhere books, movies, and so on. The fact that these two writers, Gee and Delpit believe in two different outcomes is actually very normal. For example the movie Miss Congeniality really shows the difference in how people can take on discourses. The scene that really shows both parts of Gee and Delpit’s view is one of the pageant scenes. In this scene the FBI agent undercover is participating in the pageant. But instead of following the everyday pageant girl rules she decides to eat pizza during the pageant. All the others girls are in shock as this is not what their discourse would normally do. This scene fits into both Gee and Delpit’s point of views. This fits Gee’s because Gee claims once your are in a discourse those traits will forever be with you and will cause conflict. By eating pizza and not getting ready like all the other girls, this is showing how conflicts arises. Although with that it is showing that no matter how much you try your discourse will always be apart of you. But, on the other hand this scene shows Delpit’s view as well. It should how the FBI agent is participating and forming to the new discourse she is experiencing. But, she is not rejecting her own personal discourses along the way. She is simple mixing the two together in a way.
Both Gee and Delpit argue about how we acquire discourses in the school/community environment and at home. In “Literacy, discourse, and linguistics” Gee states that if an individual is born with a discourse and certain values then he/she will enter many conflicts throughout their life when attempting to learn/acquire a new discourse. According to Gee “true acquisition of many mainstream [dominant] Discourses involves, at least while being in them, active complicity with values that conflict with one’s home- and community-based Discourses, especially for many women and minorities” (13). For Gee he truly doesn’t believe that you not only with experience conflict but also cant be taught discourses outside of their one discourse that’s made outside the one you were born with. In contrast Delpit believes the opposite and doesn’t think that acquiring a discourse should be a problem and it makes teacher who have to help underprivileged students feel hopeless. She states that “acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and the form of their participation” (552).” In that quote she’s saying that one doesn’t have to completely do away with the discourse they are born with but can still acquire new ones. While I agree more with Delpit because I truly think that you can shy away from the discourse you are born with to acquire new ones but still have your old one too. I do somehow see where Gee is coming from. However, I truly disagree with the fact that he thinks you cant really help someone because they are going to experience conflicts when they are acquiring new discourses. If a child is under privileged and a teacher wants to help and motivate him to be the best student and person he can be and eventually the child goes off to be a CEO of a major company I believe that is a discourse that can 1000% be achieved in the classroom.
There is a lot of controversy about the idea of learning discourses in the classroom, or simply being taught them. Delpit gives an example of two successful African American men who also challenged the belief that literate discourses cannot be taught in the classroom. Delpit states in her argument “he points to a little girl who is now an administrator, another who is a union leader. Almost all of the children in the photo eventually left their home community, and almost all achieved impressive goals in life” (548). That really is good evidence to support Delpits theory/opinion. In conclusion, I really do believe that discourses can be taught in the classroom and help people succeed and be motivated to chase their dreams in becoming whatever they want to be.
Gee and Delpit both write about discourses, but Delpit’s ideas differ from Gee’s in two instances. Gee defines a discourse as “a way 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” (page 6-7). He is saying that a discourse is what makes you, you and they come with identity kits that help you be the best in your discourse. Delpit agrees in the way Gee defines discourse but she does find some of his ideas about obtaining a discourse problematic. Her issue is with “Gee’s notion that people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse” (page 546). In this real world this is an issue because everyone has a discourse, if not multiple! Gee is writing to tell people to stay in their dominant discourse because it is nearly impossible to “learn” a new one. Delpit argues though many examples that Gee is false in his writing and that you can indeed learn new discourses and have a fair shot at them, just as anyone who was born into them as a dominant discourse.
In Delpit’s writing she challenges Gee’s idea that you cannot acquire new discourses. Through many different examples we can see how Delpit came to believe otherwise. In the movie Miss Congeniality, there is a scene where the main character is at the final round for her pageant doing a talent competition. This girl started the movie by being a nerdy tomboy, but by the end was a great pageant girl who won the “Miss Congeniality” award. This scene alone proves that Delpit’s ideas are valid in that it is not impossible to acquire a new discourse.
In “Literacy, Discourse and Linguistics,” James Paul Gee argues that Discourses are “ways of being in the word…which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities, as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes” (6-7). People can recognize these “ways of being” in real life when they conclude that the man with a holstered gun wearing a blue uniform with a badge asking them to “hold it right there” isn’t a threat because he is a police officer. According to Gee, powerful groups use Discourse “fluency tests” to determine the allocation of social goods such as “money, prestige, [and] status” (6). Only those initiates who can demonstrate the right combinations of saying, doing, believing, valuing and being in a Discourse are deemed worthy of the benefits of membership in a Discourse. For example, job interviewers refuse positions that pay salaries and offer benefits to candidates with poor grammar, or who display values inconsistent with those of the company (Gee 6).
Because of the real world goods that can come from acquiring a socially dominant Discourse, many people seek to acquire them, even when the saying-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations of their primary Discourses conflict with those of the dominant Discourse. Gee claims that “true acquisition of many mainstream [dominant] Discourses involves…active complicity with values that conflict with one’s home- and community-based Discourses, especially for many women and minorities” (13). For example, African American literacy scholar Keith Gilyard relates the impossibility of combining his street-smart “hip” persona with his school-based “schoolboy” persona (qtd. in Delpit 551). In Gee’s view, Gilyard should never have been able to acquire the benefits of membership in the mainstream dominant literate Discourse. But, as demonstrated by the fact that he wrote an autobiography that got published and distributed, he clearly did acquire literate Discourse . Lisa Delpit’s critique of Gee’s claim helps explain how. According to Delpit,“acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject one’s home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but shaped…by those who participate within them” (552). What Delpit means, is that the ways of being of even a dominant Discourses change as new members acquire them. Gilyard’s own acquisition of mainstream literate Discourse altered it, as he, and hundreds of African American scholars challenged the tacit claims of white scholars that black English was a substandard language.
Delpit’s insistence that smart creative people can reconcile the values of their home Discourses with those of the dominant Discourses they are trying to acquire can be seen in the test taking scenes in the 1997 science-fiction/cop film, Men in Black. In these scenes, street-smart NYPD cop James Edwards has been recruited into an elite ultra-secret government task-force whose job it is to police extra-terrestrials living on Earth, hiding among us as cab drivers, x, and y. Needing to pass a series of tests to be considered for the agency, Edwards finds himself among “the best-of-the-best-of-the-best” that our US military academies have to offer. Highly-trained, disciplined, and self-controlled, Edward’s fellow initiates seem highly-likely to out perform him because Edward’s street cop test-taking ways seem self-centered, undisciplined, and disrespectful. Faced with floppy test papers, weak pencils, and no easy way to mark his test, Edwards violates classroom Discourse by getting out of his chair during testing and drags a heavy table over to his chair, making a loud noise, disturbing everyone in the room. In Gee’s view, this behavior can be explained because Edwards has missed the “apprenticeship” necessary to qualify him for membership in the Men In Black Discourse, and so is likely not to acquire it fluently enough to gain its social goods (7). But Delpit would argue that Edward’s ability to use his street-cop Discourse enables him to demonstrate the right values (initiative, problem-solving) even while violating some “doing” expectations. As the film progresses, Delpit’s theory that even powerful Discourses can be transformed proves correct, as the stodgy bureaucratic culture of the MIB changes to accommodate the obvious effectiveness of Edwards’ (renamed Agent J) improvisational extra-terrestrial policing techniques. As this clip from Men in Black suggests, Gee’s idea that true acquisition of a dominant Discourse is much more challenging for people whose home Discourses may embrace conflicting values, seems not to account for the degree to which Discourses are living social practices, inevitably evolving to meet members’ needs.