James Paul Gee. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction”
Gee defines language as a “saying doing” combination. That is that the grammatically parts of language are not the only part of language. One must also master how to use this language in different situations.
He identified discourse as an “identity kit.” Different costumes and instructions are needed in different roles to take. How one talks, writes, and acts differs per social situation.
“We must say or write the right thing in the right way while playing the right social role and (appearing) to hold the right values, beliefs and attitudes. What is important is not language, and surely not grammar, but saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations. These combinations I call Discourses.” (Gee, 6)
We all have primary Discourse which is a Discourse developed from early home life. This discourse helps us make sense of the world and is the start of our interaction with other people. It is our first sense of identity and is the foundation for later discourses acquired.
Secondary Discourses are acquired throughout life as we interact with other social networks. Schools, churches, workplaces, community groups, etc provide us with socialization that is not home-based. We develop networks at these places and form Discourses with them.
Discourses are divided into dominant and nondominant Discourses. Dominant and nondominant Discourses are secondary Discourses. Dominant Discourses brings social goods: money, status, and prestige. However, nondominant Discourses social goods only are acquired under a particular social group and are not at a wider status. An example of Dominant Discourse is President of the United States. An example of nondominant Discourse would be class president. We have numerous amounts of Discourses and some cause conflict with another. This conflict will affect the mastered discourse in different situations.
“Each of these social institutions commands and demands one or more Discourses and we acquire these fluently to the extent that we are given access to these institutions and are allowed apprenticeships within them.” (Gee, 8)
Society has constant “tests” of the fluency of a Discourse. According to Gee, the tests are to separate the “natives” and use “gates” to exclude “non-natives.”
The “tests” of Discourses is the most interesting point in the Gee article. The level of comprehension of a Discourse is to categorize people into levels, thus showing a hierarchy. Those that mastered the Discourse have power over those who are beginners to the Discourse.
As humans, we tend to want to create bonds. However, by being part of a group, we also seek the exclusion of “outsiders.” This test reminds me of social clicks. Even the clothes/brands we wear shows that we are part of a certain group and adhere to the literacies of that social network. An example would be a group of people that wear the brand Quicksilver. This particular brand is associated with the network of the surfing lifestyle. When someone wears this brand that is not part of the “group” they are judged by the group and called a “poser.”
I also saw it at the point of view of apprenticeship. There can be a beginning surfer (apprentice) who is getting introduced in the surfing world wearing Quicksilver. Those that have embraced this particular lifestyle (mastered) would teach the newly apprentice of the new world. However, there is still a hierarchy of master having more power than the apprentice.
I find it interesting that human kind needs to form groups to bond and to exclude. It almost seems like an anthropological aspect of humans. We must adapt, morph, and change ourselves in different situations in order to “bond” with others and not be the “outsider.” It almost seems like natural selection. Those that are able to change themselves to the “ideal” according to the circumstances/situation will survive, or in our case succeed.
Gee argues that we need to be superficial in molding doing/saying the right thing in the right time. However, this is stereotypical costume/acts we must put on for a short amount of time. This does not change our main Discourse on our self identity. We will not lose our: culture, values, beliefs, etc, but sometimes we do need to “Mushfake.” We are not losing our identity but keeping the bonds with others in this process.
Questions:
What do you think about Gee’s ideas of “Mushfake?”
Can you think of an example where you used an “identity kit” to fit in?
No More Passive Consuming!!
16 years ago
For the most part Gee gets it right. It makes sense how he classifies primary and secondary discourses and likens them to the acquisition of primary and secondary languages. It is true that many will only be completely fluent in one language and thus it makes sense that people are only fluent in one discourse (the primary). However, it doesn’t seem to play out that way in reality. Sure, we all have our primary discourse and this the one we are most fluent in, but somehow it seems that we are able to be fluent (or so near it that we may as well us that word) to other discourses. We all have the primary discourse of our family and our home life but it seems as our family's discourse(s) is(are) affected by their secondary discourses they set us up for easier acquisition in other secondary discourses as we grow and enter school (and later professional and personal) discourses. I know that I grew up in a home where my grandfather is a journalist so we always had editorial kinds of input at a young age, which I think set me up for being a good student later in life (I was taught to value ‘proper grammar’ – I pride myself on school wok being produced – and strict social etiquette – I try really hard to follow rules, which helped in elementary school); I was taught the discourse of arguing/constructing arguments that would look good o others as well as the discourse of social norms and customs. These are pieces of what was reinforced through my secondary discourses but they were founded in my primary discourse. It seems to me that while Gee has great ideas and a good structure, not all his details add up.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting what Gee says about the whole idea of the “identity kit”. There is in fact a certain way one should act in every situation one finds themselves. We have to act to the discourse that is being displayed now and then. If we do not do this, society tends to have the knack of getting out of control. So in a way we can say we do need these discourses because without them, we would not have order in society, and we don’t need that.
ReplyDeleteYou are right when you say that we humans create bonds. We do form groups that all share the same discourses. Theses discourses can be different things. For example, a giant one would be religion or a simple one can be your example which was the brand Quicksilver. You said that we create outsiders, and that is so true. Once again your example was great, if one does not meet the requirements that a surfer should have to be able to call yourself a surfer, you will be called a “poser”, and will look bad if you wearing a particular brand of clothing worn exclusively by surfers. In your case; Quicksilver.
One example that I can think of would be the world of skating. If you are plane not good at skating you will be called a poser. One will be excluded from the rest of the group. This is going on a lot now a days since skating is very popular. The novice skater has to search for that identity kit and apply it to himself. You have to adapt and morph to how society demands. This is the cruel world where we all have to grow up in.
I think the idea of "mushfake" is a commonly used skill that most people have been using for all of their lives. I am sure that at one point, or another, everyone has had to "make-do" with less. "Mushfaking" probably occurs on a daily basis, especially for people who are less fortunate than others. The idea of "Mushfake Discourse" is also commonly used, but no one knew it had a name. I have been in academic social settings where I was not fully educated on specific subjects, and had to just figure it out, with what I did know, or in Gee's term, I had to "mushfake" and use my meta-knowledge to figure it out. Since Gee says that most people will rarely ever reach true acquisition of a Discourse, that leaves everyone to rely on "mushfaking". It's kind of freaky to know that I have something in common with prisoners, but I also have something in common with professors, actresses, politicians (especially politicians :) because we ALL "mushfake".
ReplyDelete