The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse
Lisa Delpit
The essay written by Lisa Delpit describes how certain aspects of James Paul Gee's essay entitled Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy introduces different types of discourse, with differing factors into obtaining the dominant discourse, which brings about acquisition of "social goods" (money, prestige, status, etc.). Delpit contends that Gee is wrong in two areas about discourse. First, that individuals who aren't born into dominant discourses can't be taught these particular discourses. Secondly, by having control over a dominant discourse a constant conflict emerges between another discourse in which you had acquisition to.
With regards to the first argument I agree with Deplit that individuals can "overtly" learn a dominant discourse in the classroom setting. Being part of a "mainstream" discourse deemed necessary for acquisition of "social goods," I still didn't have access to my dominant discourse, I was seen as a pretender or beginner ( Page 529, Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy, Gee). It wasn't until I was "overtly" taught by a speech teacher in my elementary school the tools necessary for acceptance into the privileged group.
So, I believe that even though I was born into a "mainstream" dominant discourse it wasn't until further teaching that I fully acquired it. By having firsthand knowledge for the argument presented above I have to disagree with Gee that you can't acquire a discourse in the classroom. I agree with Deplit in her second argument that just because you have a dominant discourse doesn't mean conflicts with another. During my tenure at UWM I have come across many secondary discourses with students, professors, etc. in which they have influenced me greatly. In hindsight though I never truly lost my identity when it came time to revert back to my primary language. I feel as though I could have command of secondary discourse with professors and students of academia and still be able to have control of dominant discourse talking amongst my family and friends.
In closing I believe Gee even in his article proves valid points some however without further dissection by an individual can be proved entirely false. Two of the aspects Gee states in his article I have dealt with in my lifetime. Through teachers, family, friends, professors, etc. have shaped the means in which I acquire, learn, and speak a given discourse.
You speak of not having access to your dominant discourse but you also say that you use a dominant discourse with your family and friends and a secondary discourse within school, are you still not fully commited to the discourse you use with family and friends or is it always changing? I agree fully that you can learn a discourse in the classroom, but it may not be your dominant one, or not yet. This discourse may change with time, or may just mold with the one you learned before you started school. conflicts always arise between discouses, the use of language and accents may be just the start to differences. Every one molds us all into who we are even if we have to be two different people sometimes.
ReplyDelete