I can't think of much to comment on this writing becasue I feel that is was like reading a chapter out of a textbook. In my opinion this was an example of the boring form of Academic Discourse. James Gee was very one minded, saying that his way seemed to be the only way for the research of Discourses. I thought that he was writing to an audience that very much appreciates the idea of breaking down Discourses into even more complex ideas. I just must not be one of those people. It was a personal struggle to finish this piece of writing but I did form a few opinoins about the concepts written.
I agree with the idea that there are primary and secondary discourses. I also agree that there can be conflict between the two. I, however, feel like theorems are too specific and one minded. For example in the second theorem, Gee says that all Primary Theorems are limited, no matter what. I think that even though that may be true for many, it can still be liberating for some. Even though he defends what he says by saying primary discourses still have tools to be liberating, I feel that he is over generalizing for all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are right, Claire. Gee's audience was linguistic professors or scholars of literacy, so that's why what he said was difficult for you to access.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what Claire says. I too found the Gee essay to be very dry, boring and far to pesimistic to be enjoyable. I found myself getting lost in the constant rambling about discourse. On the other hand I found the Delpit essay to be far more accessable and enjoyable, due to the fact she used personal accounts and for me a more clear style of writing. The part of the essay I found the most enjoyalbe and useful was when Delpit presented the various strategies teacher could use to try and help their students attempt to "acquire" the mainstream discourse. Each example was substantiated by a real world situation, which gave them more crediblity as well.
ReplyDelete