Paper 1

Being that I was born African American, a woman, and into a lower income family I’ve always been aware that the process of upward mobility would incur many challenges. I would have to smarter, stronger, better and work twice as harder in order to obtain the level of success I desired. Those individuals who support my quest continue to make me aware of the challenges so as I do not loose my motivation, it’s sometimes unspoken and until reading Gee and Delpit, something I thought academic professionals were unaware of. It was quite interesting to see the connection of upward mobility and literary discourse from the prospective of academic professional, especially Gee as he explicitly correlates literary discourse and upward mobility, ‘…the mastery of which, at a particular place and time, brings with it the (potential) acquisition of social “goods” (money, prestige, status, etc.),” (Gee, 528). Gee also maintains that the acquisition of literary discourse can be difficult for minorities and women as it conflicts with the discourse the values, beliefs and ways of being they were born into, thus making it increasingly difficult to acquire social ‘goods’ and status. “I argue that a when such conflict or tension exists, I can deter acquisition of one or the other or both of the conflicting Discourse, or, at least, affect the fluency of a mastered Discourse on certain occasions of use,” (Gee, 528). What I seek to explore more is role culture and socioeconomic status play on literary discourse and subsequently upward mobility?

Brandt

When I think of a sponsor typically what comes to mind are institutions and persons who financially back other persons and institutions in need. I often associate such sponsored relationships as commercial sponsors and television and radio programs or large corporations and athletic events. However, sponsors as Brandt describes them are people, institutions, materials, and motivations which enable, support, teach, model, as well as conversely regulate, suppress and withhold literacy. “intuitively, sponsors seemed a fitting term for the figures who turned up most typically in people’s memories of literacy learning: older relatives, teachers, priest, supervisors, military officers, editors, influential authors,” (Brandt, 557).

When I recall the countless people and figures in my life who severed as sponsors for my literacy the most significant were my grade school Urban Day, my fifth grade teacher Ms. Stillman, and author and poet Maya Angelou. However the most significant sponsor in accordance with Brandt’s description is Wisconsin’s School Choice program. “The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program is a tax-payer funded voucher program for low-income students to attend City of Milwaukee private schools, including religiously-affiliated programs,” (www.schoolchoicewi.org). This form of sponsorship is an explicit political one, as it is mostly supported by republican officials. Highly controversial as it is debated as to whether it perpetuates inequities in school funding, a claim which aligns with Brandt’s ideology that “despite ostensible democracy in educational chances, stratification of opportunity continues to organize access and reward in literacy learning,” (Brandt, 559).

For me sponsorship from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program afforded me the opportunity to study with highly qualified teachers, in a comfortable learning environment and with the latest in learning technologies and tools. For students of Milwaukee Public Schools it meant cutbacks, increase class sizes, lack of access to basic necessities. In high school my brother and I choose different paths for school, I stuck with Choice Program and choose to attend Messmer High School, my brother instead choose to attend our neighborhood school Custer High School. The differences were literarily night and day, his schools expectations for literacy were low compared to the high demands of Messmer. His course work was always a grade level behind and due to lack of funding there weren’t enough textbooks available for him to bring his textbooks home. In this situation although my sponsorship afford me quality education and great opportunities, at the same time it weakened the opportunities of others.

Delpit vs. Gee

What I find interesting of both James Paul Gee  and Lisa Delpit's interpertation of literacy is the intergration of psychological components in their discussion of acquiring discourse. Each hold their own asseration as to how literary discourse is acquired, though both Gee and Delpit's theories can be traced to psychological influence on learning. Learning is highly debated and much reasearch has gone into understanding exactly how humns learn. There are a number of learning theories throughout history that have helped shape the public views on learning and classrooms of today, however Gee and Delpit graso two very differing theories.

Gee maintains that literary discourse is not somehing that can be overtly taught in a classroom setting, it instead is acquired throughout ones life and is greatly influenced by environmental factors such as race, religion and other socioeconomic determinants. Literary discourse is a way of being, a way of talking, moving, dressing and thinking; in essence your culture which greatly influences what one consideres proper social behavior. This makes it almost impossible for minorities and people of low income families to acquire the discourse of the dominant group in society, which Gee appoints white and middle class. This closely relates to the sociocultral theory of personality which emphasize social and cultural determainant such as a families socioeconomic level and size, ethnic identification and your parent's education level.

Delpit's argument against Gee downplays social and cultural influence on learning and instead maintains that literary discourse can be acquired by members of the non-dominant group if they are so willing to learn and have a vaild support system. She chronicals intellectuals of African American decent who have done such and emphasizes the influence their will and the will if their teachers have on their success. This directly related to the Existential-Humanistic personality theories which stress free will. "Humans may be thrown by circumstances beyond their control into certain conditions of life,but how they value, interpret, and respond to those conditions is a matter of personal choice," (Olson & Hergenhahn, 5).

Although their are certain aspects of Gee's theory I do agree with, my thoughts on the acquistion of literary discourse resonates more with Delpit. Though social and cultural determinants have some lever of influence on one's ability to learn and succeed, the greatest influence on such is our will and drive to want to learn and succeed.

My Definition of Literacy

On the first week of class we were asked to describe something we felt we were literate at. From that I describe my newly acquired literacy in servicing home mortgages; for literacy for me meant something that was of significant understanding so much so that you could simplify and complicate each subject matter. Literacy for me is also having the ability to engage in discourse with a peer who is as equally knowledgeable in such subject. Using my example of home loan serving, the manner in which I speak of home loan serving with a fellow co-worker includes words and phrases not understood by anyone else.

One example of literacy that was used by a classmate, was motherhood. It was described as being something that was almost innate, in that it came with ease and an understanding of what needs to be done but that was in no way a indication that one knew everything there was to know about being a mother. I logged this definition of literacy, into my definition of literacy as well. Being literate in a particular subject does not mean you know everything about that subject. In fact being literate in a subject can also mean that you are in a constant state of learning, yet instead of knowing all he the answers, you simply know which questions to ask!

Rodriguez & Kosut

Rodriguez and Kosut were both personal accounts of acquiring discourse and the cultural struggles they each encountered, relating to both Bartholomae and Gee. Batholomae’s suggestion of acquiring discourse through mimicking was evident through Rodriguez’s admiration of his teachers and Kosut’s interaction with her peers. Both disproved Gee’s ideology that secondary discourse cannot be acquired if one is not a member of the dominant class, with Rodriguez being a minority and Kosut’s being of the working class.

I enjoyed reading both accounts and was able to relate to both. I was pleased with the success of both authors and found great delight in disproving Gee’s theory.

Delpit

Lisa Delpit’s The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse is a great response to James Paul Gee’s “What is Literacy”. The opinions of others are hard to change, but as an educator, we can unconsciously unleash our opinions in the ways we address the academic concerns of certain students. I feel it’s important for teachers to recognize any bias or prejudice they may hold against a particular group of society and once they recognize and acknowledge that bias or prejudice nature they either seek to eliminate them or quit their profession entirely to prevent the mis-education of any student.    The ideology held by Gee, is sure to be shared by many in within the academic community and to a certain extent they hold a level of truth. It can be quite difficult for one to acquire a discourse “foreign” to them and the best way to attempt to master any discourse is through acquisition; similar to the mimicking technique offered by Bartholomae. Yet to completely dismiss the possibility that any African American will be able to master secondary discourse is absurd. There have been numerous African Americans, both of today and yesterday, who have exemplified on a national level their ability to engage in the dominant secondary discourse of America. The challenge is not in being an intellectual but being seen as an intellectual in the same regard as a white person! Even today those African Americans who are given national recognition are still faced with the challenges of being African American and being educated, “you must do twice as well as white people to be considered half as good” (a lesson I learned hard in the 5^th grade).  The extra work is in making them see beyond your race and allowing you to engage in their discourse once you’ve mastered their discourse. One example can be found in Chris Matthews’ controversial comment toward President Barack Obama in that he “forgot he was black tonight for an hour…” after his speech.  Although the comment cause much uproar throughout the internet community, Chris Matthews words resonates true to the way in which the dominate culture views not only our president but any intellectual African American.

This is not to say the primary discourses of African Americans are in some way wrong, ignorant or subordinate. The recognition of African American discourse as a prominent feature within our culture is vital to creating a positive self-image within the African American community. As Delpit noted, “Carter G. Woodson called for similar pedagogy almost seventy years ago. He extolled teachers in his 1933 Mid-Education of the Negro to teach “mainstream,” but to teach as well the life, history, language, philosophy, and literature of their own people. Only this kind of education, he argued, would prepare an educated class which would serve the needs of the African-American community,” (Delpit, 552).

African American discourse is relevant to the extent that it has been mimicked for years musically. Most notable cases have been that of Elvis Presley and even artist of today such as Justin Timberlake, Eminem, and Adele; they’ve mastered the slang, soul, and angst of African American music but not to the extent they’ve completely abandon the primary discourse of their own. And throughout the African American community they’ve been accepted yet the same acceptance cannot be acknowledged in the reverse. African American pop artist like Rihanna are always in the R&B category, not because she has not mastered the secondary discourse of pop music but because the dominate culture will not recognize her as a pop artist or they do not believe she is capable of engaging in pop discourse. Again I state the process of assimilation has been a tough, long road for African Americans and I’ve completely given up! I see no problem in the dominate culture seeing me as black as long as I accept that blackness is beautiful and good.  

O.M.Gee

Part 1:

Distinction between dominant and non-dominant discourses and why this matters

Gee distinguishes between dominant Discourses and non-dominant Discourses in relation to the social status each of them bring. Although both are secondary Discourses,”… various non-home-based social institutions,” (Gee, 1989), dominant Discourses brings with it the acquisition of social goods such as money, prestige and status whereas non-dominant Discourses results in “solidarity with a particular social network,” (Gee, 1989). He goes on to describe the importance of the acquiring dominant Discourse as it relates to social interactions. He states, “Very often dominant groups in a society apply rather constant “test” of the fluency of the dominant Discourse in which their power is symbolized,” (1989).

How can discourses interfere? How can they be transferred?

Primary interfere with the acquisition of secondary discourse because the use of the secondary discourse is not widely mimicked in one’s environment; in this view to interfere is problematic in that is prevents the person from acquiring the fluency of secondary discourse, which as described above, can have adverse effects on the way in which a member of a subordinate group interacts with a member of the dominate group. Yet to transfer discourse, in which secondary discourse is used more fluently and naturally amongst members within the community, is the best way to acquire secondary discourse.  To support his theory he offers the following example:

“…the primary Discourse of many middle class homes has been influenced by secondary Discourses of those used in schools and business. This is much less true of the primary Discourse in many lower socio-economic black homes, though this primary Discourse has influenced the secondary Discourse used in black churches,”  (Gee, 1989).

Part 2:

In response to the discussion between Todd and Ashley on March 3, 2011; Todd expressed his contempt with certain aspects of Gee’s writing and his reference to low income and black families; Ashley’s response appeared to be a dismissal of those feelings and was bluntly titled, “Take a step back and calm down.”

There seems to be an underlying message propelling Gee’s ideologies concerning race, class and education. There is an apparent reoccurring reference to Black low income families and their failure to acquire even “primary discourse” in comparison to white middle class families, who supposedly set the standard on the “right” way to engage and acquire discourse. As an African American I am highly offended, although I do take into consideration that this essay was written in 1989, before Gee and the rest of the world were exposed to President Obama and Oprah before she was a multi-millionaire power house she has become. Nevertheless, Gee’s writing is an example of how one group can impose its values and beliefs onto another and thus set the standard as to what is considered proper and right. He expressed many times within the text the failure of African Americans to acquire Discourse and even goes as far as to state, “there is, thus, no workable “affirmative action” for Discourse, you can’t be let into the game after missing the apprenticeship and be expected to have a fair shot at playing it,” (Gee, 1989).

Let me make something very clear to those of you, who might think I’m being hypersensitive, Gee’s ideology on African American people and their discourse as being inferior to that of middle class white Americans or Europeans is wrong and the blame is improperly placed. It is this type of public display of one’s ideology that perpetuates prejudice and racism. Just because a person is black or live in a low socio-economic community does not mean that they cannot engage in discourse with their family and also acquire the secondary discourse of society.  The culture and language of African Americans is not what leads to low test scores and graduation rates; it’s the system surrounding their education that has failed them. Funding for inner city schools were poor before No Child Left Behind and it was the poor funding that lead even poorer resources and thus low test scores. It’s the poor quality of education coupled with poverty and crime that affects the way African American children acquire knowledge not the way they speak. Since the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education supreme court decision to designate public schools, African Americans have been trying to assimilate with the white dominate society and 50 years later they’ve found themselves alone with other minorities in public schools caught in a repeated cycle of reform and failure while the middle class white families rejoice in private or “suburban education”. Sadly it is the ideology of people such as Gee that keeps this cycle moving.  In the end Gee prose a few vague and impersonal solutions to the proposed problem of ‘non-mainstream’ individuals (i.e. those excluded from the superior class of the middle class population) .The process of African American’s assimilating into the world of the “middle class mainstream” has endured years of failure.  I propose that we need to cease this destructive cycle and assert ourselves as a culture within America with our own school, supported by our own funding, engaged in both our discourse and that of middle class mainstream America.