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.