Gee’s first theorem is very harsh. It says that you cannot just have your foot in the door of a Discourse, you must be fully in it. If you are not completely engulfed in the Discourse then you are not “fluent” in that area. When you fail to fully display the Discourse, you are essentially saying that you do not belong in that Discourse- you are a “pretender” at best. This theorem is very controversial in the sense of how harsh it is. Gee believes that you basically have to be perfect in that Discourse in order to be in it. But what if you mess up? Are you then kicked out of that Discourse? What if the Discourse that you are practicing is your dream job, but you are still learning the ropes? Are you marked as a pretender because you cannot perform at the highest level one can in that Discourse? I understand the point that Gee is trying to propose, but I also see many flaws as well.

Gee’s second theorem says that one’s primary Discourse cannot ever be “liberating literacies”. This says that primary Discourses are only one within themselves, they are very limited. Though this is said, primary Discourses can be used in other secondary Discourses, but not vice versa. Though Gee says that primary Discourses are limited, I believe that this is not true. Primary Discourses can provide so much knowledge to you besides what Gee says is unauthentic criticism. Primary Discourses provide the person within the Discourse with the acts, values, and attitudes that Gee says it does not correctly apply.

On page 13 of Gee’s Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics, he says, “‘Mushfake’, resistance, and meta-knowledge: this seems to me like a good combination for successful students and successful social change.” “Mushfake” Discourse is when you have to “make do” with what you have in front of you along with the previous knowledge that you already have. Meta-Knowledge is the knowledge of knowledge. You are aware of the knowledge. Gee says it allows you to “manipulate, to analyze, to resist while advancing.” Resistance is the refusal to accept something, or to prevent something from happening.

During Amy Cuddy’s TED Talk, she talks about how body language and composition has a huge affect on both those around you, along with yourself. At 3:20 of her Talk, Cuddy says, “When we think of nonverbals, we think of how we judge others, how they judge us and what the outcomes are… the other audience that’s influenced by our nonverbals, and that’s ourselves.” She provides an experiment of people sitting or standing in different positions. People who performed a “strong” and “powerful” position made themselves feel more powerful, also making them appear more powerful to those around them as well. Amy Cuddy talks about how in a business situation, a powerful stance can make you appear more powerful as well. This ties in to Gee’s “acting” part of a Discourse. Gee says that to be in a Discourse, you must display a combination of “saying (writing), doing, being, valuing, and believing,”. Cuddy’s poses exhibit the “doing” part of this combination. In the beginning of Gee’s Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics, he gives an example of a man in a bar saying the right thing, but the man did not act in the right way. “I have said the right thing, but my “saying-doing” combination is nonetheless all wrong.” If we go back to Cuddy’s business example, we can see that the same situation is true. One could have a well put together business plan, but their presentation was off due to them slouching and holding themselves, making themselves smaller. These nonverbals cues to the audience that the presenter is not very confident, thus showing that the plan as well could fall through.

 

collreadwrit1a