Acting in Literacy

Stating that the “traditional textbook style” no longer being relevant to the times of today is a key idea to the way society in concerns with literacy should move towards. If language is continuously changing with time, then how does anyone persons, organization, expect to refer to the ideas of literacy from the past. With this concept, when Gee and Barton state language shapes our identity comes to no surprise.

As for Gee’s notion on faking to enter the gates does come packaged as the size of a horse pill, however, as E describes that one must change the discourse accordingly to their job (the example E uses) and having said so, that does not necessarily mean one has completely lost themselves. Though Gee may state that the “faking” causes problems within other aspects of the fakers life ­­– perhaps not entirely so. In the eyes of Gee, I saw the “faking” scenario as an actor. Now straying a bit from Gee, actors become whatever they must to land the job and in doing so, does not mean they have given their true identities up. An actors’ ability to take on different roles/characters gives them a better reputation (if the actor has succeeded in doing such roles) and this perhaps seems to make the faker a more desirable candidate.

Just as quick observation/comment, it seems as though recently our readings seem to incorporate the idea that the issues of literacy does not pertain just to the classroom setting (teachers and students) but beyond those walls. With mentioning external influences, motivation seems to be tagging along. Personally, it seems as if the more external influences involved in one issue, the more “hope” an individual will lose. In losing hope, it seems as if motivation is a means of getting those Debbie Downers to think otherwise. Agree?.... Disagree? …… Anything?