Inspire Desire for Change (My revision for society and previous post)

Inspire Desire for Change
Barton explores how literacy is embedded into language. He accomplishes this by introducing general ideas about language. He points out how language is used, how language is part of discourses, and how these discourses result in texts. The next section discusses an aspect of what is meant by reading. What do readers take from texts, and how does language mediate the lives of the reader?
Barton introduces many new concepts borrowed from the branch of linguistics using a few key terms such as register and discourse. When language is spoken, depending on the context of the situation and the listener we use different registers in each occasion. For example, when your boss, whom by the way is an avid church participator, asks you how your weekend was. Your response will be limited in comparison to your response to a friend asking about your weekend (at the club). Depending on the situation, speakers change their speech discourse to an appropriate speech register.
Generally, our registers change in accordance to the discourse. Discourse is a very important term in both literacy and linguistic studies, because it represents a society within a given community. Like the previous example above, the boss and friend discourse are representatives of two individuals and two separate identities, the identity of an employee and a boss, and the identity of a friend and a co-worker. Discourses can be used as markers that identify who and how we represent ourselves as speakers within a discourse. We can find many different types of discourses throughout society. These discourses are also intertwined and overlap with each other. Discourses generally involve common interests, shared beliefs, and social norms (Barton 75). Barton implies that literacy is embedded in language, and furthermore, he states “that particular ways of using language are ways of structuring knowledge and relationships” (75).
Barton examines how discourse and literacy are intertwined with language. He further points out that discourse communities produce texts depending on the “common interests, values, and purposes” (76). Barton uses a few different examples of texts that show how to “use language in quite different ways and to achieve quite different purposes” (81). Society uses text both explicitly an implicitly, otherwise known as intertextuality. Explicitly as I exhibit by quoting Barton’s words, or implicitly in discussion of a particular discourse (80-81). Texts are historically written in standard prescriptive English and use methods of autonomous theories reflecting how language should be spoken, taught, and read “the overall effect is a consistent one positioning people and structuring their identity (Barton 81). Basically, I think he is saying that discourse communities define themselves based on the texts they read because they identity with the text.
Second, he suggests that the government plays a large role on what society reads, but they fail to acknowledge the social diversity within the United States. Studies have shown that different discourses have different uses of literacy. Literacy’s use of the traditional textbook (in schools for example) styles does not meet the needs of society any longer and that new forms of texts should be “more compatible with social views of reading” (83). This is accomplished by a list of hands on ideas as to how readers could benefit more from texts.
Last but not least, language is power because it mediates. It mediates us by helping us identify who we are as people with interests. The use of texts could be used differently and effectively. Barton implies that language “is the most common sense of language [and] as a medium in that it is a medium of communication” (85). Texts interacts with our reality of facts, ideas, hopes, and threats (85). “Communication is central to the structure and organization of knowledge and oral speech mediates our experience [or dictates knowledge upon us] when they tell us something” (85). This is in a since insulting in that it implies that if I don’t believe and follow the bits of truth told in elementary school such as Christopher Columbus is the discovery of this land and the texts failure to mention the genocide committed upon the Native Americans than I have not been structured as the text has meant for me to comply with. The problem here is not to point out the possible issues civilization created but rather in school we are only taught what the government thinks we should know. However, Barton does acknowledge (in one paragraph) “whatever way we read it, the written word is mediating our experience (86).
Gee writes, “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction,” making oppositional points compared to Barton. We have discovered the autonomous theory of literacy, as Barton points out, in textbook learning according to historical standards, and according to Gee literacy is a “social practice” (Gee 5). The difference is that Barton takes the approach of the importance of history in texts. As we all know, American history is not exactly bragged about in grammar school education. Gee acknowledges the diversity within the contemporary united states, whereas Barton points out that “they structure reality for us” (Barton 86). Gee discusses the social diversity and their discourses.
He says that language, “is not just how you say, but what you are and do when you say it” (Gee 5). People are made up from society, in other words the societies we are born into is a large factor dictating who we become as adults. It is a discourse community that in part makes up our individuality and how we say it. Discourses consist “of forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes” (6-7). All these combinations make up our identity. In every society, our identity is created and expressed through the values of our community. It determines who we are when we say it. Discourses make up societal factors that determine why we are the way we are. It determines our identity, which in turn creates how we say things. How we think. Gee suggests people’s identities consists of two main factors which are: one’s primary socialization and one’s secondary socialization. The primary socialization occurs in the home and peer groups (7). The secondary socialization occurs in the public sphere; Institutions of public offerings such as church, school, and community groups (8). He also stresses the factors of “dominant discourses” and “non-dominant discourses” by differentiating these two discourses as a “potential acquisition of social goods (money, prestige, status ect.)” (8).
Ultimately, Gee uses literacy practices to show how the dominant discourses are available to non-dominant discourses based on “vastly supported [research] by sociolinguistic literature” (10). He provides two theorems: First theorem implies that and person who is newly entering a discourse is, as history shows, either functional or non-functional. That is, they are either in or out of the dominant or non-dominant discourse. Theorem two is saying that even a person of the non-dominant discourse can fully acquire the insider “meta-elements (language, words, attitudes, values)” of another discourse, thereby faking it as their primary discourse (11). If you are not brought up into a primary discourse, and you want to learn this dominant discourse it would be considered a secondary discourse. The idea here is to make or fake this meta-knowledge. That is, pretend you are part of this discourse. You can do this by talking the talk, and walking the walk. Showing the “ability to say, do, value, believe, and so forth” demonstrates mastery of the discourse (11). “Metaknowledge is liberation and power, because it leads to the ability to manipulate, to analyze, to resist while advancing” (13). It sounds to me like Gee is suggesting that in order for the people within the non-dominant discourse to rise up, we must master particular identities with which we wish to become involved.
Gee says to “mushfake,” or rather, make do with what you have. This is accomplished by using your “meta-knowledge” and “mushfake discourse” (13). Change can only come through becoming actively involved in the dominant society and using their (the apprentice’s) literacy knowledge to make changes. The apprenticeship allows for the student to learn to become a fluent speaker of any discourse through manipulation. Once the apprentice has become a skilled and fluent speaker in the discourse, this allows the apprentices to “carry out authentic criticism” (10). It is this Metaknowledge and Mushfaking that allows fluency to make this change possible. This change causes conflict and tension within the self and a world of two or more discourses that is always changing (8). So, is he suggesting that the only way change can be created is by becoming an insider? From inside, you can advance just to resist to create change?
So, why does Gee choose to write so explicitly? I think simply because he forces people who are sitting on the fence to pick a side of the fence; people are forced to either choose the mainstream domination or stand up for the non-dominant discourse of the population. People need to realize that there are “universals of sense making that occur in nonliterary talk and writing” (15) As apprentice educators we must consider the people in which we will be teaching. We must consider the methods that education can be equally given to students based on cultural discourses. As well as, which texts will provide higher values that the children can use to mediate with the texts. If the students can relate to these texts by feeling a connection with the text it will make the literary discourse a welcomed ideology.
Barton and Gee bring up two very interesting ideas. Barton points out that history has generated the texts society reads today. If we look at the United States for example, we can see two sides of the coin. One side shows us the great diversity of discourses within the many regions across the United States. Many non-dominant discourses are a large part of the population as a whole. Yet, the large population of non-dominant discourses are extremely unrepresented. The other side represents the elite dominant discourse that has control over the politics determining what texts students should read. Take for example Joel Chandler Harris, whom is one of the few literary figures who represents a Southern Vernacular Discourse. Vernacular discourses represent a part of the United States but not much of this vernacular style of literature is read . Why is that? Can you name many texts that are written in specific dialectal vernaculars? Who is representing the non-dominant discourse? Sociolinguistic factors are studied and are proven to be communities of knowledge. Yet, education, politicians, and mainstream discourses fail to acknowledge the diversity of texts that represent the ideology of the non-dominant discourses.
Gee on the other hand, thinks with an open mind in regards to non-dominant discourses. There are a few factors at play with Gee’s ideology; he is suggesting that the issues with society are open and closed doors, but that everyone has access to enter. This can be accomplished by faking their way inside a newly learned discourse. Gee suggests that those who learn the apprenticeship of “faking” will be the ones who get to enter the “gates.” The apprenticeship learners will most likely then become in conflict with their family culture values and the “fake” self. This fake self is taught to manipulate, analyze, and resist while advancing. I had a difficult time accepting this theory since being true to oneself is largely the ultimate goal in life. But, in my experience we must become the discourse our inner self wants to become. At work, we need to be professionally skilled and show mastery of the discourse (whatever our heart pulls us to). We must say and do what’s socially expected in the professional discourse in which we work. Once we discover our true selves, we discover our discourse, our passion for life. So, the issue seems that society has this set standard of norms to fit into and ultimately if you were not born in the gate you will have conflict in your life and struggle to get in. And, it can be done. But, the important thing to remember is that we are our identity. What I mean by that is we have the choice to not allow society and politics to dictate our lives. We have the choice to make sense of the greater good of equality for all women and men alike.



Works Cited
Barton, David. Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language, 2nd Ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2007
Gee, James Paul. Journal of Education, Volume 171 Number 1, 1989