On Lydia's analysis of Barton and Gee

First off, I think Lydia’s summary of Barton and Gee’s essays was pretty well covered. I appreciated the refresher on the material they covered and I think she did an excellent job comparing and contrasting their different viewpoints. Good job, Lydia!

I have to say that I agree with some of her interpretations, but I saw things a little differently in other areas. I think it is definitely true that “Depending on the situation, speakers change their speech discourse to an appropriate speech register,” as Lydia states. There are some things that I would discuss with certain friends that I would never bring up around other people. I think the point about how “discourse communities define themselves based on the texts they read because they identify with the texts” is also valid. I can’t picture my fiancé reading a pet magazine because that is just not the kind of person he is. He would rather read a technical computer manual. I, on the other hand, would opt for the former piece of literature because it is something I could identify with. This is not to say that he and I do not share discourse, but these particular types of discourses would be reserved more for our coworkers, since they would more easily understand what it was we would be discussing.

Lydia also brings up a valid point in that Barton “suggests that the government plays a large role [in] what society reads.” I think substituting “society” for “government” would be a little more accurate in this point though, and it would validate her expectation for “apprentice educators [to] consider the people [?] in which we will be teaching.” If the government were in charge of mandating readings, politicians would have to reanalyze their suggestions. Lucky for us, society does have a say. I think that is why over the last few decades, we have seen a steady increase in diversity of texts and curriculums are starting to include works from less mainstream authors.

I am not so sure I agree with Lydia’s exact interpretation of Gee’s work. I didn’t feel like Gee was calling for any kind of “rising up” or implying that there would be “conflict and tension within the self and a world of two or more discourses.” It seemed to me that Gee welcomed the adoption of more than one discourse. The diversity that secondary discourses bring allows for analysis of the primary form and the ability to compare and contrast different forms of communication. This ability does not imply any demand to “pick a side of the fence,” in my opinion. As pointed out earlier, speakers change their discourse according to the situation. Learning more secondary discourses would simply allow for broader resources from which to interact with others.

Indeed, “we have the choice to not allow society and politics to dictate our lives,” but if we are to interact with those around us, this choice can only go so far. It is a societal axiom that there are appropriate forms of communicating in given social settings and if someone wants to be accepted or even to get their own point across, there are standards in every culture and subculture that must be followed if anyone in that group is to take that person seriously. I don’t believe this ability to change discourse constitutes a “fake self” at all. Who you are is reflected in all that you do and if you are able to communicate in more than one vernacular, all of those diverse qualities are a part of you. I personally feel that this diversity within an individual betters them, rather than detracting from their abilities to “be true to oneself.”