Will society begin to publish different regional discourse texts?

Gee, James Paul. Journal of Education, Volume 171 Number 1, 1989

Barton, David. Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language, 2nd Ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2007
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 friend asking about your weekend at the club. Depending on the situation, speakers change their speech discourse to an appropriate speech index.
General 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 discusses above of the boss and friend speech discourse. The discourse can be used as markers that identify who and how we represent ourselves as speakers in any given discourse. We can find many different types of discourses throughout society. These discourses are also intertwined and overlap with each other. I think it is important to point out that a different vernacular, or dialect is specific within any given discourse community. Discourses generally involve common interests, shared beliefs, and social norms. (Barton 75)
Barton examines how discourse and literacy are intertwined with language. He argues language is used in different ways and varies within every discourse. He further points out that discourses produce texts in their communities by suggesting that society views literacy in two different ways. One view of society constructs language through the historical system of power through hierarchical domination while the other view is a system based upon the unheard voices within society (Barton 76). From these different views of the hierarchal system, two systems of difference make up the non-standard and the standard use of language. Historically these standard prescriptive methods of autonomous theories are reflected in how language should be spoken, taught, and read (Barton 81).
Second, he suggests that, “they,” the government plays a large role on what society reads, but they (the government) 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 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. The use of texts should be translated for all types of discourses; this could bring together the reader and the text. Ultimately, enabling and evoking ones greater senses. Barton’s argument seems to imply a general conception that language speaks to us and that we do not speak to the language. Language is a social event that we acquire very young. We don’t make up the language, but rather, the language makes us. The differential use of language could be translated according to each discourse, perhaps, the use of literacy texts could be used differently and more effectively.
As Barton points out, perhaps, we should produce texts for the diverse society in which we live. Gee writes, “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction,” making similar points as Barton. We have discovered the autonomous theory of literacy is much more than textbook learning according to government standards; literacy is a “social practice” according to Gee (5). He suggests 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 the individual. In every society, one’s identity is created and expressed in part, through the values of any given community. These values, parts, or 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”. All these combinations make up our identity. (6-7)
Gee suggests peoples 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.” He differentiates 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 discourse maintains their status based on the judgment that either a person speaks with fluent mastery of the English Language or they (the non-dominant) society will experience oppression, discrimination, and/or mistreatment (8-10). He continues further to say that, “Primary Discourses are limited…as liberation” (11). If you are not brought into society as an apprenticeship of the dominant society the “gates” are closed to you. “Beyond changing the social structure, is there much hope? No, there is not,” he answers (12). Although, he does propose two views for clarity, and a new term that could bring new value to the word, “hope.” “Metaknowledge is liberation and power, because it leads to the ability to manipulate, to analyze, to resist while advancing.” This allows students to be more adaptable in society. (13) He suggest:
“First, true acquisition will rarely if ever happen. Even for anything close to acquisition to occur, classrooms must be active apprenticeships in “academic” social practices, and, in most cases, must connect with these social practices as they are also carried on outside the ‘composition’ or ‘language’ class, elsewhere in the university.”

Teach what the students are familiar with, this enables their success. By teaching of off what the students already know allows the students background knowledge to be applied in their application of learning new information.
Second, to “mushfake,” or rather, make do with what you have. This is accomplished by using your “metaknowledge” and “mushfake discourse” (13). If I didn’t know better, I would say that this is the most valuable piece of information I have learned. The topic of motivation has always been discussed, and the question always arises, how do you get your students motivated? Especially, the non-dominate group. Here is my answer. Give them the facts and truth about how society had discriminated against the other and create awareness. Challenge your students to become productive and make a difference. Change can only come through becoming actively involved in the dominant society and using their (the students) literacy knowledge to make changes. He suggests these changes can become accomplished by learning a discourse and how to master a discourse. The apprenticeship allows for the student to learn to become a fluent speaker of any discourse through manipulation. Once the students become skilled fluent speakers in the given discourse this allows the students involvement and collaborate about the issues they see and don’t agree with. It is this Metaknowledge that requires fluentcy to make this change possible. Inspire desire for 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 group or stand up for the majority of the population in which people will be teaching.
These two texts bring up two very interesting points. Barton points out that history has generated the texts society reads today. And, this is very much so. 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 appears to be a larger part of the population as a whole. Yet, the large population of non-dominant discourses are extremely unrepresented. The other side represents the elite discourse in which dominant discourses control the printing companies, who thereby determines what and who gets published. Take for example Joel Chandler Harris, whom is one of the few literary figures that represents a Southern Dialectal Discourse. Can you name many texts that are written in specific dialectal vernaculars? This is what I have taken from Barton’s and Gee’s text. Who is representing the non-dominant discourse? Sociolinguistic factors are studied and proven as factual discourses. Yet, education, politicians, and mainstream discourses fail to acknowledge the diversity of much needed texts that represent the ideology of the non-dominant discourses.
Gee on the other hand, thinks more broadly of the lack of texts representing 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 that everyone has access to enter. He is suggesting that all US citizens have equal access to education. And if they don’t, then they can always fake their inside knowledge to fit in society. Gee suggests that those who learn the apprenticeship of “faking” will be the select few minorities who get to enter the “gates”; the apprenticeship learners will 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 have a difficult time accepting this theory since being true to oneself is the ultimate goal in life. But, in my studies we must become the discourse our boss wants. At work, we need to be professionally skilled, act appropriately, and show mastery of the discourse. We must say and do what’s socially expected in the professional discourse of work. Once we discover our true selves, we discover self-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.