Discourses and “Faking It”
Introduction
According to James Paul Gee, the author of Literacy, Discourse and Linguistics: Introduction,
“Discourses are ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions and clothes,” (6–7).
He believes that every group of people has a not only a certain way of speaking but also certain actions that communicate that you are a part of this group.
Amy Cuddy, author of the TED talk Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are, also believes in the idea that your actions can communicate certain beliefs to others. She believes that
“…we make sweeping judgements and inferences from body language. And those judgements can predict really meaningful life outcomes like who we hire or promote, who we ask out on a date,” (Cuddy 2:04).
While both of these people are very knowledgeable on their subjects and give plentiful amounts of evidence supporting their ideas, I do not agree with all of their claims. I believe that Discourses are not something that everyone in a specific group shares but are something that is ever changing and evolving with each person that enters.
Gee’s First Theorem of Discourses
Gee has two theorems that have to do with Discourses. His first theorem is the one that I disagree most with. His first theorem is that
“you are either in it or you’re not,” (Gee 9).
By this, Gee is saying that there is no transfer period, one day you could be trying to get into this particular Discourse and failing and the next day you could be mysteriously in it. To me, that just doesn’t seem right.
I believe that one can be halfway in a Discourse.
Not only that, but Gee states that
“your very lack of fluency marks you as a non-member of the group that controls this Discourse,” (10).
He is essentially saying that any attempt to enter the Discourse, or for that matter, any attempt to “fit in” will result in being rejected from the Discourse because you were just trying to be like them.
In reality, what’s wrong with being a beginner?
Being a beginner just means you have enough dedication that you want to continue to try and enter this Discourse. The members of the group should be pleased that someone wants to join their Discourse. Even people who have been apart of something for a majority of their life still have some fluency issues and that doesn’t make them a beginner, an outsider or even a non-member.
I believe that there is no such thing as full fluency. There are always new things to learn and the Discourses are evolving with each person that gets involved.
Faking and Pretending
As stated in the last section, fitting in could possibly be frowned upon by the group that, in a sense, “owns” that Discourse. But Gee seems to contradict himself in his paper.
He starts out saying there is no halfway in or out but someone can “fake” their way in. This “faking” is what Gee calls “mush-fake”. According to Gee, mush-fake is
“making ‘do with something less when the real thing is not available,” (13).
It is specifically using prior knowledge about the particular Discourse and any other common knowledge to “pretend” to fit in.
This, I believe, is a way of being halfway in a Discourse. I think that if one were to “pretend” or “mush-fake” enough, they could actually enter the Discourse. This is supported by Cuddy’s TED talk. She states that someone could potentially
“fake it till you become it,” (Cuddy 19:14).
By this, she means that people could potentially pretend to be something they’re not and actually turn into that thing without full intentions of it.
I disagree with most of what Gee has to say, especially that we cannot be halfway between. Regardless, I do agree that people can fake their way or just use prior knowledge to enter a Discourse.
Gee’s Second Theorem of Discourses
In the second theorem, Gee states that
“primary Discourses, no matter whose they are, can never really be liberating literacies,” (10).
By this, Gee is saying that our primary Discourse can only be the beginning to what we learn rather than the comfort we fall back on.
I disagree with this. I believe that your primary Discourse is the very basis to what you will learn later on.
While spending a lot of time analyzing Gee’s paper, I have come to realize that I have created my own theory. My theory is that no one has the same Discourse.
I believe that the primary Discourse and every other Discourse that follows, combine into the way that person acts and speaks and even what they believe in. I believe that everything they learn from past Discourses is constantly changing and they can evolve their beliefs with every Discourse they enter.
My Theory
My theory comes from just being a student that has had to enter many Discourses just growing up. Your primary Discourse is what you grow up with.
Expanding on the theory I stated previously, I believe that your primary Discourse can really help you along in future Discourses, unlike the way Gee put it. Based on my theory, I believe that one way to look at Discourses is to think of it like paint. There are thousands of different colors. When two colors are mixed, traces of both of the colors are still visible. For example, mixing white and blue paint will result in a lighter blue. The blue base is still there but the influence from the white causes the color to change slightly.
This works the same way in Discourses. Discourses start out with a group that has a specific vocabulary, speech pattern, clothing style, and even actions. As a new member enters, they (the new member) use their primary Discourse and even some of the other Discourses they have been in to add to the Discourse, for example vocabulary. With this person using this other vocabulary, other people will learn it and continue to use it which “updates” the vocab of the group.
This evolution is what makes up my theory. This is what differs between the theories of Gee, Cuddy and myself.
Conclusion
Discourses are an interesting topic, but I disagree with how Gee goes about dissecting it.
I believe that Discourse accumulate over time, they are not separate entities that stay separate. They all meld together and continue evolving as time goes on and the places of residency and work change. But I do believe that Gee in the sense of “entering” a Discourse.
I do believe that using prior knowledge and observing can really help someone understand what they are getting into. Mush-fake, in my opinion, is very effective.
I agree with Cuddy and her idea of body language. And that body language is a part of mush-fake. Cuddy gives us this idea that people can read messages from us that we do not even realize we are sharing.
With that in mind, faking it, can shape who we are by letting us into a Discourse and showing people things we didn’t even know about ourselves.
Works Cited
Cuddy, Amy. “Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are.” TED Conferences, LLC. Edinburgh International Conference Center, Edinburgh. June 2012. Lecture.
Gee, James Paul. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Journal of Education 171.1(1989): 5–15. Print.
