Is There a Right Way?
Entering a Discourse Project
In the world today, we all have our own lives in which we chose who we want to be. We define ourselves by discovering our “saying-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations” (Gee 9). These combinations are defined by James Paul Gee as a Discourse in his article entitled 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” (Gee 6–7).
The Black and White
In his article, Gee discusses the ways in which one can become part of a particular Discourse. His ideas about entering Discourses are very black and white. He ignores the gray area of not being fully in or fully out of the Discourse. This gray area, or in-between stage is a very important part of entering a Discourse. Although Gee is straight-forward in saying that it is done a certain way, people have different views on how one can enter a Discourse, and there is no perfect way to do so.
“You are either in it or you’re not” (Gee 9)
Gee believes that an individual cannot be involved in a Discourse unless they are completely fluent in the field. I disagree with Gee here and see much more than the black and white areas of Discourses.
His thoughts about entering a Discourse can be slightly harsh. If everyone were to limit themselves to learning a Discourse in the way that Gee describes, there would not be many people in the Discourses that they desire to be in.
“The lack of fluency (in a discourse) may very well mark you as a pretender to the social role instantiated in the Discourse” (Gee 10).
I wouldn’t consider someone in the midst of learning a Discourse a pretender or a fraud like Gee would. They simply haven’t fully mastered the skill yet. Of course there are cases in which you cannot call yourself by a title without being fully engaged such as a doctor or a professor, but Discourses that are less formal shouldn’t be as strict to enter.
Some of Gee’s thoughts seem to be exclusive and negative rather than inspiring. The lack of fluency shouldn’t mark you as a pretender, but as a learner. Although the processes of entering Discourses can be rigorous and time consuming, they are part of the lives of most.
Apprenticeship
One component of entering a Discourse which Gee discusses in his article makes more sense to me than his ideas that I have already reflected upon.
“Discourses are not mastered by overt instruction, but by enculturation (“apprenticeship”) into social practices through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse” (Gee 7).
What he means by this is if you aren’t exposed to the ways of the Discourse in which you are trying to become a part of, you will not be able to master it efficiently. In fact, more students are visual and hands-on learners than auditory learners.
I know by experience that I have never easily and fully learned a Discourse by listening to a teacher lecture or by reading a textbook. I did so by doing hands-on activities and observing masters of the Discourse. For example, I didn’t become a part of the Discourse of playing tennis by watching countless matches or by admiring professional players on TV. I did it by playing and practicing often, with the attention and guidance of a coach. Being an apprentice and learning from masters of the Discourse is surely a way to grasp the techniques.
The In-Between
Although I am now fully engaged in the Discourse of playing tennis, I didn’t go from a complete beginner to an expert. At that point of learning I would have considered myself to be in the gray area I previously mentioned; the area in which all of the necessary information needed to be in the Discourse is learned and practiced over and over again. I was considered an intermediate to the sport. Not a pretender, just an intermediate.
Gee would refer to this intermediate stage as “mushfaking” or “making do with something less when the real thing is not available” (13). By this he means that mushfaking is an artificial way of being in a Discourse. A way in which the person in not thoroughly fluent in the Discourse they say they are a part of.
This idea of mushfake relates with an idea brought upon by a woman named Amy Cuddy in her ted talk called Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are. Her idea of “Fake it ’til you become it” (19:14) indirectly describes her thoughts on entering Discourses. Although she doesn’t use the same terminology as James Gee, we can relate their ideas together. What Cuddy means by her quote is to practice and act as if you are part of something until you actually achieve it. She thinks that if you have a drive or desire to be something, you can by believing you have the ability and learning until you are able to become that particular something.
Faking It and Making It
Cuddy used the example of faking a smile to show evidence that faking it until you become it is possible.
“So, for example, we smile when we feel happy, but also, when we’re forced to smile by holding a pen in our teeth like this, it makes us feel happy. So it goes both ways” (Cuddy 7:24).
This example successfully proves that her idea is possible and can be done by any individual. Gee’s idea of mushfaking and Cuddy’s idea of faking it until you become it are directly related in the sense that you should have a certain mindset if you want to reach your goals.
Preference
The work by James Gee and Amy Cuddy, which we have spent a great deal of time trying to understand and reflect on, have showed me that people have diverse opinions on how one can enter a Discourse. There is no manual entitled “How to Join a Discourse”. All we are able to do is our best in learning the elements of whatever Discourse we would wish to be a part of. The most important things about entering a Discourse are believing in yourself, having self confidence, and having the perseverance to get through the highs and the lows of it all.
