Learning, and being able to use, new discourse(s) is, as Gee states, "how people build identities and activities and recognize identities and activities that others are building around them (20) - which is why I do not agree with Gee's use of the word 'dance' as he describes his concluding diagnosis of what a Discourse really is. 'Dancing' is used to describe Discourse as "a coordinated pattern of words, deeds, values, beliefs, symbols, tools, objects, times, and places in the here-now- as a performance that is recognizable as just such a coordination. Like a dance, the performance hear and now is never exactly the same..." (28) However, even as Gee describes this 'dance' that he feels people continually experience; is it really a matter of 'dancing,' or adapting?'
Gee uses the example of gang vernacular and jargon, with hopes of illustrating his idea of 'dancing' among other gang member, in order for the gang to accept or authenticate the person attempting to show his fluency in the gang's choice of discourse dance. Although I understand the point he is attempting to make, I question his understanding of the interaction that is happening. I argue that it's not a matter of 'dancing,' it's a matter of discourse adaptation. As the above quote by Gee states, discourse is made up of different variables which are all essential in displaying a certain level of understanding and recognition when using the new discourse - "recognition work" occurs "when they [people] engage in such work when they try to make visible to others (and to themselves, as well) who they are and what they are doing." (29)
As I consider my experience teaching English 101, and the way in which I have to adapt to the numerous discourses that my students bring to the classroom, I know that both the adaption of 'vernacular' and the 'technical variety of language' are crucial to the relationship that I continue to extablish with my students. If I were to treat learning new discourses as a dance, then I would feel as if I were putting on a show - when I should be adapting different discourses and proving my validity as an educator, and not a showman. And, like Gee so eloquently states, "there are no once and for all tests [dances] for who is a 'real' feminist, gang member, patriot, humanist, cutting-edge scientist, 'yuppie,' or 'regular' at the local bar" (25) - instead, we can only gauge one's discourse level by their adaptations of the said discourses learned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like this approach, Malcolm. I often have the same feeling that "if I were to treat learning new discourses as a dance, then I would feel as if I were putting on a show." However, I am always reminded by Burke's Dramatism that insist all language is a symbolic action, In this view, life is a play complete with actors, plots, sets, etc. that compromise a philosophy (borrowed from Shakespeare) that "all the world's a stage."
ReplyDeleteThe basic question here-- in relation to your post-- is what makes one dance, adaptation, discourse, identity, or representation more authentic than another? If in your view that all is "perceivable rhetoric," is there a true and false perception? And if indeed this is your case, how would you explain not having an "incredulity towards metanarratives"?