Thus far, we have read three articles that make distinctive arguments about the influence of discourse communities on communication. Your task is to use one or more of the arguments presented by Gee or Wardle as a theoretical lens to help you make an argument about a community you are currently in. Earlier this term we did an activity where I called students to use a theory you learned from another class and apply it to your own life. This prompt is quite similar. You are taking a theory presented by either Wardle or Gee and using that theory to help you say something new about a community you are currently involved in. If you want to see an example of how to use a theoretical lens as a framing mechanism, have a look at this piece by Richard Rodriguez who uses the idea of 'scholarship boy' to frame his experiences between his primary and secondary school discourses: http://myweb.cwpost.liu.edu/lbai/Data/English%201F--Materials/Open%20Questions/The%20Achievement%20of%20Desire.pdf
As we dive into our final ethnography project, you will want to have an ability to use outside theories to help you better understand the community you are investigating. Consider the readings for this unit as a jumping off point for some potential ways you might analyze the discourse community you are investigating.
There isn't a length requirement for this assignment, but anything that doesn't exceed two paragraphs is certainly an underachievement.
This posing is due before 11:59pm on 3/18/2013.
Dacotah Roeber ENC 1101-OM06
ReplyDeleteIn Gee's writing he stated that there are different types of discourses, primary and secondary as well as non dominant and dominant. He says that we all have the primary discourse through our families, but the secondary discourse is different for everyone. I would say that being on a soccer team is a secondary discourse from the facts that you have to be taught how to play soccer and accepted onto a team. Gee states that the two types of secondary discourse is dominant, which brings wealth and high status and non-dominant which only brings solidarity to the group. I would say that being on the soccer team it is my secondary non-dominant discourse. Although we play together and have mastered the skills within the team, we do not receive a higher status or wealth by playing, we gain solidarity. Gee also states that ones primary and secondary can rub off on each other. With the soccer team we all have the same secondary discourse, but for almost all of the members our primary discourse includes some type of soccer background in it. With this all of our own individual primary discourse affect our secondary discourses which makes the group more alike then other discourse communities with no common discourses.
One of the arguments presented by Wardle was that, "...expanding involvement in one system forces us away from other activity systems we value.." (523). So with this theory in mind, I decided to evaluate the most prominent community I am a part of, the LEAD Scholars Program. Within this "community", certain criteria has to be met in able to be in accord with the program. By the end of the semester, you must have everything completed and turned in, or else you risk the possibility of getting kicked out the program.
DeleteAs a second-semester student/member, I have a class specifically dedicated for the LEAD Scholars Program. Within that class, we must work on a social change project that is due before the semester is over. I am also required to complete 15 hours of community service, attend three-impact events (events meant to impact your life in some aspect) and two-lead events (which are ways to get you more involve with others members). To top things off, during the spring semester, we have Leadership Week, which is a campus-wide event. During this week, all LEAD Scholars members must attend at least one event. For each of these requirements, you must turn in proper documentation stating that you were present, and performed your required obligations.
Returning to Wardle's assumption, it becomes more and more clear that this program is very time consuming. If you are to dive in completely as a full on dedicated member, you endanger the time spent on other activities. Wardle describes "other activity systems" as your friends, neighborhood, and friends. Being part of the LEAD Scholars Program, I find myself fully emerged in trying to finish my requirements for the program and see how little time I have left over for other things. I have very little time to spend with friends, and often have to turn them down when they ask me to do something with them. When it comes to family, since they live so far away, I have even less time to go home and be with them. As for my living community, there is always events going on that I can never attend. So between all the hours I have to complete for the program, my roommates, friends, and family I barely have enough hours in the day.
This is a program I voluntarily walked into, but I had no idea how demanding this program would be on my time. I do the best I can, but in able to fully be assimilated into the community sacrificing other aspects of my life are necessary. This is a great opportunity is great for my future, but I just hope my present isn't struggling.
Edgar Ortiz
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 0M04
During my days as a bass player for my former musical rock group, I was only, as I said, the bass player, and perhaps nothing more. Sure I may have contributed in an original song or two but the thing is, with 4 different guys with different musical tastes, it was hard to please everybody. Don't get me wrong, we all got along just fine but there were times that conflict simply came out of nowhere due to creative differences. And the worst part: I got into the band a bit after the former bassist had dropped out, so I didn't have as much authoritive control over the band as the guitarist and the drummer, who were the original members of the band. While I did make my mark on stage and on our original recordings, times came where the others simply wanted to do things their way simply because they thought of their own ways to improve the band with originality that simply wasn't great at all. The weak communication and over authoritive behavior of some lead me to decide to leave it as individual creative freedom was nearly gone, although I did stay for a longer period just for the love of playing but eventually I grew tired of feeling used.
As such, I think this is where Wardle's research comes in as I compare myself to her subject: Alan. Like Alan, I felt like a tool at times and I tried my hardest to prove myself better. I little to no authority with our music. Referring to Wardle's modes of belonging, I was well engaged and imaginative with the band, alignment was a bit weak because of my preferred differences and they didn't bother to listen to my ideas. As such many other conflicts arose from that and other similar topics and eventually led to the inevitable demise of the band. Nevertheless, my love for music persists. Unless it's simply for the money, I highly suggest following Wardle's methods before joining a musical group or something similar. I view her study as a chemistry guide for the workplace.
Sara Heitzenroeder
ReplyDeleteENC1101-0M04
Wardle’s research speculates for workers to be successfully enculturated in a new activity system or community that they must first learn and conform to the conventions, codes, and genres of those specific communities. She states that when and how much each “neophyte” must conform depends greatly on how much power and cultural capital they possess or cultivate to accomplish work effectively (521). Right now I work two jobs, not by choice, and go to school full-time as a commuter, so I unfortunately don’t have any time for a school club or anything of that nature this year. The community I am going to talk about would be my English class. During the beginning of the semester, we were given a syllabus describing what the requirements and expectations for the course were going to be for the next four months. We were told important information in order to be able to succeed. When it comes to power and authority, the professor holds all of that. Although we have the choice on whether or not to do the work, the professor is the one who determines your grade with all the given assignments. When the semester first starts out, often it is difficult to figure out the “style” of the professor and know what exactly they are looking for. You want to adapt as much as you can to writing in the way they see fit so that you can get a good grade. We are all here to pass the class, right? Nobody should want to fail, therefore they do everything they can to please the professor with their assignments. Wardle also talks about one being able to expand in their involvement within the systems. In order to do this, we must consider that this expansion could force us away from other activity systems we value, such as family and friends (523). When it comes to this class, I feel like that statement holds true. I spend a lot of time each week working on a paper, blog, or other assignment in hopes that I get an A at the end; however this time spent takes away from spending quality time with others. The end of the semester seems like it will be the roughest since even more hours are to be spent observing a community. It also takes away from other classes and projects I am working on at the same time. Finals are coming up and I am hoping to have everything under control! This class has just proven to be extremely time consuming at the end of the spring term, and goes to help proving Wardle’s theory about different activity systems affecting one another.
Courtney Williams
ReplyDeleteENC 1101- OMo6
After reading James Paul Gee's "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction", I began to connect his ideas and beliefs he described throughout his article to a community that is currently a large impact on my life, Kappa Delta. Gee makes a statement that I can completely relate the membership I, and all members, hold a member of my sorority; "Discourses are ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, ad social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes." (591) He goes on to describe a Discourse (notice it is with a capital D) as an "identity kit". To me, Kappa Delta serves as a backbone to my college life, influencing me to reach my full potential. This sort of drive comes in a package. Although Kappa Delta consists of a diverse group of women, it entails the basic entities of a "lady" and promotes all members to integrate this into their lives in and away from KD. Gee goes onto say, "Discourses are not mastered by overt instruction, but by encultruration into social practices through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse." (592) At first, becoming a member of the Kappa Delta community, I was a little overwhelmed with its high expectations but as time went on I realized it was okay to make mistakes because there was support from older sisters and Alumnis to guide me through the process with advice from their own experiences. Gee defines primary Discourse as the way we interact with others through our original identity. Whereas, dominant Discourse entails the potential acquisition of social "goods" and non-dominant Discourse is Discourse that brings solidarity with a particular social network. Primary Discourse can be seen within my community when interacting with other members of Kappa Delta and even other members of other organizations within the Greek community. Dominant Discourse can also be seen within Kappa Delta through the job status's that council holds to regulate the flow of our community. This dominant Discourse is practiced within our chapter and with other chapters of the community. All in all, Kappa Delta serves as one of the most important Discourse communities in my life.
Orane Walters
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M03
According to the article of James Paul Gee, I can certainly relate to his ideas of Discourses which he describes as “saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations”. To begin, Gee states, “A Discourse is a sort of “identity kit” which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize.” Gee also proposes the idea that almost everyone has an initial socialization in our home community in which we use to make sense of the world; Gee calls this, a primary Discourse. A secondary Discourse however, Gee describes as a non-home-based social institution. In this case I would like to say that the University of Central Florida is my secondary Discourse community because I had much material to learn fluently, many assessments to complete before gaining admission, there are ways to act, talk and basically playing the role of a college student within the community. I was given access to this institution through hard work and as Gee states it, I am allowed enculturation (apprenticeship), within this specific Discourse community which in my opinion would be an undergraduate student. Gee further goes on to discuss dominant and non-dominant Discourses and the UCF community I am currently involved in would be a dominant Discourse due to the fact that mastery in such a Discourse community would bring “acquisition of social status and prestige”. An example of achieving mastery would be, for instance, accomplishing your freshman year with a 4.0 GPA and being admitted to the Dean’s list, in turn, raising your social status throughout the Discourse.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics” by James Paul Gee, I found myself agreeing with many things he discussed. He wrote, “a Discourse is a sort of “identity kit” which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize,” which I agree with. Being a soccer player (my “Discourse”), I have taken part in the soccer community for about ten years. I would say soccer is my identity, and like Gee says, we basically learn how to act, talk, and even write in this community. We have certain terms we use specifically for soccer, ones we say, write, and act on. Gee goes on to discuss primary and secondary discourse, with primary being our home-based sense of identity (one we initially use to make sense of our surroundings and world) and secondary being our non-home based interactions (such as with church or school communities). I would say the soccer community, specifically my team, is a secondary discourse for me, as it is “beyond the family and immediate kin and peer group.” According to Gee, secondary Discourse can be broken down into dominant Discourses and non-dominant Discourses. Dominant Discourses where the mastery brings with it the “acquisition of social goods” (i.e. money, prestige, status, etc.) while non-dominant Discourse mastery brings “solidarity with a particular social network, but not wide status and social goods in the society at large.” I would say the soccer community, specifically my team, is a non-dominant Discourse, as we don’t receive social goods or status as a whole, outside of the soccer community. I would say that for individuals like David Beckham or Mia Hamm, this is their secondary dominant Discourse, as they have gained social goods like money, prestige, and status in society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M04
Kevin T. Bhim
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-OMO4
In the reading of “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces” The author Elizabeth Wardle argues about the authoritarian way of how some institutions use this in their workplaces. In my community of where I work at, I am a supervisor of some of the toll collectors who work during the shifts I work at and always try my best to make sure that I am making the right decision when I am communicating with the other workers in my job. Most of the times there are other supervisors there with me and they might have better idea than what I have so they might make that authoritarian decision. Most of the Authoritarian decisions are made based on the way that they speak and if they speak it the right way then most of the other workers around you will respect you and know that what you say will help both sides who are in the situation. Overall this quote says all that an authoritative person would like to do “need not involve argumentation and may rest on the naked assertion that the identity of the speaker warrants acceptance of the speech”.
Even though the argument parts are not always prevented but there are ways that based on how the receiver gets the information will be the way of how successful the authoritarian figure will be in the future. The new information that can help guide me through this obstacle with being around these people is just to be who I can be and not try to overdo anything because that is when I might make a mistake and become like Alan. Alan was a part of the authoritarian argument because of the way he treated his partners and co-workers through e-mail and other communication methods that made them not like how he was. One bad habit that Alan did was boast a whole lot about himself to other people stating that he above everyone else but below the department chair and referring to the people as just nobodies. This is one way to lose respect right away from a job and that type of attitude regarding the power of authority helps me know that being a part of the higher power is not to boss people around all the time but to help them do the best job that they can possibly do to help gain a better ending outcome.
Since I have already mentioned several times that I am part of the Women’s Soccer Team of UCF , this is going to be the community I will deal with for this week’s blog. Additionally I will also consider the Leadership Council, which I have also described in earlier blogs, as a one of the community’s smaller components to therefore analyze the community referring to Wardle’s work “Identity, Authority and Learning to Write in New Workplaces”. Wardle’s argument is based on the importance of identity and authority concerning the successful enculturation into a new community and its relationship towards the ability of writing in new workplaces.
ReplyDeleteThe atmosphere within the Soccer Team is more laid-back and relaxed. Within this community the dominating writing genre is emails. Thankfully, as I first became a part of the community, I didn’t have to totally change my behavior or habits I was used to, since I straight away realized that this community was very similar to the Sports communities I was part of before. However, I did notice that the relationship to in particular the coaches, representing the community’s authority, did differ a little from what I was used to. The players are much closer to the coaches than in my earlier communities in which a, still very good but more distanced relationship was common. Having said that, this difference didn’t have any influence on the aspect of writing in new workplaces. The emails I write within the community are very similar or the same I used to write in other communities. The emails to the coaches or team members tend to be colloquial without any special formality. As every email should do, they set more value on the email’s intention or the information I want to receive through writing it. Supporting that, I think that I wouldn’t be taken seriously if I suddenly wrote formal letters or emails to any member of the team. This would definitely be inappropriate and wouldn’t emerge with the team’s imagination of written communication.
Being a freshman, I, as a starter in the team, was straight away given a decent portion of authority in my first game that I played for UCF. But through the election into the Leadership Council earlier this year, I was given even more authority, which actually exceeded the amount of authority I would have assigned myself for my first year of involvement. So considering the amount of authority, my imagination of authority was liable to the amount the community gave me. This difference however didn’t affect my relationship to the other members of the community negatively. It rather gave me more confidence to continue my engagement with the community. The election gave me the feeling that my actions were supported and appreciated by the other community members and therefore encouraged me to stay and act the way I had been before.
The question of identity is also relatively easy to answer. Everybody knows that playing a team sport always calls for team spirit and anti-egoisms. This means that I was very well aware of my position within the community as I entered it. I was just a player equal to everybody else, trying to work towards the achievement of the team’s aims. The image of my own identity therefore was completely identical with the identity the community members had designed for me. Going beyond this, even the playing position I was seeing myself in on the field was the same as the coaches saw me in.
ReplyDeleteSo in the end I can say that because my own and the previous community’s members’ imagination of identity and authority were almost identical, the enculturation into the new workplace was very easy. Also, my successful enculturation was based on the lack of rebellion on my side, shown through my willingness to interact with the members of the new workplace, and the openness to include me into their community being an equal part of it on the previous members’ side. Considering both these facts, it was, as said, very easy for me to adapt the new community’s values and therefore also the ability of writing in the new workplace didn’t illustrate any issue.
When I was playing hockey, I was never a very flashy player. I didn’t score highlight reel goals or make cute little moves. I was a crash and bang winger whose job was to pretty much hit everything in sight, go into the corners, and get the puck and myself to the front of the net. Not a very glorious job, but a vital one. Everyone always talks about “doing the little things” and letting the “big things” take care of themselves. That was the way I played. The only problem with having a role like that is you are expendable. Any dummy with a whole heart and half a brain could be doing the exact same job I did. That meant I could never have an off night, plus I had to bring something else to the table. I was a captain for two years on my team because I am a good guy to have in the room (guy on the team that keeps everyone in line, keeps spirits up, keeps order among the team).
ReplyDeleteI never thought of myself as a ‘tool’ but that is the way it seems after reading Wardles article. I always thought I had a certain authority and swagger that made me a valued commodity. Looking back on it now though, I see that I was very similar to Alan. I had a job to do, and that’s all they wanted from me. No more, no less. Just do the job you are assigned and that’s it.
I have recently become a member of The National Society of Collegiate Scholars. As a newcomer, I must learn to communicate in a way acceptable to others within NSCS’s Discourse. It is a bit frustrating to think that I have to adapt to the Discourse on my own, although I will be given guidance along the way. As Gee puts it, “…while you can overtly teach someone linguistics, a body of knowledge, you can’t teach them to be a linguist, that is, to use a Discourse.”
ReplyDeleteIn order to separate my ways of other Discourses from my ways of this Discourse I must be open to learn a new way of interaction. On the other hand, I have got to use the skills that I have attained from other Discourses to behave appropriately within this one. “Two Discourses can interfere with one another, like two languages; aspects of one Discourse can be transferred to another…” says Gee.
I have only been to an introductory meeting, so I do not have any friends in the community yet. The group seems to be lively and laid back, which gives me a welcomed feeling. This may allow me to ease into the particular Discourse smoothly. As long as I make sure not to make the mistake that Alan, of Werdle’s story, made, I think I will find my place within the community.
David Lipszyc
ENC1101-OMo6
Tara Gray
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-OM06
In Gee’s essay he talks about the different types of discourses, primary, secondary, dominant, and non-dominant. Everyone has their primary discourse of close friends and family, but everyone has a different secondary discourse. When comparing his theories to my own life I immediately think of my past place of employment, a country club, as my secondary discourse and my family as my primary discourse. I worked at the country club for two years and it became a big part of my life. I loved working there and I loved the people I work with, as time went on we all grew very close. Like Gee says in his work, you cannot teach somebody how to be part of a certain discourse, and that is certainly true about my experience working at the country club. When I first got the job, I had a week of training where the managers taught me as much as they could about the rules and regulations, types of communication between coworkers, and many other tips and tricks to succeed at work. The managers tried to teach me the discourse of the country club, but when I started working I did not immediately become part of the discourse. Sure I knew how I was supposed to do my job and what my responsibilities were, but I was not fluent in the discourse. As I worked there longer I became more and more part of the discourse at the country club. I learned all the inside tips and secrets on how to do my job even better and communicate with my coworkers and costumers better.
As for dominant and non-dominant discourses, my family and friends would be my non-dominate discourse. I am part of the group, but do not receive any “goods” from being part of the discourse. Being part of this primary discourse just brings me closer to my friends and family, but I do not receive anything materialistic from it. As for working at the country club, that would be my dominant discourse. I did not work at the country club because I wanted to get closer to the people that work there or just because I wanted to learn how to work there. I worked at the country club in order to get paid.
Peter Hoang
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-OMO3
According to Wardle, one must change his/her ways in order to fit in a community, to get a role or an identity, and maybe even some authority within the community. I can relate to this situation in my IM football team at UCF. Wardle explained that an identity in a community is like a role, what you do for the community or how to get involved. She also talked about authority. My definition of authority based on Wardle’s writing is the trust and leadership of an identity within a community. My role in the team is to be the wide receiver. Although I’m not the captain of my football team, I still have some authority over the group because I sometimes draw up offensive plays for the team and they usually go with my ideas. I would even set the play before the snap too, changing the route of either myself or the other wide receiver and letting the quarterback know of the changes. Since some of my plays go for positive yards while others go for negative, my teammate trust me in making more plays and I don’t see my authority declining for the team. Unlike Alan and his refusal to change in order to better his community, I’m willing to change my ways if it be beneficial for the football team. At the beginning of the season, I was also calling the defensive plays. I preferred playing man defense where every person would cover an eligible receiver over zone defense where everyone covered an area. As the season progressed I saw that we were giving up many touchdowns and losing in the process, so the whole team decided to try zone defense and I agreed to change into a zone defensive set for the team. Although we were still losing games, we were giving up fewer touchdowns as our defense improved. So even though I lost some authority to calling defensive plays, it was well worth it as the team defense got better. The way I’m involved and willing to change some things around in this team, I can easily say that we are improving and keep going forward.
Brittany Callarman
ReplyDeleteENC1101 - 0M04
In Gee's writings we've learned a few different things. First being, there are different kinds of discourses. Primary discourse is a type of discourse that we all share and have in common, for example, our families. Secondary discourses differ among everyone. Secondary discourses can differ from jobs, to activities, different communities, or even groups of friends. For me, my secondary discourse would have to be my job. Getting used to their community was a difficult task for me. I knew absolutely nothing about the product line, the services, or anything about the stylist. I got trained to use the computer system and that was about it. There was no possible way to get taught how to interact with clients, or make a friendship with your fellow employees. As time went on, I grew much stronger with my fellow employees and clientel. I learned more and more about the salon as a whole, and became much more confident. Gee makes it clear that you cannot teach somebody how to be part of a different discourse. Your body language, habbits, and mind will take over that adapting phase for you to convert into that certain discourse.
ENC 1101-0M04
ReplyDeleteDaniel Keegan
When reading Wardle’s article I feel like I could relate to everything he’s saying. One of the main points he makes is that before being completely involved in a community you must first learn to adapt to their type of discourse, and find a way to be a part of the community. Basically you have to try to find your own role within the community, and play that role. I’ve stated many times that I do MMA. I started MMA around a year ago which was a big change for me. I was a swimmer my whole life and I decided not to swim in college because I was sick of dedicating my life to it. I was eager to do a sport that was more physical.
MMA seemed to be the perfect fit for me. At first I did not fit in at all. I am very laid back, and a complete pacifist. The only thing I had in common with the people around me is I hated to lose. The fact I hated to lose helped me bond with my training partners, and help me gain their respect. A fighter’s discourse seemed very strange to me, and I heard many conversations that just didn’t make sense. Theirs so much lingo that goes with fighting and so many lingoes that go with every different style within fighting. After being within the community for a while I got use to it, and started to move up the food chain, and have a role within the community.
Part of why I love fighting so much is that it helped me really step outside of my comfort zone. It was something I thought I would have never done, and I feel like I’m a better person for it. Wardle talks about other activities, and how they can always affect each other and get in the way. I feel I do a great job in balancing this activity with other activities in my life. Although I must sacrifice a lot of things for MMA I still find time for school, my friends, and other activities. I can definitely see how one activity can influence your life in a huge way, but I believe a balance is essential. I also believe that you will be much happier if you can play a role within every community you belong to which also refers to one of Wardle’s main points.
By reading Gee’s I learned about the different between non-dominant and dominant discourses. Gee’s says that dominant discourses are secondary discourses, the mastery of which, at a particular place and time brings with it (potential) acquisition of social goods (money, prestige, status). Non-dominant discourses are secondary discourses the mastery of which often brings solidarity with a particular social network, but not wider status and social goods in the society at large.
ReplyDeleteWithin my discourse community of being a part of the UCF football program, I am a part of both groups dominant and non-dominant. Dominant because there is money, prestige and status associated with being a member of the football team. Money in turn of scholarship, prestige in terms of being on TV and status in terms of people knowing who you are. It is also non-dominant, being a member of the football team, because there is some solidary with the social network site. Being a member of the team you are followed on social media websites but it’s not as large as a top celebrity get followed. Both of these secondary discourses are a part of my discourse community of being a UCF football player.
For the purpose of this weeks blog I intend to make the following conclusion based on the prior weeks reading: I am part of the soccer community here at UCF and as a member of that community I would like to support many of the claims made by Mr. Gee. In the very beginning of last weeks reading Gee states “Discourses (and therefore literacies) are not like languages in one very important regard. Someone can speak English, but not fluently. However, someone cannot engage in a Discourse in a less than fully fluent manner. You are either in it or your not. Discourses are connected with displays of an identity: failing to fully display an identity is tantamount to announcing that you don’t have that identity, that at best you’re a pretender or a beginner”. (Glee 487) by making this statement Mr. Gee provides restrictions and restraints on what a discourse community can be and how to become part of one. This definition can be applied to almost every community, but for the sake of today’s argument id like to strictly apply this to definition to the UCF soccer community. Addressing the first part of Mr. Gee statement I think its clear that this certainly applies to the UCF soccer community. While many people/players think they are currently involved in the UCF soccer community, its clear to the real members that they aren’t. “Your either in it or not”. (Gee 487) this statement certainly defines this discourse community and the only judge can be the current members. For the purpose of this argument id like to recognize that there is certainly a difference from the skills of a “pretender” or “beginner” to that of a member of the UCF soccer community. I like to think of the UCF soccer community as group of advanced soccer players. The second half of the definition is the most applicable to the UCF soccer community and the easiest to defend. Failing to display the identity of a discourse community would result in the real members recognizing this and recognizing that you in fact are not apart of the UCF soccer community. This is the case of players who are bad at soccer. In reality the people/players who make an attempt to be part of this community, when in fact they aren’t and shouldn’t be only amplifies the fact that they are pretenders.
ReplyDeleteIf there is anything to pick up from James Paul Gees article on discourse it is his firm belief that you cannot “embody” a discourse. He states that you are either in the group or not recognized whatsoever. This can definitely be correlated to my choice of community to study which is my club swim team. As a swimmer I can make the connection between Gee’s theory and the swimming community quite easily. Being a member of a committed swim team means hard work and dedication all the time. You have to be an on point member at all times or no one will take you seriously, let alone respect you. You cannot just show up to practice and draft off the leaders of a lane. Every single set requires almost all of your effort. When in a sport as competitive as swimming, every second counts, so naturally we would get on the people who didn’t seem to try as hard. If one of us showed up to practice and just went through the motions, we wouldn’t show mercy. Most of the time we work as a team so when one of us is dragging it will bring the rest of us down. It’s essential to encourage one another to pick up the extra slack but like Gee’s theory, if someone is simply not putting in the effort, we won’t see them as a member of the group. The people who never lead lanes and just hang around the back to get lapped and cheat on a set do not fit in very well. The majority of us do more than show up, we come to improve. So when there is someone who likes to slack they will not be recognized as an avid member of our team. They’ll be out casted in our minds as well as our coaches as a less serious participant. After that, it is hard to work your way back onto the competitive team.
ReplyDeleteThe topic of interest I would like to discuss in Elizabeth Wardle’s article is the section on authority. She states that “Authority is bestowed by institutions, can be just as easily withdrawn by those institutions or its members...” There is also a reasonable way to connect this to the swimming community. During a new season for the swim team there is always an election for a different team captain. Leading the team through a competition gives one much authority over the other swimmers. There is a sense of responsibility that falls on the team captain. Just as stated in Wardle’s piece, the authority a team captain obtains is given to them by and institution which can relate to our coach. We, the members of the team, also has a say in who our new leader will be.
Kaitlyn Huber ENC 1101 OMo6
Madison King
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M04
In James Paul Gee’s essay on “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics,” I fully agree with his statement “It is not just what you say, but how you say it.” (483) I can relate this to my job back home where I work as a waitress in a retirement community’s fine dining room. It is improper to approach a table and say “What’s up ya’ll?! What can I get you guys to drink?” The more appropriate way to ask that same question is “Good evening ladies and gentlemen, what can I get you to drink tonight?” It’s a job that requires proper manners and semi-formal dress, unlike a Buffalo Wild Wings where it’s much more casual, and is okay to refer to people as “ya’ll”. Another point he brings up is “…not just how you say it, but what you are and do when you say it.” (483) Again, when using my job as an example, I may say the right thing, but I can’t lean up against a wall all casual-like while speaking to the members. I must maintain good posture because that is the respectful thing to do when in a higher class place.
As for primary Discourse and secondary Discourse, I would definitely consider my waitressing job as a secondary Discourse. Gee considers these as our “non-home-based social institutions” because they require a different Discourse compare to my primary discourse, which is my home or dorm. (485) My primary Discourse is a more relaxed environment where I feel like I can say anything, anyway and it not be judged. My job would also be considered a Dominant Discourse because it involves “social goods” like money. Gee brings up an important point that when learning Discourse, “You cannot overtly teach anyone a Discourse, in a classroom or anywhere else.” (484) Despite the fact that I had to go through two weeks of training to become a waitress, I had to teach myself the language of the kitchen, and sometimes even make up my own Discourse as I went along because elderly folks don’t have the patience to sit and wait as you write a novel for their meal order.
In "Identity, Author, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces" by Elizabeth Wardle I was able to relate a lot of what she addressed about authority with my job when I first started working there. I have worked at Jeremiah's Italian Ice for over a year now and have experienced a lot of similar things Wardle talks about. The article reads "While newcomers to a community normally experience a "grace period" for adopting community practices, it does not last forever and soon the neophyte must express her authority in her new community appropriately." (526) When I was first hired my "grace period" was considered the period in which I was training. During that time I was expected to start assimilating and learning the practices we used at work. I was on training for five days for six hour shifts and in this time I was taught certain lexis of the job as well as the authority of the different coworkers. However, after this grace period we are expected to be able to handle situations on our own and find our own authority.
ReplyDeleteWardle talks about how "Authority is bestowed by institutions, can be just as easily withdrawn by those same institutions or its members, and must be maintained through appropriate expressions of authority." (526) This is very evident at my work. Recently I have been promoted from server to supervisor where my role in the story has completely changed. As server I am only expected to carry out duties such as satisfying customer service, stocking all of the materials, and cleaning the store. However, now that I am supervisor I'm expected to take care of any problems, handle the registers, count the money, make sure we have ordered any items we are low on, and ensure each employee is carrying out their duties successfully. Though I am acclimating well, another coworker of mine who was being trained to be a supervisor, was recently demoted. Much like Alan, he was unable to perform the tasks expected of him and wasn't able to respond to needs the way the other employees needed. "Alan's lack of audience awareness and tailoring had negative consequences for his identity in the department." (529) This explains the situation very well; had he been more aware of our other coworkers needs he could've assimilated into the situation better, however he took advantage of his identity and made enemies versus allies.
Connor Waugh
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M04
When I read through Elizabeth Wardle’s theory of Identity and Authority, I was reminded of many different instances in the organization SCUBAnauts International that closely resembled what she was getting across in her essay. One case, or person, in particular stood out. Let’s call him Steve. Steve has, since first starting in the organization at the age of 14, had an opinion about his own identity and authority that has never quite matched up with how SCUBAnauts International saw him. The organization saw him as a new, younger member who was to be taught and follow guidelines that members above him in rank and experience as well as adult leaders with authority had set for him to follow. He, however, has always viewed himself as above these rules and guidelines, constantly starting unwanted and unnecessary disturbances within the group. Steve uses language that he believes he has the right to use in order to undermine those with more experience and the adult leaders of the group. Unfortunately, Steve cannot be fired from his position, however, his actions has caused him to be put on probation from the group twice, but has yet to result in being kicked out completely. While reading about Alan, I saw very distinct similarities between the two. Both Alan and Steve managed to make the jobs necessary for the roles they were/are in more difficult due to their own actions and how they view themselves and others.
I was also reminded of a new scientist in charge that recently stepped in to assist SCUBAnauts. I’ll call her Cathy. Cathy, being new, learned from veterans of the organization about her position and what was expected of her. She earned everyone’s respect for her authority through the examples set in place by previous scientific leaders and by taking into account what the leaders of the organization laid out as guidelines for her role. As opposed to Steve, who still to this day has the wrong idea of his identity in the group, Cathy has managed to seamlessly meld into the group and the group has grown from her contribution. I believe that Wardle was spot on with her theory that one’s view of their identity and authority in a community really does determine how you fit into a discourse community.
Kelly Costa
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 OMO4
Blog Post 10
As I read “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics” by James Paul Gee I very much can relate to his point about “identity kits” (Gee 484). And how they have their own “costumes and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write,” (Gee 484). I was a cheerleader for 13 years and so it became what I knew best. As cheerleaders we have our own way of talking because we use different terms for things. And no we do not say “Omg like I broke a nail.” We use our talking and terms to mostly motivate each other or the team we are cheering for. We also have our own team colors and uniform, which is our form of a costume, and a way to identify who we are and what gym we are from. Once we put on those uniforms we are no longer individuals, but a part of a team.
My family is a big part of my life and they are the most important thing to me. So when Gee started discussing primary Discourses my first thought was about my family and my home that I have lived in since I was a baby. My family is who primarily helps me “make sense of the world and interact with others” (Gee 485). When I have a problem with someone at school I always go to my family first. As he goes into secondary Discourses it was cheerleading that was my home away from home; a place where I could leave it all behind and throw people in the air. When I had a bad grade in school or my family was fighting and I could not go to them to help me relax, cheerleading always had my back. I know that sounds silly but I find comfort in the loud crazy music, having people fall on me, and my coach making us do it “full out” over and over again. By the way “full out” means doing everything like you are at competition. Cheerleading is a non-dominant discourse for me because although we would win competitions, I never personally got any money or prestige from it. Girls who cheer professionally, like NFL cheerleaders, it would be a dominant discourse since they are getting paid.
Alfredo Jaime Vega
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M04
Using Gee's first theory, the anime subculture would be better explained. For example, the first theorem: "discourses are not like languages… … regard" (Page 487) Any culture can not be condensed to the point where it could be taught as a science, a pedagogical method that continues to destroy the purpose of teaching discourse. Like Gee, I believe in the influence of outside factors that make up a discourse more than speech and writing. Example, rather than trying to decipher content of a discourse community that is either being spoken or written, the context within the writings and speech must be understood and defined; context itself (being in the place at the time, conversation, etc) can not be taught from a book.
Any average person can know about television shows, what they are, their purpose, however as general as these things are, it becomes more complicated as unfamiliar actions within a show arise. A question like "why on earth did this chick turn into a giant and why is she stomping the shit out of her male womanizing friend as a giant while the friend appears to be human head on an insect body?" A person could speculate so many ways but there would be only one correct answer for this discourse community. It is rather vague when first witnessed. When presented with this, what would a person do? Go to the nearest library and find a grand encyclopedia explaining the intimate details of over-exaggeration, so you can understand that one scene and maybe leave off the mainstream group to join the geeks and talk about it? A person could but would probably be shunned by the group due to research that resulted in your knowledge of over-exaggeration as a whole, all shows included, rather than understanding the specific context of over-exaggeration within anime.
The literature (should it exist, but with the mega pools of info in the internet it probably does) only provides the tools to dissect the discourse community itself, not the actual dissection. It's like learning a language, you might learn how to properly speak the language in academic context but how would you then attempt to communicate with the lower class and their forms of vernacular? The real learning occurs within immersion, like going to that neighborhood, associate specific words with certain emotions. In the case of shows in the first paragraph, the immersion would be watching a few anime series. A person would then find many similarities between their primary discourse community (let it be drama shows) and the secondary, unfamiliar, discourse community (anime shows). In execution, regardless of what genre, let's state that shows in general have a tendency to over-exaggerate certain aspects of their performance.
With this similarity, use it to find out what's the difference between the two communities and how to use that similarity as a bridge between the "not knowing anything" period to mastery. Say you are an avid drama watcher. You will understand that drama enjoys exaggerating certain aspects of performance. After immersing yourself with anime, you will find that both enjoy exaggerating emotional performances, however you will find the context and purpose from execution of the emotional performances to be incredibly different. After a little studying and a couple shows, a person will find that their primary community, drama, exaggerates its emotional elements primarily for the context of a realistic character's personal development, where as in anime, that unfamiliar second, it would take its emotional elements (such as anger) and manipulate them mostly for the context of comedic relief. Using this tool of immersion, I brought myself closer to mastery and becoming an "insider" because I immersed myself within that community and understood something completely directly from the community instead of sitting at a desk and read a stranger's testimonial as a way of mastery.
Allison Serafine
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M06
On a daily basis we come in contact with multiple discourse communities. We spend an hour in one class, another hour in another class, and then some go to work and some go out with friends. Each of these communities has very distinct communication patterns, and none of them are the same. But as Wardle says, the only way to be truly skilled in the art of communication of one of these communities is to be actively and consistently involved in it. Therefore, the discourse community of a classroom may not be all too credible of a skill set in a student who is only halfway paying attention and just hoping the semester flies by, but that same person may be excellently skilled in how to gain the attention of his friends in the social scene and know how to distinguish “acceptable” forms of communication in that community. I consider my work environment at Walt Disney World a discourse community I am “fluently skilled” in and I definitely think that Wardle speaks truth about this community.
Wardle’s main point is that in order to be well skilled in acceptable communication of a community one must be submersed in it and actively involved. This certainly applies to my life a “Cast Member” in the Disney Parks. Although, according to Gee, Disney is a secondary community, and a non-dominant one at that, I quickly learned that there are certain status quos that are not to be broken and there are different ways that employees talk, and after working upwards of 30 hours per week for the past two years I have only become more adept to the whole community. There is a distinct difference when talking to the managers and bosses and when talking to fellow cast members in an “off-set break room”. When talking to managers there is an expectation to be formal and respectful, but know that they are a peer and it is unnecessary to fully cloak your personality in formalities. For example when I email in order to inquire about upcoming role procedure I enlist formal writing skills and do not use slang of any kind, even though I know that they aren’t intimidating and I will most likely get an abbreviated response. And then when I am conversing with fellow employees in a break room the setting is very laid back, any kind of language is acceptable, which tends to be as informal as it gets, and we tend to find common ground on complaining about how our days are going. As negative as that may seem it is a sure way to guarantee that you have that in common, the overall disdain of being at work. Not all conversations are negative but if in doubt on how to connect to the people you will be stuck with for the next 10 hours it is an easy way to spark conversation.
I have learned many “skills” of communication within my discourse community at the Walt Disney World Resort and I’m will continue to do so. Wardle is spot on when discussing the idea that one cannot fully be successful I blending into a discourse community, especially a work community, without being active and continuously involved in it.
Matt Concelmo
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-OM06
Blog 10
Elizabeth Wardle’s writing explains the affect identity and authority issues have on the process of assimilation into a new discourse community. She gives details from various theories to back up her argument. Wardle mentions David Russell’s Activity Theory, which states that new genres arise when entering a discourse community. This is relevant to me because this is my first year in college at a completely new city. I was introduced to a bevy of new genres, such as Web Course and Knights Email, and was expected to complete the tasks that followed the new genres.
Wardle also mentions another theory by Etienne Wegner. She describes that for newcomers to find their own identity, they must find modes of belonging. She describes three “interrelated modes of belonging”: engagement, imagination, and alignment. Engagement involves the interaction that the newcomer has with the oldtimers, or experts, and how different interaction trajectories are what ultimately form identities. Imagination creates a sense of belonging within the community, and can inversely cause disconnect if newcomers lose touch with the reality. Alignment describes the final stage in the process by “finding common ground” within the members of the community.
Being a freshman at the University definitely gives me the label as a “newcomer” in my situation. Wegner’s theory of communities of practice can be used to describe my enculturation into the new community. To find and shape identities within the community, engagement with experts and I must occur. These experts can be older students, or professors. Once identities are established, imagination used to see a certain goal. Defining what direction I want to peruse while in college, and connecting this to an “extended identity” is a positive instance of imagination. Finally, as my third semester quickly draws to a close, I am starting to find a common ground between members of the University and I. This alignment is necessary to achieve enculturation.
Justin Kennedy
ReplyDeleteENC 1101 Mo3
In Gee’s article he explains and describes the different types of discourses in a community, the two types being primary and secondary. It is said that everyone is included into a primary type of discourse community, which in almost every case would be someone through their family or a wolf through its wolf pack. The other type of discourse would secondary which could include being a part of a sports team, work place, school and so forth. I have my primary discourse community being my family and my two secondary discourse communities being my work pace and UCF for my studies.
Within secondary discourse there are also sub-categories; dominant which can lead to wealth and a higher stature like a job and non-dominant is group with people tied together with common interest and common form of communication. So my dominant type of secondary would be my job at the Swan and Dolphin hotel and my non-dominant could be being involved at a gym either at UCF or Gold’s. With my job at the hotel I gain a sliver of wealth and at the same time being able to move up in rank. At the gym I am sharing common interests with other people there for a life style of fitness. Gee’s article I feel explained the aspects of discourse communities in better ways than the others.
Ashlynn Allums
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M04
After reading James Paul Gee’s “literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction,” I immediately connected it to my experience as a member of Pi Beta Phi. I would say that it has been my secondary discourse here at UCF. Gee states, “Discourses are not like languages in one very important regard. Someone can speak English, but not fluently. However someone cannot engage in a Discourse in a less than fully fluent manner. You are either in it or you’re not.” Being a member of a sorority I can fully comprehend that you get what you put into something. Lot of people see Greek life as people “paying for their friends.” And one reason why I even joined a sorority was to get involved not only with UCF, but volunteer outside. And I saw Pi Phi as a way to get involved with kids, knowing their philanthropy is literacy. Many volunteer opportunities have been presented to me in things that I am truly interested in. Gee also states that “Discourses are connected with displays of identity.” This is connected to the first part. Throughout the course of this year Pi Phi has been my foothold on the campus. I’ve learned a lot through older sisters and alumni’s experiences. We as members of a particular community, learn how to act and mold ourselves around this discourse. Early in the fall I was a new member and learned the values and beliefs of Pi Phi. I started adopting these as my own and one important aspect is to take these values and live them outside of this organization.
Vivienne Do
ReplyDeleteENC-1101-0M04
According to Gee’s article reading, ‘’Discourse’’ can be defined as a type of identity you associate with. There are many forms of discourse, your original discourse community falls within the boundaries of your native home. For example, if you are Japanese, than you would probably have Japanese cultural values that differ from American values. Such as: American lookout of the elderly is to put them into a nursery home after they cannot take care of themselves. Japanese families would never leave their parents at a nursery home, in fact, people will look down upon you if you do! Parents are suppose to be taken care of by one of their children or with another family member. I am not suggesting one of the latter is better than the other, but this view is just dependant on your original discourse community. Gee also goes into a second type of discourse community which is one you associate with, but you can never become a native of (because you never grew up with them.) There’s a dominant discourse, as well as a non-dominant discourse. As for me, I would consider my job a secondary discourse community.. one that is somewhat non-dominant as well as dominant. I work at a Japanese family owned restaurant, and as Gee states you cannot simply ‘’embody’’ a culture if you were not brought up with it. I was the only non-Japanese person working there, so getting used to the cultural values and language took a bit of time. Even though I can associate myself as being part of the staff and loyal worker there; I cannot become one with the community because lack of communication. Just like when people go outside, they usually will lean towards people who are the same race as them. Gee gives an example about two different woman trying to apply for the same job; and how their communication will affect the overall turnout on who is placed. This leads true for everywhere we go, we must adapt to the discourse community and speak their lexis in order to prove we are somewhat capable of becoming like them. My males always question why they cannot get women, yet many fail to realize it’s simply because they cannot understand women. For my non-dominant discourse, University of Central Florida, I have to adapt my studies and writing habits according to each course I am taking. For example, in Political Science, when writing a paper I do not ever stray from the topic.. it’s more of an subjective type of course. In comparison to English composition, I have more willy room to express my personal opinions.
In Gee's essay "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics" he stated that there is a primary discourse and many secondary discoures. I believe that in my life my secondary discourse is UCF within itself. Transitioning from high school to college was pretty crazy. I had to learn certain jargon that was specific to college, like "credit hours", "Gen Ed" classes, etc. During my summer orientation, I was becoming more familiar with the terms I would be using as a Knight. Some of these include Late Knights, Knight Library, Link Loot etc. If I didn't come to this university, these these terms would not become a part of my everyday vocabulary. I also had to get acquainted with the level of work demanded from my professors. I realized that to be a part of this community that is UCF, I must stay involved in my classes, take advantage of the resources they offer, and get involved with certain groups that I'm interested. I am adopting the UCF traditions into my own life and becoming the best student I can be.
ReplyDeleteAasim Bhimani
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M03
Using Gee’s analysis of discourse, I will analyze the basketball team I am a part of. Gee describes many different types of discourses which eventually shape who we are. Those discourses include a primary or secondary discourse, which can then be broken down into a dominant and then non dominant discourses. Being part of any amateur sports team is considered a non-dominant secondary discourse. Being on an amateur team usually doesn’t garner a big pay out or fame, but it does bring that team closer together as a group. As a team that is not sponsored or part of an official league, we don’t have the assets that order teams would, so as Gee would say, we had to ‘mushfake’. We practice on public courts with people using most of them; we make our own jerseys by hand and have our own tournaments with other teams in the area. Gee’s description of discourses is one that makes the most sense to me. He describes them very well and provides insight into it
During the course of a day we interact with many different discourse communities. Some of these may include classes we are enrolled in, social friend settings and even work. It is quite obvious that each one of these communities contain their own specific language and communication patterns. In Wardle’s writing explains the effect that identity and authority issues have on blending into a new discourse community. She uses theories used from other people in order to support her argument. For example, David Russell’s activity theory states that genres arise when entering a discourse community. This became relevant in my life when I became a student at UCF. This was a completely new discourse community for me to be a part of, and I needed to learn everything! I was not only presented with genres of knights email but web courses and myucf website, to name a few. This was quite overwhelming because along with moving to a new city, I needed to master and use all of these new genres in which I was introduced to.
ReplyDeleteWardle also mentions Wenger’s three modes of belonging; engagement, imagination and alignment. Engagement refers to the interaction of both new comers and old-timers to work toward a common goal and build relationships. This is present in my life today because as a freshman at UCF, everyone is an old-timer compared to me. I have tried to engage in extra curricular activities and interact with those who are older than I am, and view them as mentors. Imagination is when the new comer expands one’s mind in order to extend identity. Imagination can lead to a positive mode of belonging because you are actually coming up with ideas to influence the discourse community that you are present in. Alignment is the final step in belonging. This is when the common ground is found between the new comers and old-timers. Alignment could be bad in a sense that the individual loses their identity in order to belong as a whole.
Wenger’s theory also says that in order to truly belong in a community one must fully participate. This describes my experience with being a freshman at UCF I have learned this first hand with my experience. I started off my first semester at UCF and was not active in any extra curricular’s; I went to school and work and went home. I began to hate it here, until I forced myself to get involved. It is necessary in order to form your own identity and engage with experts (other students professors advisors ect) once the identity is established it is crucial to imagine a goal for yourself/community. The only thing that I really need to work on is how to find a common ground between my school and myself as an individual.
Emily Nakis
ReplyDeleteENC 1101
While reading Elizabeth Wardle’s “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces” I found that I was really able to relate. Wardle disputes how authoritarian is used in a number of workplaces, and the effects different authoritarians have. I believed that I related to this because of my place of work. I am a swim instructor, and as an experienced instructor I have gained a lot of responsibility. I am responsible for my students as well as coworkers who work under my authority at individual pool. I have had this job for the past two years and have just been promoted to a head coach. As a head coach, I have my own pool, as well as several students who are all under my supervision while at my pool, whether I am their instructor or not. Throughout my two years working here, I have picked up on different techniques used by my higher authorities that gained them respect. I have begun to pick up that the best way to operate a work place is to avoid argumentation at all cost. This does not mean to dismiss any issues that are being called to your attention. It means to handle every situation you face with the utmost importance and respect. This will show that you take everyone seriously and do what’s in your power to make the best effort to help you can.
As an authoritive figure, it is important to remember that you may not always have the best solution, and sometimes it is better to swallow your pride and seek help. Although at the one may feel as if they have given up, but what it really shows is that this person knows that more can be done that they would unable to produce alone. I think that this is one way that respect is gained from higher authority. Unlike Alan, who spent a good amount of time talking himself up, as well as disrespecting coworkers through different forms of communication. This type of behavior in the workplace is unacceptable, by acting this way Alan not only made himself look foolish, but because he was an employee he represented his workplace through a negative way.
Going back to places of authority in a workplace, it needs to be understood that having authority is not a license to do as one pleases, but is a title given to a worker because they are seen as a person with good values and has a good understanding for what his or her workplace is about. Successful authorities are ones that view themselves as equals, meaning that they do their fair share of work, in addition to answering to higher people for more work than just theirs. A way in which a worker of authority would be able to see this get done is by showing respect and valuing their workers, after that is done he or she will be given respect back.
Gabriela Lozada
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M03
I found myself relating very much to this week’s reading: Elizabeth Wardle’s , “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces”. I currently work two jobs, which makes being a part of any clubs/sports teams incredibly difficult. I am therefore choosing one of my workplaces as the community I would like to discuss (I am a server at a local restaurant). The claim that rang truest to me and my life was her assertion in the section dedicated to identity, “We must also consider whether expanding involvement in one system forces us away from other activity systems we value—away from “activity systems of family, neighborhood, and friends that construct ethnic, racial, gender, and class identities.”” (523) I really believe she is on to something very significant here. My involvement at work and the hours I spend there, certainly take a toll on all of the other important aspects of my life. If I didn’t work as many hours as I do, I would without a doubt join a club to further my involvement in school. Work also really affects my interactions with the people I care about most. I’m not able to spend as much time as I’d like with my girlfriends and I don’t have the time to talk to my family like I used to when I was unemployed. This definitely affects me in a negative manner because my responsibilities (making sure bills are paid) conflict with the things I value and cherish most—my friends and family.
Moreover, in “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics”, James Paul Gee addressed that a “Discourse is a sort of identity kit which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk and often write…” (484). I whole heartedly agree with this claim because when I was first hired, I was given a handbook that clearly stated what was expected of me. It described what I am supposed to look like when I come in to work, rules I need to follow, how I am supposed to interact and communicate with the customers, etc. There have been plenty of girls let go at my job because they use up their “grace period” (526)—the time in which they’re “allowed” to make mistakes as new employees. I currently am still employed at this restaurant because I have been able to follow the guidelines given to me and as a result have been able to fully enculturate myself in to the community.
Brandon VanLandingham
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-OM06
Gee states that there are 2 different types of secondary discourses primary and secondary I will give an example of each from my life and I will explain why I think they fall into the category. For a secondary discourse that is dominant I would say my life in L.E.A.R.N. (Learning Environment and Academic Research Network) would be a secondary dominant discourse. The reason I believe it is a secondary dominant discourse is because even thought I wouldn’t say it brings me prestige it does bring me wealth and a higher status than I had before being in it. This is why I believe it is a secondary discourse dominant.
For my secondary discourse non-dominant it would be my research lab. The reason I believe my research lab would be a secondary discourse because it doesn’t bring me any higher status or wealth but it does allow me to be accepted into the community of biology. Also because I’m part of the lab I am able to communicate within the network of the biology field as a researcher. That is the reason why my research lab is a secondary discourse non-dominant.
In Gee’s writing “Literacy, Discourses and Linguistics”, he states that "Discourse always involves more than writing and reading. You cannot teach anyone to write or read outside any discourse. Within a Discourse, you are always teaching more than writing and reading.” (Page 488, Paragraph 3) Within the Discourse that I haven chose, the Chabad Jewish Student Group, it shows that this organization is there for the purpose of teaching and practicing a religion, however, that doesn’t mean it’s done strictly by “reading and writing ways.” The ways of communication in every Discourse varies depending on their purpose and type of community. This community communicates different messages through teachings within the Torah and other means of the religion. This community is one of several different teaching forms, such as a variety of classes, services, trips, seminars, etc., which each involve the teachings and lessons of Judaism. This shows that a discourse community is not solely based on basic teachings of a religion, but it’s about delving into an idea and discovering those ideas through various activities. This group is one that exemplifies the teachings of Judaism through different means of teaching that are necessarily basic, proving that it is a true Discourse.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading James Paul Gee’s Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics, I was able to find make connections with his statements and my new job. I was recently employed and began working at Hollister at the Altamonte Mall. The first connection I made was when Gee stated, “A Discourse is a sort of ‘identity kit’ which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize.” I believe this holds true for my new work environment and that my new work community is now a part of my identity. When making casual conversation with a person I have not met before, I may state that I am a new employee of Hollister, making it a characteristic of myself, therefore being a part of my identity as a person. In this community, there are certain terms we use and specific instructions on how to speak and act. For example, we use the words “model” and “impact” to describe various roles in the Hollister work environment. We are also instructed on specific ways we should act and speak, depending on the situation and circumstances. Gee continues to speak about how there is primary Discourse, in which “we first use to make sense of the world and interact with others,” and then there are secondary Discourses, in which “each of us interacts with various non-home-based social institutions.” From this, I can gather that my job at Hollister is a secondary Discourse. Secondary Discourses are then divided into dominant Discourses and non-dominant Discourses. Dominant Discourses bring acquisition of social “goods” while non-dominant Discourses bring solidarity. Therefore, my job at Hollister would be a dominant Discourse, as it brings me wealth and status.
ReplyDeleteThe author I most relate to is Gee, because it tied directly into a sporting team I was just on. I played soccer for school on the rec team and did not know a single other player before I started to play. I believe that this team was a secondary non-dominant discourse. This is because we were not forced to be there we each did it for fun and not for any reimbursement. The other reason is because I felt more accepted by the school community as a whole for being part of this team. The way that this opened up my friends and other connections was great and threw these friends I am able to enjoy more of the game I love to play.
ReplyDeleteI was also in an organization that helped tutor children with autism and feel like this was a secondary primary discourse because I was not gaining money I was getting something other than monetary incentives for my work. The greatest payment is the one that makes you happy and that is not always money.
Amanda Cramer
ReplyDeleteENC1101-OMO4
In Wardle’s work, she states that “expanding involvement in one system forces us away from other activity systems we value- away from “activity systems of family, neighborhood, and friends that construct ethnic, racial, gender, and class identities””. Looking back upon my experiences within the Art club I joined on campus, it has come to my realization that being a part of it has allowed me to progress from my past experiences and believes to further myself within the group. Something that becomes apparent within the group is that you’re being exposed to different types of people, all mended together within one group just by their love and desire to create. As I become more involved within the art community, my energy is refocused into my participation and exploration within the group.
Wardle also describes an individual’s participation within the group as a means to find where they belong within it. To “find a unique identity” within this group, I had to test my limits as a new participant. That meant that I would have to speak up of my opinions often, intently listen to speakers, and actively portray my interest in the actions of the group. Being an active member allows an individual like myself to rise from the bottom of the chain to the middle ground, and allows opportunities to arise in which the individual can take on authority positions or positions of responsibility.
Another element of experiencing a new discourse groups would be the ability to compromise. An individual must find “common grounds” and widen their aspirations to fit that of the group. It’s important to keep an open mind when communicating with a group that has a similar interest but differentiating perspectives. Throughout my experiences within this group, I have come to the conclusion that being understanding and accepting of the ideas of others allows individuals to come to compromise when decisions for the group must be made (for example, for activities we host as a group, or art sales that we wish to initiate).
In James Paul Gee's Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics I was able to relate one of Gee's statements to my community in band. "When we have really mastered anything, we have little or no conscious awareness of it." Although I am not perfect at music and marching band, I do not think much about it while performing. Once you get used to something you do not have to think about it as much. This is where Gee talks about "metaknowledge". He also goes on to say "when we come across a situation where we are unable to accommodate or adapt we become consciously aware of what we are trying to do or are being called upon to do." For example, in my community when we had to learn a new song and new marching routine it totally threw everyone off. This brought back our "consciousness" and we were aware of what we were learning. But of course it eventually became a second language and me and my peers no longer had to think about it. All in all, having more experience and changing things up can better able me to become a better musician, according to Gee.
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M03
ReplyDeleteI can relate to James Gee’s writing about multiple types of discourses with being a member of the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity. Gee states that primary discourse is through family, which is the same for all. But the difference is everyone’s secondary discourses are different. My difference from most others is that my secondary discourse is being a member of ZBT. This is a secondary discourse because I had to become a brother through our new member education; I had to be accepted into the fraternity. Next Gee goes on to say that there are two sub-sections that secondary discourses can be. Either they are a dominant or non-dominant bringing wealth and high status or only solidarity for the group. Zeta Beta Tau for me is a dominant secondary because the brotherhood that is created, bonds and networking possibilities can help me achieve a high status in a great ob later in life, which would bring wealth. Then there is also the wealth that the fraternity gives me in brotherhood and memories that I will carry with me forever. According to Gee each members primary and secondary discourses can be shared or rubbed off on one another. Now, because our secondary discourses can all be ZBT then we all have the same there. The differences come in our primary discourse because we are such a large and diversified group that everyone has something different. All of the member can bring their own special quality or knowledge to the table and help us all better our selves. I think in this respect it is much better that our primary discourses are so different from each other’s. We can build on each other’s pasts and become better as an entire organization and individually as people.
ENC 1101-oMo3
ReplyDeleteThe discourse community I am studying is my job as a cook at Universal. While reading Wardle's article "Identity, Authority, and Learning to Work in New Workplaces" I was able to see many common characteristics between what I have noticed and what she discusses in her article. I usually work around 30 hours a week and I have definitely noticed since I have gotten the job that I am certainly in a time crunch. Everything that I usually would like to do has to be either put off or forgotten because I simply do not have the time for it and Wardle explains that when we devote a lot of time to one activity, we are taking time away from others and that is completely true. Making sure that everything is done and accomplished buy the beginning of the month has certainly put a strain on my once very easy life. I have had to pick up many responsibilities over this short span of time and it has also led me to rethink my priorities, which is something that was very tough for me to do considering I am only 19 and was not ready for such a thing when it hit me. Working in a discourse community that takes up a lot of one's time can be exhausting but it can be taken in strides.
Gee's theories opened my eyes to the different types of discourses and the roles that we play in each one. Since a person cannot be taught a discourse, it is something that we all learn through experience. Our primary discourses are the main ones that shape the way we become a part of a group and interact in certain settings. "Its not what you say, but how you say it" is extremely true in each discourse we are a part of.
ReplyDeleteMy first job was working at Burger King and it was definitely a secondary discourse for me. When talking to customers over the drive-thru, I had to be jovial and patient with them. Customers inside were still dealt with patience, but I was less energetic and more laid back. My interaction with co-workers and most of my managers was extremely laid back and unprofessional. Around the corporate managers I was always walking on egg shells and being the best I could be and more.
Khondaker Rahman
ReplyDeleteENC 1101-0M06
According to James Paul Gee's "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics", there are 2 forms of Discourse that we must categorize ourselves in to find identity: Primary Discourse and Secondary Discourse. Primary Discourse is the Discourse we use to make sense of the world and interact with our intimates. This usually occurs with family, close friends, or small groups, etc. In my case, this would mostly be my family and 2 close friends that I usually interact with the most, making them my primary Discourse. The secondary Discourse Gee describes as groups that are out side of family, close friends or small groups, etc. They are usually consists of "local stores and churches, schools, community groups, state and national businesses, agencies and organizations, and so forth."(485) My secondary Discourse currently is UCF but I was more involved in high school. I was part of Mu Alpha Theta and Beta Club for which I usually fulfilled small roles but nonetheless was involved in. Gee also describes 2 branches in secondary Discourse that has different outcomes: dominant Discourse and nondominant Discourse. Dominant Discourse is resulted if the secondary Discourse is mastered and you can gain wealth and status. I fall in this category because my goal is to master my major to gain wealth and status. Nondominant Discourse is when a discourse is masted to reach solidarity which is not my goal.
Chris Arizmendi
ReplyDeleteENC1101-omo3
I agreed with a lot said in, “Literacy, discourse, and linguistics.” James Paul Gee argued of the type of Discourse that shows people how to talk and identify the role in pleasing its audience. The type of community I chose to join and analyze was a community I have been in for almost a year. This community is my work place and is known as Amici’s. I honestly love to work, make money, and please customers/other people. Certain terms are used in the restaurant business between the cooks to the waiters to the bus boys (Which I am a bus boy). Paul Gee talks of primary and secondary discourses based on primary places like our home to secondary places like non-living based communities. My work place is seen as a secondary discourse in James Paul Gee’s eye because this community is based off of a non living area. I also see this as a dominant discourse in which money, prestige, and status is the main focus of this community. All of these agree with Paul Gee’s discourse argument/thesis. In this dominant secondary discourse, everyone tries to earn money, higher status/prestige, in a non loving area. James Paul Gee actually describes the two types of discourses (Primary/secondary) and dominant or not dominant. The restaurant business is seen as a secondary discourse due to the fact someone is not always open or available to the access of this community. Also, the community is seen as dominant because this community is used to gain money and power.
Colby Maynard
ReplyDeleteEnc 1101 - 0M04
From about my freshman year in high school to the beginning of my junior year, I was involved in a punk/somewhat hardcore rock band. I played the lead guitar with three relatively close friends and only started playing cover songs with them before we started making our own stuff. When we started to make our own songs, music and lyrics, that's when things got a bit hectic. As one guitar player in a four person band, it's a little iffy trying to get what you want. Even though we chose to agree with our singer for most things, we all wanted our own little twist on things. This part of belonging to something such as a band can completely relate to Wardle's Modes of Belongings in her article.
In Wardle's Modes of Belongings, Alan was the new guy at work that didnt have much of a say in his new workplace. I didnt feel new to my band but i did feel as if i didnt have the authority that i felt i couldve had. I was able to be imaginative and let loose of my thoughts to my friends in the band. As i was well engaged into my band and our music, i felt like i was being a bit aggressive along the lines of putting my input in. Belonging to something has a set of rules and characteristics. You need to input your thoughts and methods along with work together as a whole.
I've seen a running theme in literature, philosophy, and our culture as a whole, which is the perception of duality. In Gee's writing, he speaks of dichotomies in experience, primary and secondary, dominant and the non. My first instinct was to deny this, as it is to deny anything so clear cut without an allowance for a spectrum. However I see my life fits it quite aptly, especially as a child. I had home, my primary, and school, my secondary. I was not, and still flounder at being, part of any community. My way of life was for all intents and purposes dual, home and school being as day and night, the long commute of arching bridges over opulent waterways contributed to this idea (I thought of the arch of the bridge as the arced movement of the sun ans moon to begin and end their respective times).
ReplyDeleteI had two respective identity kits as well, all the markings and words of the ingroups, that I'll use a lovely term I heard to describe it, code switching. I knew at home to be quiet and clean, as I knew at school to be where I was told, and to do as I was told as well. Yet, I was never really part of these communities as well; I knew the code, but there had been a breakdown somewhere, for I hadn't the visceral urge to follow it. I knew the rules of these places; I understood them. But I did not comprehend. Another mirror to Gee's piece, in not being "in", there is an invisibility. One I came to relish, as the only time I didn't have to remind myself to be human was when the other ones paid no attention to me. Groups, communities, are important to us as a species, inherent in our nature; and yet, the times I feel most real is when I abstain from them completely.