I’ll begin by discussing the Gee perspectives I agree with, since it’s a much shorter list. The points of contention I have will come in waves over the next few days.
First, I agree that meaning is constructed and negotiated, at least to some extent, and I believe this is the central theme of Social Linguistics and Literacies. It does take two parties to communicate a meaning, and that meaning is always dependent on the participants. I’ll discuss the limitations of this theory in a later post. American Standard English is also an arbitrary standard, and as long as communication is achieved, there is no intrinsic force that dictates that any one form is better than another. Whether practical reality conforms to this is another question.
I found the idea that “The speaker often discovers meaning while making it” (128), to be both humorous and a truism. I have often used the line, “How am I supposed to know what I think before I write it?” which is a paraphrasing of a line from an old satirist whose name escapes me at the moment. But often we have fragmented, abstract thoughts swirling around in our heads and we don’t know what to make of them until we try to organize and articulate them in speech or writing.
Gee seems to have admiration for Freire’s work (p. 64), as I do. I believe that literacy can, in fact, free people from social bonds. What Freire did was amazing in that he helped provide a mechanism for impoverished South Americans to reexamine and redefine the power structures they had previously accepted. Gee, I believe, is supportive of this approach. However, at other points in the book Gee seemed to suggest that literacy is not the panacea our society and literacy teachers in particular think it is. Again, I will address this later.
I agree that language is developed through acquisition, rather than learning (113, 170-3). If we “instruct” students in the “correct” way to coordinate subjects and verbs, it certainly does not follow that they will begin to use those words that way simply because they will suddenly calculate the “correct” form as they write or speak. People must be exposed to language use and integrated into the cultural models, or socialized, and if this happens, the ability to manipulate secondary discourses (168-9) can become second nature. I have long believed this, and this is why I spend almost no time at all with grammar instruction with my students.
Gee maintains that a teacher’s job is to focus attention (114), although he is extremely vague in the specifics of accomplishing this. My interpretation of this is that students must first be enculturated, immersed in social situations, and at some point metacognition will take place, a conscious awareness of the possibilities of using language as a tool. But Gee also says that “Teaching is ultimately a moral act.” As a classroom teacher, this is what ultimately drives everything I do. I believe it is a moral necessity to promote literacy in my students. This is also why I enjoy teaching American literature above all others. While English literature was often created for the purposes of entertainment, American literature is more often rooted in philosophy; it is the philosophy of our nation and our people. I believe I have a moral obligation to help my students understand the tenets of the Declaration of Independence, of Emerson, Thoreau, Douglass, Twain, Martin Luther King Jr., and Langston Hughes.
And finally, Gee gives us the definition of literacy: mastery of a secondary discourse involving print (176). This is a painfully obvious definition that any first year language arts teacher could probably articulate, but it is important because it is at the heart of our mission in life. If we can construct and negotiate the meaning of literacy and come to some measure of consensus, it is the first baby step in accomplishing our purpose.
New Yorican- Who are you? Josh, Eude, ? Do you think that we could start a new post with an overall theme or idea, such as your pros and cons about Gee? That may be a lot easier to read in that format....
Many of your pros of the text are similar to mine. I sense in your opening statements that you have many criticisms of Gee's other ideas. I think it's interesting what makes a text meaningful to some but not others, or more specifically, how one can agree and find meaning in a piece but find issues with other parts so that the author's overall meaning or contribution is not valued.
What I think is so powerful about Gee's work is how simple many of his points seem, but when you read pretty much any scholar who writes about power, culture, literacy, freedom, etc., especially in regards to historically under-served groups, Gee is who everyone cited. I see his work as so powerful because it seems to unite so many of us who always felt that school and society was set up so that some fail and others 'succeed' but we couldn't quite articulate why.
I especially appreciate how Gee has brought critical theory (Freire, Giroux, Shor) to add to a new movement in the New London/New Literacies group and critical literacy. Critical literacy is essential to consider when speaking about Gee's points. He is not only talking about asking students to 'think critically' but to instead question and problematize everything they encounter in and out of school. Anything can be a text (a person, an image, a book) and it needs to be read and critically evaluated.
Curriculum is a big part of this and something that Gee and others in critical literacy urge us to consider deeply. I think of the notion on American Literature....can works by American writers be appreciated and valued when we do not consider their individual experiences, culture, and most importantly, what perspective they offer while also leaving out other voices? How much "American Literature" is written by American Indians....?
In addition to the ideas new yorican presented around the Standard vs. Non Standard English that is valued, Gee's idea of Cultural Models (p.111) is so important when we thinking about school. I think about assessments, testing, and evaluation. Why do certain groups or populations continued to be assessed as behind or lacking? What messages do our students receive as they enter school? I think about certain ethnic groups that immigrate and have been seen as successful in American schools because they take choose or feel they must adapt the Cultural Model (white, middle class, mainstream culture) of school. Other groups do not either choose to do this or perhaps they do not have as great access to what these are.
I know that we talked as a group a little bit about this in regards to people's experiences. I'd love to hear more about people's personal experiences or just thoughts on the text.....
My main contention with Gee’s Social Linguistics and Literacies is that his positions are poorly supported and, I feel, invalid. While some may call the book ‘theory’, I would classify it as speculation, a running editorial that is often baseless. He uses questionable sources to substantiate questionable positions. He takes arguments that may have some merit and generalizes them to the point of inaccuracy. As I lay out my case against Gee’s positions in the coming days, most of my arguments will point to the lack of credible support in his work.
For instance, in arguing for his literacy myth, Gee cites Plato’s 2,400 year-old diatribes against writing to support his claim that writing does not provide the inherent benefits to mankind that we believed it to. The fact that the argument is so old is not the main flaw. Mental Discipline Theory and Associationism are just as old; the difference is that those theories have been built upon and substantiated over the years through research in education and psychology. We have found them to have validity. Plato’s argument against writing has not been similarly vetted, as Gee himself acknowledges when he states that the first argument, Plato’s, was the best one (51). This is a tacit admission that his perspective has not been verified or confirmed over the last 2,000+ years.
Indeed, if anything, parts of it have proven to be factually incorrect. Plato believed that writing “led to the deterioration of human memory” (51). This is simply false. Writing has been shown to improve memory by helping the information encode into working and long-term memory (Dinnel & Glover, 1985). In addition, Plato thought writing led to a view of knowledge that was “both facile and false” (51). None of the advances mankind has made in science, technology, engineering, or medicine would have been possible without writing, and one would be hard-pressed to make the claim that those advances were based on facile or false knowledge.
So Gee bases his own argument on an opinion put forth when human civilization was still in its infancy, an opinion that was simply erroneous. But to further his claims that literacy carries no inherent benefits, Gee uses a slightly more modern example- Sweden, which in the 1700’s achieved near 100% literacy amongst its general population (57). This is quite a feat, but Gee points out that that society did not become a utopia and that literacy was not a cure to its social ills. Of course, Gee puts this forth as ‘proof’ that the advantages of literacy are universally mythical.
However, even the most novice student of the social sciences would be able to recognize that this information is not generalizable. One should not expect widespread societal change in the 1700’s due to the fact the populace of a farming culture could read mythology (but not write at all). If the Swedes had read agriculture texts or astronomy texts to better gauge the seasons, or even ancient books on philosophy, history, or medicine, and could write down new inspirations on the topics, then maybe we would have seen some advancement. But it’s certainly far-fetched and irrational to believe that an agricultural community being able to read only a single religious text is comparable to the dynamics of today’s world.
Another piece of ‘support’ Gee uses is the situation of the Vai community in Liberia (58). Supposedly, the Vai use a number of different languages, and some of the people are literate in one, two, or three of those languages. Gee makes the case that only English was associated with what we in the West would consider higher-order intellectual skills, while the other two are not. I have a difficult time accepting this statement alone, especially since Gee, himself, argues that no language is better than another and that there are no simple languages. But Gee goes on to assert that years after the Vai had completed formal schooling, those who had been schooled in the high-order intellectual skills of English did not perform better than the other groups on problem solving or abstract reasoning.
First I must question whether a psychological study completed in 1981 would have been constructed with the rigorous standards we demand today. For instance, it must be assumed that there would be substantial differences in the Vai groups besides the fact that they had different schooling. Most likely these groups would vary in environment and genetic intelligence, which would have to be controlled for. In addition, it seems questionable that Gee would claim that those trained in higher-order intellectual skills performed better than the others on “verbal explanation tasks” (59), but not on “abstract reasoning skills.”
The Vai study was the most interesting of the support that Gee uses, but in and of itself was a weak argument because there are questions about the methods, and without more support it is clearly not generalizable to all societies and cultures. The Plato argument and the situation of Sweden added nothing to bolster Gee’s case and actually weakened it in my mind.
Lastly, the point has been made that qualitative studies are not generalizable and that we should not assume that Gee is doing so. I have a couple of points of contention with this argument. First, I believe that qualitative arguments can in fact be generalizable to a limited extent. For instance, in Shirley Brice Heath’s seminal study on language cultures in the east coast Piedmont region, she did not observe every person and family in the three communities. However, she observed enough of them to be able to generalize in a limited way within the entire community there. Her observations would not generalize to other parts of the United States, but to some extent, I believe they would generalize to the people within those communities who she had not directly observed.
Next, I believe that few qualitative researchers actually intend for their work not to be generalized at all. Is it really just about those exact subjects and no one else in the world? In some cases, such as with a serial killer, the answer is yes. But the single mind is the realm of psychology, not sociology. If we study sociology we are studying how humans function in groups, so the attempt must be to generalize at some level. The larger problem comes if someone insists that qualitative research is not generalizable and should not be taken as such. This would be fine, but then that information could not be used as the basis for any theory, which is exactly what Gee attempts to do. A sociological theory is a generalized model of how groups function; it essentially says, “This is how [or a way] that people [in general] function in society.” If it is not generalizable, then it cannot be applicable to theory. It would essentially just be that sample in that time and would not say anything about anyone else anywhere else, and that is certainly not what Gee is getting at. He just does not have adequate support for what he does claim.
Dinnel, D., & Glover, J. A. (1985). Advance organizers: Encoding manipulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 514-521.
An interesting thought that sits with me presented in the Gee text is the idea that writing leads to syllogistic reasoning and abstract thought (Havelock, Goody, Plato). This combined with Ong’s idea that the African American culture is one primarily of orality leads me to conclude that the Black culture has been misfortunate in acquiring the higher order intellectual skills that New Yorican mentions. If in fact writing is essential to thinking more critically, the damage done by slaveowners in preventing slaves from reading and writing runs deeper than I imagined. I can understand why my culture relies heavily on oral tradition due to our history. However, I, as ancestors before me, believe it necessary to embrace tradition while simultaneously embracing education. And while Gee defines literacy as mastering a second discourse involving print, it makes sense that becoming literate historically presented itself as a task to African Americans considering they were forbidden to interact with print. But what of the present-day struggle for African Americans to become literate. I believe the cause of the disproportionate number of minorities failing to meet academic expectations is debatable. Does the blame lie on the nonhighly qualified teachers that may be servicing the schools in the urban areas? Or is it the lack of parental influence? Perhaps its the mindset bestowed upon the culture by slaveowners that literacy is not something to be attained by African Americans. Could it be that this way of thinking has transcended time and continues to shape the psyche of a people? You decide.
Furthermore regarding literacy, I believe that teachers should take on the role of educating students in the dominating, power language and its grammatical structure. Whether the dominating language is a student’s primary language or not, students should be given the opportunity to acquire the power language so that, in the words of Gee, students are allowed to juxtapose different discourses to understand at a meta-level. I agree with Freire in that language is political. If students are not exposed to the power language, which for many happens only at school, they stand to be disadvantaged socially, politically, and financially as they are not able to navigate the “system” as effectively as they otherwise would. Whether seeking higher education or a job promotion, demonstrating an understanding of the dominant language is vital to even just getting a foot in the door. How often are pools of applicants narrowed based on written documentation alone? Students need to be equipped to demonstrate their strong points both verbally and in writing in the dominant language that admissions representatives and employers most likely inhibit and understand best. Until the expectations of those in power change, I support that students need to be taught the dominant language in school to level the playing field of those not acquiring the power language as a primary one.
I think Katie's idea of posting thoughts on overall themes is a good one. It might be especially helpful for anyone who, like I am, is new to this level of scholarly reading. I find what has been written thus far to be rather intimidating and overwhelming! I guess I haven't yet mastered this PhD Discourse!
I agree that we should attempt to organize this blog in some way. I took a look at the syllabus, perhaps we can create a blog for each of the following: summary, themes, impact on the profession, our reactions. I think what we have right now could be considered our reactions to the text. Let me know what you all think.
Joseph, no need to be intimidated or overwhelmed, just choose something that stood out to you and expand upon it.
I agree it would be nice to be able to separate these into different threads, but I tried to figure out how to begin multiple threads and I could not find a way to start new ones. Maybe Katie has a way to place them into strands.
However, I think we have already discussed a number of major themes, and in detail. We have discussed how meaning is constructed, the dynamics of power structures, cultural relevance, the literacy myth. Certainly we can add more to each. We have also discussed the impact on the profession to some extent.
So we have actually addressed most of the requirements. It just seems to be intertwined and would be better separated out. If someone wants to add an overall summary, it could be helpful, although we have also been covering that indirectly.
To continue with the theme of power structures, I’ll add some reasons why I believe Gee’s argument lacks validity in this area. In chapter 9, Gee tries to illustrate how three different cultural groups interact and use language in much the same way Shirley Brice Heath’s study examined three communities. Gee describes how an African American group, a “white” group, and an upper-middle class group discuss a story and relate its details. The problem is that Gee is not making a statement about only these students. The reason he discusses them is because he is trying to make a larger point about how the groups that these students belong to use language. So he is using qualitative analysis with a total sample size of 3, that’s three individuals (n=3), to generalize to entire populations. It’s difficult to imagine a scholarly argument with weaker rationale. As a matter of fact, his suggestions are little more than an act of generalizing to the point of creating stereotypes. I find it absurd and presumptuous.
To be more specific with this example, on page 201 Gee discusses how the African American student uses more pronouns because the student is treating the teacher as if they share knowledge and the “who” information is already understood and accepted by both. Gee contrasts this to the approach of the white student, who uses fewer pronouns and seems to create distance between speaker and listener. Gee presents the use of pronouns (shared knowledge) in a positive light and the more explicit style (the distant one) in a negative light and ties these to cultural identity.
First, I do not accept that these styles are representative of racial or cultural traits, especially not based on his sample size of three students. But beyond that, let’s look at this in terms of instruction. As a high school teacher of literature and composition, I often come across written work that is vague and ambiguous because the writer assumes that the reader somehow knows what the writer is already thinking. The writer seems to believe that the reader shares his or her perspective and does not recognize that certain information must be communicated in order for the reader to understand the situation. Sometimes this confusion comes from the use of pronouns that are not clearly referenced, and other times it emanates simply from a matter of perspective. I would think that the elementary practitioners here would be even more familiar with reading papers with these characteristics.
There is a psychological concept called executive function. Executive function pertains to the mind’s ability to understand that there are other perspectives besides the one of the thinker. It is the ability to understand that the thinker’s reality is not the only reality. For instance, we can see executive function starting to develop when young children play hide-and-seek. Before children develop executive function they will ‘hide’ in plain sight and cover their own eyes, believing that if they cannot see you, then of course, you cannot see them either. They do not yet understand that the seeker has another perspective. Once they have developed executive function they will actually hide because they will be able to imagine what the seeker may see or think.
Since writing is a far more complex endeavor, executive function is more difficult to utilize. My point is that I feel it is not only a legitimate practice to have students try to exercise executive function, but it is actually a teacher’s responsibility to do so. Teachers should encourage students not to assume that the reader or listener shares the same knowledge as the student who is doing the writing or speaking. It is important for students to develop the cognitive and linguistic skill to gauge what the other party does and does not know, and too often less advanced students will err on the side of not differentiating between their own perspective (or knowledge) and another’s, or in others words, assume the reader can read his or her mind. In my view this is not an issue of race or culture, but simply mental exercise.
In regard to power structures, Gee describes how law school in the U.S. is conducted in a way that is biased against certain cultures (163-8). He makes the case that some groups are not socialized to deal with the rapid-fire question and response format of law school. He believes certain groups require more explicit, direct instruction of concepts and purpose, and that these groups are put at a disadvantage because their primary discourse contradicts the structure of the training. But I suggest that here Gee confuses personal preference with cultural traits. There are certainly individuals whose personalities are not well suited for the debating style that is inherent to legal practice, just as there are some people whose personalities are not suited to the rigors of teaching. But it creates another stereotype to suggest that this is due primarily to race or culture. For instance, the late Johnny Cochran certainly had the individual personality to take part in legal debate. I believe there are few people who would claim that his speaking style was derived from white, middle class society. His style definitely contained characteristics of African American culture, and that style did not seem to be a handicap to him; indeed, he used it to great effect. If anything, his rhythmic, flowing oratory style increased his effectiveness as a lawyer. He did have the personality to thrive in law school and law practice, and he did not have to give up his cultural background to be successful.
So ultimately, I feel it’s a disservice to attribute traits to groups when in fact there may be other explanations, especially when the rationale and support behind the claims are suspect, as I believe Gee’s are.
Since everyone who has posted has mentioned teaching and the role of the teacher in literacy learning and acquisition, I think I will start with this topic. Understanding Gee's perspective on this might be especially helpful for me as a teacher educator. So far, everyone seems to agree that it is the role, even the duty, of the teacher to foster the student's acquisition of the dominant, "public school" discourse in order to assure that he is able to successfully negotiate the various "real world" discourses he will encounter in life. I have no problem accepting this as long as we can do so without devaluing the student's primary discourse. This is what Gee seems (to me) to be suggesting.
Gee uses Pinker’s distinction between acquisition and learning: acquisition being the act of acquiring something via multiple exposures to models and learning being the gaining of knowledge through overt teaching or instruction (170). Gee says that Discourses [which he equates with literacies (175-6)] are mastered not through learning but through acquisition, “through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse,” (170). Effective teaching maintains a balance between acquisition and learning. In my mind I compare this to the type of teaching that I see in many elementary classrooms: rote drill and practice of discreet skills and memorization of discreet bits of information with little or no opportunity to apply these in solving “real world” problems. This could be attributed to the pressures of high-stakes testing, lack of understanding of how young children learn, unwillingness to put forth the extra time and effort required for more developmentally appropriate practices, and many other causes. The result is classrooms with far greater emphasis on teaching/learning than on acquisition/mastery.
Gee seems to suggest that this is acceptable if the ultimate goal in breaking material into analytic chunks is to lead to what he calls “meta-knowledge” [the ability to think about, talk about, or explain one’s own understandings (171)] and to use this “meta-knowledge” as a tool to highlight the differences in conflicting Discourses, as this knowledge can be a form of power and liberation (178). He even suggests that we should strive to produce students who can use this “meta-knowledge” to “play the game” within a given Discourse as a means of gaining access to and changing/influencing the Discourse (181, 193). Again, I can accept this idea, but I’m not sure how to accomplish it.
I agree with this line you wrote: "Effective teaching maintains a balance between acquisition and learning." The only thing I would add is that the most effective amount of each depends on the subject area. For instance, I believe language arts should focus primarily on acquisition, while social studies or science may be more effectively addressed primarily through learning, although all areas require some of each.
Your last paragraph seemed to deal with Gee's rationale leading up to "mushfake" (178-81). I had two problems with Gee's discussion of this matter. First, Gee was very repetitive in his writing dealing with concepts such as constructing meaning and the politics of language, but I found his explanation of the solution to be extremely brief, perfunctory, and inadequate. He was very vague about what should actually be done. Indeed, because you say that you’re not sure how to accomplish it, it would suggest you also found his suggestions to be lacking in detail.
But the other problem I have with his view is that he seems to believe it is sufficient for students to be taught to “play the game”, “make do” [Gee’s words (180)], or simply appear to have mastery. I think this sets the bar extremely low and is a tacit suggestion that that is as much as some students are capable of accomplishing. This is not a solution, but is part of the problem with education today. It really irks me to quote a phrase attributed to the Bush administration, which I feel has been a complete failure to the country in almost every respect, but what Gee proposes seems to me to be the soft racism of low expectations.
Approximately 70% of my students are African American, and I know a number of their mothers would be insulted by what Gee suggests. Mastery of the power language is certainly not outside of their grasp, and those who are successful are not bowing to the white establishment, nor are they relinquishing their own cultural background. Making do is not good enough. I do not believe African American or Latino students should settle for mushfake, and I know many parents who would be offended, and rightly so, at the implication. It’s a patronizing suggestion.
To take the argument one step further, there is a good chance that Barack Obama will be our next president (fingers crossed). So what does that say about Gee’s argument? Has Obama conceded to the power language (i.e. of the white middle-class) and relinquished his cultural ties and his heritage and become a pawn? Should minority youth not seek to aspire to be like the (possible) future president because it is good enough to simply make do and just play the game? If someone is part of the power structure, or is the actual head of the power structure, does that mean that he can no longer represent the people and culture he was previously a part of? Does he now speak a separate “Discourse”?
No, once again, Gee’s argument and his solutions are not good enough.
Josh- I agree with your statement "I think this sets the bar extremely low and is a tacit suggestion that that is as much as some students are capable of accomplishing. This is not a solution, but is part of the problem with education today." This is how many educators, along with Gee, feel. Many teachers are treating their students like cattle and moving them through the "CRCT gates". The only bar set for these students is meeting expectations on a test. Yes, we will leave them all behind if this mentality does not end. NCLB attempted to change this, however, look at where it has left us...still behind! We must teach our children how to think and problem solve. All people want to do more than "make do"!
12 comments:
I’ll begin by discussing the Gee perspectives I agree with, since it’s a much shorter list. The points of contention I have will come in waves over the next few days.
First, I agree that meaning is constructed and negotiated, at least to some extent, and I believe this is the central theme of Social Linguistics and Literacies. It does take two parties to communicate a meaning, and that meaning is always dependent on the participants. I’ll discuss the limitations of this theory in a later post. American Standard English is also an arbitrary standard, and as long as communication is achieved, there is no intrinsic force that dictates that any one form is better than another. Whether practical reality conforms to this is another question.
I found the idea that “The speaker often discovers meaning while making it” (128), to be both humorous and a truism. I have often used the line, “How am I supposed to know what I think before I write it?” which is a paraphrasing of a line from an old satirist whose name escapes me at the moment. But often we have fragmented, abstract thoughts swirling around in our heads and we don’t know what to make of them until we try to organize and articulate them in speech or writing.
Gee seems to have admiration for Freire’s work (p. 64), as I do. I believe that literacy can, in fact, free people from social bonds. What Freire did was amazing in that he helped provide a mechanism for impoverished South Americans to reexamine and redefine the power structures they had previously accepted. Gee, I believe, is supportive of this approach. However, at other points in the book Gee seemed to suggest that literacy is not the panacea our society and literacy teachers in particular think it is. Again, I will address this later.
I agree that language is developed through acquisition, rather than learning (113, 170-3). If we “instruct” students in the “correct” way to coordinate subjects and verbs, it certainly does not follow that they will begin to use those words that way simply because they will suddenly calculate the “correct” form as they write or speak. People must be exposed to language use and integrated into the cultural models, or socialized, and if this happens, the ability to manipulate secondary discourses (168-9) can become second nature. I have long believed this, and this is why I spend almost no time at all with grammar instruction with my students.
Gee maintains that a teacher’s job is to focus attention (114), although he is extremely vague in the specifics of accomplishing this. My interpretation of this is that students must first be enculturated, immersed in social situations, and at some point metacognition will take place, a conscious awareness of the possibilities of using language as a tool. But Gee also says that “Teaching is ultimately a moral act.” As a classroom teacher, this is what ultimately drives everything I do. I believe it is a moral necessity to promote literacy in my students. This is also why I enjoy teaching American literature above all others. While English literature was often created for the purposes of entertainment, American literature is more often rooted in philosophy; it is the philosophy of our nation and our people. I believe I have a moral obligation to help my students understand the tenets of the Declaration of Independence, of Emerson, Thoreau, Douglass, Twain, Martin Luther King Jr., and Langston Hughes.
And finally, Gee gives us the definition of literacy: mastery of a secondary discourse involving print (176). This is a painfully obvious definition that any first year language arts teacher could probably articulate, but it is important because it is at the heart of our mission in life. If we can construct and negotiate the meaning of literacy and come to some measure of consensus, it is the first baby step in accomplishing our purpose.
New Yorican- Who are you? Josh, Eude, ?
Do you think that we could start a new post with an overall theme or idea, such as your pros and cons about Gee? That may be a lot easier to read in that format....
new yorican,
Many of your pros of the text are similar to mine. I sense in your opening statements that you have many criticisms of Gee's other ideas. I think it's interesting what makes a text meaningful to some but not others, or more specifically, how one can agree and find meaning in a piece but find issues with other parts so that the author's overall meaning or contribution is not valued.
What I think is so powerful about Gee's work is how simple many of his points seem, but when you read pretty much any scholar who writes about power, culture, literacy, freedom, etc., especially in regards to historically under-served groups, Gee is who everyone cited. I see his work as so powerful because it seems to unite so many of us who always felt that school and society was set up so that some fail and others 'succeed' but we couldn't quite articulate why.
I especially appreciate how Gee has brought critical theory (Freire, Giroux, Shor) to add to a new movement in the New London/New Literacies group and critical literacy. Critical literacy is essential to consider when speaking about Gee's points. He is not only talking about asking students to 'think critically' but to instead question and problematize everything they encounter in and out of school. Anything can be a text (a person, an image, a book) and it needs to be read and critically evaluated.
Curriculum is a big part of this and something that Gee and others in critical literacy urge us to consider deeply. I think of the notion on American Literature....can works by American writers be appreciated and valued when we do not consider their individual experiences, culture, and most importantly, what perspective they offer while also leaving out other voices? How much "American Literature" is written by American Indians....?
In addition to the ideas new yorican presented around the Standard vs. Non Standard English that is valued, Gee's idea of Cultural Models (p.111) is so important when we thinking about school. I think about assessments, testing, and evaluation. Why do certain groups or populations continued to be assessed as behind or lacking? What messages do our students receive as they enter school? I think about certain ethnic groups that immigrate and have been seen as successful in American schools because they take choose or feel they must adapt the Cultural Model (white, middle class, mainstream culture) of school. Other groups do not either choose to do this or perhaps they do not have as great access to what these are.
I know that we talked as a group a little bit about this in regards to people's experiences. I'd love to hear more about people's personal experiences or just thoughts on the text.....
My main contention with Gee’s Social Linguistics and Literacies is that his positions are poorly supported and, I feel, invalid. While some may call the book ‘theory’, I would classify it as speculation, a running editorial that is often baseless. He uses questionable sources to substantiate questionable positions. He takes arguments that may have some merit and generalizes them to the point of inaccuracy. As I lay out my case against Gee’s positions in the coming days, most of my arguments will point to the lack of credible support in his work.
For instance, in arguing for his literacy myth, Gee cites Plato’s 2,400 year-old diatribes against writing to support his claim that writing does not provide the inherent benefits to mankind that we believed it to. The fact that the argument is so old is not the main flaw. Mental Discipline Theory and Associationism are just as old; the difference is that those theories have been built upon and substantiated over the years through research in education and psychology. We have found them to have validity. Plato’s argument against writing has not been similarly vetted, as Gee himself acknowledges when he states that the first argument, Plato’s, was the best one (51). This is a tacit admission that his perspective has not been verified or confirmed over the last 2,000+ years.
Indeed, if anything, parts of it have proven to be factually incorrect. Plato believed that writing “led to the deterioration of human memory” (51). This is simply false. Writing has been shown to improve memory by helping the information encode into working and long-term memory (Dinnel & Glover, 1985). In addition, Plato thought writing led to a view of knowledge that was “both facile and false” (51). None of the advances mankind has made in science, technology, engineering, or medicine would have been possible without writing, and one would be hard-pressed to make the claim that those advances were based on facile or false knowledge.
So Gee bases his own argument on an opinion put forth when human civilization was still in its infancy, an opinion that was simply erroneous. But to further his claims that literacy carries no inherent benefits, Gee uses a slightly more modern example- Sweden, which in the 1700’s achieved near 100% literacy amongst its general population (57). This is quite a feat, but Gee points out that that society did not become a utopia and that literacy was not a cure to its social ills. Of course, Gee puts this forth as ‘proof’ that the advantages of literacy are universally mythical.
However, even the most novice student of the social sciences would be able to recognize that this information is not generalizable. One should not expect widespread societal change in the 1700’s due to the fact the populace of a farming culture could read mythology (but not write at all). If the Swedes had read agriculture texts or astronomy texts to better gauge the seasons, or even ancient books on philosophy, history, or medicine, and could write down new inspirations on the topics, then maybe we would have seen some advancement. But it’s certainly far-fetched and irrational to believe that an agricultural community being able to read only a single religious text is comparable to the dynamics of today’s world.
Another piece of ‘support’ Gee uses is the situation of the Vai community in Liberia (58). Supposedly, the Vai use a number of different languages, and some of the people are literate in one, two, or three of those languages. Gee makes the case that only English was associated with what we in the West would consider higher-order intellectual skills, while the other two are not. I have a difficult time accepting this statement alone, especially since Gee, himself, argues that no language is better than another and that there are no simple languages. But Gee goes on to assert that years after the Vai had completed formal schooling, those who had been schooled in the high-order intellectual skills of English did not perform better than the other groups on problem solving or abstract reasoning.
First I must question whether a psychological study completed in 1981 would have been constructed with the rigorous standards we demand today. For instance, it must be assumed that there would be substantial differences in the Vai groups besides the fact that they had different schooling. Most likely these groups would vary in environment and genetic intelligence, which would have to be controlled for. In addition, it seems questionable that Gee would claim that those trained in higher-order intellectual skills performed better than the others on “verbal explanation tasks” (59), but not on “abstract reasoning skills.”
The Vai study was the most interesting of the support that Gee uses, but in and of itself was a weak argument because there are questions about the methods, and without more support it is clearly not generalizable to all societies and cultures. The Plato argument and the situation of Sweden added nothing to bolster Gee’s case and actually weakened it in my mind.
Lastly, the point has been made that qualitative studies are not generalizable and that we should not assume that Gee is doing so. I have a couple of points of contention with this argument. First, I believe that qualitative arguments can in fact be generalizable to a limited extent. For instance, in Shirley Brice Heath’s seminal study on language cultures in the east coast Piedmont region, she did not observe every person and family in the three communities. However, she observed enough of them to be able to generalize in a limited way within the entire community there. Her observations would not generalize to other parts of the United States, but to some extent, I believe they would generalize to the people within those communities who she had not directly observed.
Next, I believe that few qualitative researchers actually intend for their work not to be generalized at all. Is it really just about those exact subjects and no one else in the world? In some cases, such as with a serial killer, the answer is yes. But the single mind is the realm of psychology, not sociology. If we study sociology we are studying how humans function in groups, so the attempt must be to generalize at some level. The larger problem comes if someone insists that qualitative research is not generalizable and should not be taken as such. This would be fine, but then that information could not be used as the basis for any theory, which is exactly what Gee attempts to do. A sociological theory is a generalized model of how groups function; it essentially says, “This is how [or a way] that people [in general] function in society.” If it is not generalizable, then it cannot be applicable to theory. It would essentially just be that sample in that time and would not say anything about anyone else anywhere else, and that is certainly not what Gee is getting at. He just does not have adequate support for what he does claim.
Dinnel, D., & Glover, J. A. (1985). Advance organizers: Encoding manipulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 514-521.
An interesting thought that sits with me presented in the Gee text is the idea that writing leads to syllogistic reasoning and abstract thought (Havelock, Goody, Plato). This combined with Ong’s idea that the African American culture is one primarily of orality leads me to conclude that the Black culture has been misfortunate in acquiring the higher order intellectual skills that New Yorican mentions. If in fact writing is essential to thinking more critically, the damage done by slaveowners in preventing slaves from reading and writing runs deeper than I imagined. I can understand why my culture relies heavily on oral tradition due to our history. However, I, as ancestors before me, believe it necessary to embrace tradition while simultaneously embracing education. And while Gee defines literacy as mastering a second discourse involving print, it makes sense that becoming literate historically presented itself as a task to African Americans considering they were forbidden to interact with print. But what of the present-day struggle for African Americans to become literate. I believe the cause of the disproportionate number of minorities failing to meet academic expectations is debatable. Does the blame lie on the nonhighly qualified teachers that may be servicing the schools in the urban areas? Or is it the lack of parental influence? Perhaps its the mindset bestowed upon the culture by slaveowners that literacy is not something to be attained by African Americans. Could it be that this way of thinking has transcended time and continues to shape the psyche of a people? You decide.
Furthermore regarding literacy, I believe that teachers should take on the role of educating students in the dominating, power language and its grammatical structure. Whether the dominating language is a student’s primary language or not, students should be given the opportunity to acquire the power language so that, in the words of Gee, students are allowed to juxtapose different discourses to understand at a meta-level. I agree with Freire in that language is political. If students are not exposed to the power language, which for many happens only at school, they stand to be disadvantaged socially, politically, and financially as they are not able to navigate the “system” as effectively as they otherwise would. Whether seeking higher education or a job promotion, demonstrating an understanding of the dominant language is vital to even just getting a foot in the door. How often are pools of applicants narrowed based on written documentation alone? Students need to be equipped to demonstrate their strong points both verbally and in writing in the dominant language that admissions representatives and employers most likely inhibit and understand best. Until the expectations of those in power change, I support that students need to be taught the dominant language in school to level the playing field of those not acquiring the power language as a primary one.
I think Katie's idea of posting thoughts on overall themes is a good one. It might be especially helpful for anyone who, like I am, is new to this level of scholarly reading. I find what has been written thus far to be rather intimidating and overwhelming! I guess I haven't yet mastered this PhD Discourse!
I agree that we should attempt to organize this blog in some way. I took a look at the syllabus, perhaps we can create a blog for each of the following: summary, themes, impact on the profession, our reactions. I think what we have right now could be considered our reactions to the text. Let me know what you all think.
Joseph, no need to be intimidated or overwhelmed, just choose something that stood out to you and expand upon it.
I agree it would be nice to be able to separate these into different threads, but I tried to figure out how to begin multiple threads and I could not find a way to start new ones. Maybe Katie has a way to place them into strands.
However, I think we have already discussed a number of major themes, and in detail. We have discussed how meaning is constructed, the dynamics of power structures, cultural relevance, the literacy myth. Certainly we can add more to each. We have also discussed the impact on the profession to some extent.
So we have actually addressed most of the requirements. It just seems to be intertwined and would be better separated out. If someone wants to add an overall summary, it could be helpful, although we have also been covering that indirectly.
To continue with the theme of power structures, I’ll add some reasons why I believe Gee’s argument lacks validity in this area. In chapter 9, Gee tries to illustrate how three different cultural groups interact and use language in much the same way Shirley Brice Heath’s study examined three communities. Gee describes how an African American group, a “white” group, and an upper-middle class group discuss a story and relate its details. The problem is that Gee is not making a statement about only these students. The reason he discusses them is because he is trying to make a larger point about how the groups that these students belong to use language. So he is using qualitative analysis with a total sample size of 3, that’s three individuals (n=3), to generalize to entire populations. It’s difficult to imagine a scholarly argument with weaker rationale. As a matter of fact, his suggestions are little more than an act of generalizing to the point of creating stereotypes. I find it absurd and presumptuous.
To be more specific with this example, on page 201 Gee discusses how the African American student uses more pronouns because the student is treating the teacher as if they share knowledge and the “who” information is already understood and accepted by both. Gee contrasts this to the approach of the white student, who uses fewer pronouns and seems to create distance between speaker and listener. Gee presents the use of pronouns (shared knowledge) in a positive light and the more explicit style (the distant one) in a negative light and ties these to cultural identity.
First, I do not accept that these styles are representative of racial or cultural traits, especially not based on his sample size of three students. But beyond that, let’s look at this in terms of instruction. As a high school teacher of literature and composition, I often come across written work that is vague and ambiguous because the writer assumes that the reader somehow knows what the writer is already thinking. The writer seems to believe that the reader shares his or her perspective and does not recognize that certain information must be communicated in order for the reader to understand the situation. Sometimes this confusion comes from the use of pronouns that are not clearly referenced, and other times it emanates simply from a matter of perspective. I would think that the elementary practitioners here would be even more familiar with reading papers with these characteristics.
There is a psychological concept called executive function. Executive function pertains to the mind’s ability to understand that there are other perspectives besides the one of the thinker. It is the ability to understand that the thinker’s reality is not the only reality. For instance, we can see executive function starting to develop when young children play hide-and-seek. Before children develop executive function they will ‘hide’ in plain sight and cover their own eyes, believing that if they cannot see you, then of course, you cannot see them either. They do not yet understand that the seeker has another perspective. Once they have developed executive function they will actually hide because they will be able to imagine what the seeker may see or think.
Since writing is a far more complex endeavor, executive function is more difficult to utilize. My point is that I feel it is not only a legitimate practice to have students try to exercise executive function, but it is actually a teacher’s responsibility to do so. Teachers should encourage students not to assume that the reader or listener shares the same knowledge as the student who is doing the writing or speaking. It is important for students to develop the cognitive and linguistic skill to gauge what the other party does and does not know, and too often less advanced students will err on the side of not differentiating between their own perspective (or knowledge) and another’s, or in others words, assume the reader can read his or her mind. In my view this is not an issue of race or culture, but simply mental exercise.
In regard to power structures, Gee describes how law school in the U.S. is conducted in a way that is biased against certain cultures (163-8). He makes the case that some groups are not socialized to deal with the rapid-fire question and response format of law school. He believes certain groups require more explicit, direct instruction of concepts and purpose, and that these groups are put at a disadvantage because their primary discourse contradicts the structure of the training. But I suggest that here Gee confuses personal preference with cultural traits. There are certainly individuals whose personalities are not well suited for the debating style that is inherent to legal practice, just as there are some people whose personalities are not suited to the rigors of teaching. But it creates another stereotype to suggest that this is due primarily to race or culture. For instance, the late Johnny Cochran certainly had the individual personality to take part in legal debate. I believe there are few people who would claim that his speaking style was derived from white, middle class society. His style definitely contained characteristics of African American culture, and that style did not seem to be a handicap to him; indeed, he used it to great effect. If anything, his rhythmic, flowing oratory style increased his effectiveness as a lawyer. He did have the personality to thrive in law school and law practice, and he did not have to give up his cultural background to be successful.
So ultimately, I feel it’s a disservice to attribute traits to groups when in fact there may be other explanations, especially when the rationale and support behind the claims are suspect, as I believe Gee’s are.
Since everyone who has posted has mentioned teaching and the role of the teacher in literacy learning and acquisition, I think I will start with this topic. Understanding Gee's perspective on this might be especially helpful for me as a teacher educator. So far, everyone seems to agree that it is the role, even the duty, of the teacher to foster the student's acquisition of the dominant, "public school" discourse in order to assure that he is able to successfully negotiate the various "real world" discourses he will encounter in life. I have no problem accepting this as long as we can do so without devaluing the student's primary discourse. This is what Gee seems (to me) to be suggesting.
Gee uses Pinker’s distinction between acquisition and learning: acquisition being the act of acquiring something via multiple exposures to models and learning being the gaining of knowledge through overt teaching or instruction (170). Gee says that Discourses [which he equates with literacies (175-6)] are mastered not through learning but through acquisition, “through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse,” (170). Effective teaching maintains a balance between acquisition and learning. In my mind I compare this to the type of teaching that I see in many elementary classrooms: rote drill and practice of discreet skills and memorization of discreet bits of information with little or no opportunity to apply these in solving “real world” problems. This could be attributed to the pressures of high-stakes testing, lack of understanding of how young children learn, unwillingness to put forth the extra time and effort required for more developmentally appropriate practices, and many other causes. The result is classrooms with far greater emphasis on teaching/learning than on acquisition/mastery.
Gee seems to suggest that this is acceptable if the ultimate goal in breaking material into analytic chunks is to lead to what he calls “meta-knowledge” [the ability to think about, talk about, or explain one’s own understandings (171)] and to use this “meta-knowledge” as a tool to highlight the differences in conflicting Discourses, as this knowledge can be a form of power and liberation (178). He even suggests that we should strive to produce students who can use this “meta-knowledge” to “play the game” within a given Discourse as a means of gaining access to and changing/influencing the Discourse (181, 193). Again, I can accept this idea, but I’m not sure how to accomplish it.
Joseph,
I agree with this line you wrote: "Effective teaching maintains a balance between acquisition and learning." The only thing I would add is that the most effective amount of each depends on the subject area. For instance, I believe language arts should focus primarily on acquisition, while social studies or science may be more effectively addressed primarily through learning, although all areas require some of each.
Your last paragraph seemed to deal with Gee's rationale leading up to "mushfake" (178-81). I had two problems with Gee's discussion of this matter. First, Gee was very repetitive in his writing dealing with concepts such as constructing meaning and the politics of language, but I found his explanation of the solution to be extremely brief, perfunctory, and inadequate. He was very vague about what should actually be done. Indeed, because you say that you’re not sure how to accomplish it, it would suggest you also found his suggestions to be lacking in detail.
But the other problem I have with his view is that he seems to believe it is sufficient for students to be taught to “play the game”, “make do” [Gee’s words (180)], or simply appear to have mastery. I think this sets the bar extremely low and is a tacit suggestion that that is as much as some students are capable of accomplishing. This is not a solution, but is part of the problem with education today. It really irks me to quote a phrase attributed to the Bush administration, which I feel has been a complete failure to the country in almost every respect, but what Gee proposes seems to me to be the soft racism of low expectations.
Approximately 70% of my students are African American, and I know a number of their mothers would be insulted by what Gee suggests. Mastery of the power language is certainly not outside of their grasp, and those who are successful are not bowing to the white establishment, nor are they relinquishing their own cultural background. Making do is not good enough. I do not believe African American or Latino students should settle for mushfake, and I know many parents who would be offended, and rightly so, at the implication. It’s a patronizing suggestion.
To take the argument one step further, there is a good chance that Barack Obama will be our next president (fingers crossed). So what does that say about Gee’s argument? Has Obama conceded to the power language (i.e. of the white middle-class) and relinquished his cultural ties and his heritage and become a pawn? Should minority youth not seek to aspire to be like the (possible) future president because it is good enough to simply make do and just play the game? If someone is part of the power structure, or is the actual head of the power structure, does that mean that he can no longer represent the people and culture he was previously a part of? Does he now speak a separate “Discourse”?
No, once again, Gee’s argument and his solutions are not good enough.
Josh- I agree with your statement "I think this sets the bar extremely low and is a tacit suggestion that that is as much as some students are capable of accomplishing. This is not a solution, but is part of the problem with education today." This is how many educators, along with Gee, feel. Many teachers are treating their students like cattle and moving them through the "CRCT gates". The only bar set for these students is meeting expectations on a test. Yes, we will leave them all behind if this mentality does not end. NCLB attempted to change this, however, look at where it has left us...still behind! We must teach our children how to think and problem solve. All people want to do more than "make do"!
Post a Comment