2

a.

Gee suggests that joining a Discourse is difficult, but I don’t think that’s the case. I believe if someone is determined they can join a Discourse, regardless age and literacy regarding that Discourse. I think Gee is underestimating human determination.

 

b.

Cuddy claims that through practice of empowerment, one can empower and change themselves for the better. I agree that people should empower themselves and display the better side of themselves.

 

c.

Gee suggests that if members of a Discourse mark you as a “pretender”, you could never join that Discourse. That you would be marked as an outcast. I do not think this is the case. I believe people can come back from setbacks, and being marked as a “pretender” is just an obstacle one can overcome.

 

3.

a.

When reflecting on how people join a Discourse, it is perceived that it can be difficult. I don’t think so, I believe rather that the obstacles proposed like those like Gee are not obstacles at all. One major obstacle Gee and I don’t agree on is the relevancy of time as an obstacle. Gee claims in his article that, “Discourses cannot readily be taught, and cannot be readily mastered late in the game (12)”. Gee is saying that for one to join at Discourse, they have to start early. That is one is “late to the game” it is too late and they should give up. I believe that Gee is mistaken because he overlooks human determination, and that he is unaware or is ignoring how capable people can be. He is claiming that people are not capable of overcoming the challenges he is proposing, and I couldn’t disagree more. I think Discourses are not that hard to join and people can join them if they are driven and willing to put in the effort to join.

 

b.

Gee suggests that joining a Discourse is difficult, but I don’t think that’s the case. I believe that one can interact with a Discourse without being part of the Discourse. That one can start being a member of being a Discourse, even if they are not part of the Discourse like those already in the Discourse. In Gee’s article he says that fluency is absolutely necessary when joining a Discourse. He claims that the lack of fluency can stop one from joining a Discourse. He states that, “The lack of fluency may very well mark you as a pretender to the social role instantiated in the Discourse. (Gee 10)”. In this excerpt, Gee is saying that Discourse fluency, being able to interact with others in the Discourse like how they interact with each other, is obtained when one becomes part of a Discourse. That one can only interact with others in the Discourse when they become fluent, and claims fluency is the key when joining a Discourse. He goes on to say that if one lacks fluency in a Discourse, members of that Discourse will mark you as a “pretender”. I do agree that a lack of fluency when interacting with a Discourse is challenging and at times necessary, but I cannot agree that it is impossible for one to be capable of interactions in a Discourse without fluency. Sure when interacting in a social situation, fluency in the topic being discussed or taking place is helpful, but if someone isn’t fully fluent, they aren’t a pretender. One is simply a student of the Discourse. I feel that Gee is being too hard on these students of Discourse and that people need time to fully become part of the Discourse.

 

ENG110J