Lisa Delpit brings up many interesting points in her article “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse.” Delpit voices her concerns about issued in James Paul Gee’s articles “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction” and “What is Literacy,” as well as seemingly set ideals towards teaching multiple discourses to poor students and minorities. She claims that many teachers feel it may not be possible to teach these students multiple discourses or that teaching multiple discourses would be more oppressive to the students. “…they question whether that is a task they can actually accomplish for poor students and students of color. Further more, they question whether they are acting as agents of oppression by insisting that students who are not already apart of the ‘mainstream’ learn that discourse.” (Norton 1311). Delpit’s main concerns with Gee are his suggestions that: “…people who have not been born into dominant discourses will find it exceedingly difficult to, if not impossible, to acquire such a discourse,” and “…an individual who is born into one discourse with one set of values may experience major conflicts when attempting to acquire another discourse with another set of values,” (Norton 1312-1313).
Delpit finds these views “paralyzing” to poor students and minorities. She includes many examples of students who Gee’s articles concern receiving instruction in “dominant discourse” and succeeding. Delpit even offers instances of these students requesting to learn “dominant discourse.” “…one educator of adult African-American veterans … insisted that her students needed to develop their ‘own voices’ by developing ‘fluency’ in their home language. Her students vociferously objected, demanding they be taught grammar, punctuation, and ‘Standard English,’” (Norton 1317).
What I think Delpit is suggesting is not the vanquishing of any writers voice but giving everyone the opportunity to develop skills in multiple discourses. This would then relate to Andrea A. Lunsford’s article “Toward a Mestiza Rhetoric: Gloria Anzaldúa on Composition and Postcoloniality”. Lunsford claims the Anzaldúa struggled to make sure her voice was not lost, but she also recognized the “multiplicity” of her voice. “…Anzaldúa announces the multiplicity of her ‘self’ and her ‘voice’: she is a ‘wind-swayed bridge, a crossroads inhabited by whirlwinds’…” (Norton 1401). I don’t think that Anzaldúa was concerned with the “dominant discourse” but what I feel relates to Delpit’s article is the idea to recognize multiple voices to be used in multiple discourses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I appreciate that multiple voices and discourses are important. Until you clarified, your thoughts a little more it sounded like the author was being a little condescending and even crippling minority writers by suggesting that they were going to have difficulty with "dominate discourse". But I can appreciate whirling winds as I grew up in bloddy Kansas amid Dorothy's tornado's and Topeka's Brown vs. the Board of Education.
ReplyDeleteI frequently think that focusing so much on defining and criticizing a dominant discourse gives it too much power. The truth is that discourse is not a static thing and everyone contributes to the discourse. Multiple discourses implies that each is a static, independent entity, which I also think is misleading. However, to go with that theory, I agree that we can speak multiple discourses, much as we have the ability to speak multiple languages. Encouraging multiple voices can only diversify and enrich the discourse.
ReplyDelete