Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education Series) Export

@book{citeulike:543222, author = {Gee, James P.}, citeulike-article-id = {543222}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike09-20&path=ASIN/1850008302}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike01-21&path=ASIN/1850008302}, citeulike-linkout-2 = {http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike06-21&path=ASIN/1850008302}, citeulike-linkout-3 = {http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1850008302/citeulike00-21}, citeulike-linkout-4 = {http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20&path=ASIN/1850008302}, citeulike-linkout-5 = {http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/1850008302}, citeulike-linkout-6 = {http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1850008302}, citeulike-linkout-7 = {http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?keywords=1850008302&index=books&linkCode=qs}, citeulike-linkout-8 = {http://www.librarything.com/isbn/1850008302}, comment = {Gee, J. P. (1996) Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London and NY: Longman. Chapter 2 - Literacy and the Literacy Myth: from Plato to Freire In this chapter, Gee argues against what he describes as the "literacy myth." Whereas Brian Street's (1990) side to this myth focused on the problems of literacy campaigns that call for literacy as a way of economic and political freedom and advancement, Gee focuses his argument against the idea that literacy is fundamentally about an individual's ability to read and write and the "omnipotent view of literacy" which attributes literacy with causing various cognitive and social changes. This chapter is a response to the "literacy crisis," which Gee says is really a "schooling crisis:" people who are thought to be illiterate are not, but they don't perform up to standards represented by schools' notions of "literacy." Furthermore, rather than level the playing field, so to speak, school reinforce social class differences brought in from learning that goes on outside of schools. The bulk of this chapter is dedicated to various examples to support this argument. The first is a discussion of Plato's Phaedrus, which is also used by Goody and Watt, Ong, Olson, and others in talking about the negative aspects to the practice of writing. Gee distinguishes himself from those authors by extending the analysis of Plato to questions about power in society. He argues that there are "two sides" to Plato's view of literacy. The first is that writing makes dialogic discussion impossible, and therefore makes it difficult to tease out meaning (though oral epics can do the same thing). The second side, though, comes to light when one takes into account Plato's political views and his desire for the "philosopher king" as the ideal ruler of a society. Writing cannot defend itself and in the wrong hands, a written text can be used in ways the author never intended. The author cannot enforce one interpretation. In this sense, there are "correct" interpretations of texts. This discussion of Plato is similar to Gee's discussion of Freire. Even as Freire argues for a notion of "emancipatory literacy," other aspects of his writing indicates that there are in fact "correct" interpretations. Both Freire and Plato have a highly political view of literacy. Nothing comes "from" literacy, but many thing come "with" literacy: "attitudes, values, norms, and beliefs..." (39). New Literacy Studies is a way to try to study literacy as related to the "social practices" that accompany it. Reading is acquired by being "embedded" is a particular social practice (41). Furthermore, it cannot be distinguished from that practice. The chapter concludes with the "aspirin bottle" problem, in which Gee demonstrates that there are no "neutral" ways to read. It is set up as response to critics who would argue that Gee's theory is interesting but not practical in helping kids learn to read and write. Relationships: Paul Willis Good and Watt (1968), end of section warning about the negative consequences of literacy Lave and Wenger Chapter 6 - Discourses and Literacies In this chapter, Gee defines what he means by Discourse and argues that literacy is the mastery of a secondary Discourse. A Discourse is a "way of being in the world.. which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities" (127). They indicate "membership in a social group." There are five properties of Discourses (132): • They are ideological • Resistant to internal criticism and self-scrutiny • Discourses are set up in relation to other Discourses (oppositional in some ways) • Discourses argue for certain viewpoints and concepts and marginalize others. • They are related to the distribution of social power. Discourses empower when there are fewer conflicts with other Discourses. Gee argues (136-7) that Discourses are not determinate of behavior, success, or failure. Gee then uses the distinction between "acquisition" and "learning" as a way to help define what is meant by literacy in relation to Discourses. This distinction is crucial to the argument and is not one that I have heard used before (even in Gee's later work). Acquisition is a process of gaining something by repeated long term exposure and is related to thing that are necessary for functioning in a particular situation. Learning "involves conscious knowledge gained through teaching," though this doesn't have to involve someone called a "teacher." Furthermore, "learning" involves reaching an understanding (or partial sense) of meta-knowledge. (see Pinker 1989, 1994). Learning is tied to having a conscious awareness of the process by which one is gaining this understanding. Arguments about "informal learning," in my view, are often about "acquisition." Perhaps this distinction would help define the research questions that need to be answered with regard to informal learning. Gee introduces the concept of Primary Discourse and Secondary Discourse. The Primary is one's "first social identity." Secondary Discourses are those that people learn as part of participation in communities. Good teaching, then is about bring different Discourses into light in order to compare them and to raise awareness of them. Participating in a secondary Discourse involves interaction with others that do not necessarily share the same knowledge and experience. "I believe that any socially useful definition of literacy must be couched in terms of these notions of primary and secondary Discourse. Thus I define literacy as mastery of a secondary Discourse." (143) It's not clear if the medium or mode of representation matters in this argument. Relationships: Paul Willis (on schooling and classroom... especially idea of "penetrations") Jean Briggs (Inuit Morality Play) with respect to her notion of "plots" (a plot is not a Discourse, but...)}, howpublished = {Paperback}, isbn = {1850008302}, keywords = {education, learning, literacy}, posted-at = {2006-03-09 23:26:33}, priority = {0}, publisher = {{Falmer Press}}, title = {Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education Series)}, url = {http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20&path=ASIN/1850008302} }

TY - BOOK ID - citeulike:543222 L3 - citeulike-article-id:543222 SN - 1850008302 TI - Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses (Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education Series) PB - {Falmer Press} KW - education KW - learning KW - literacy N1 - Gee, J. P. (1996) Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London and NY: Longman. Chapter 2 - Literacy and the Literacy Myth: from Plato to Freire In this chapter, Gee argues against what he describes as the "literacy myth." Whereas Brian Street's (1990) side to this myth focused on the problems of literacy campaigns that call for literacy as a way of economic and political freedom and advancement, Gee focuses his argument against the idea that literacy is fundamentally about an individual's ability to read and write and the "omnipotent view of literacy" which attributes literacy with causing various cognitive and social changes. This chapter is a response to the "literacy crisis," which Gee says is really a "schooling crisis:" people who are thought to be illiterate are not, but they don't perform up to standards represented by schools' notions of "literacy." Furthermore, rather than level the playing field, so to speak, school reinforce social class differences brought in from learning that goes on outside of schools. The bulk of this chapter is dedicated to various examples to support this argument. The first is a discussion of Plato's Phaedrus, which is also used by Goody and Watt, Ong, Olson, and others in talking about the negative aspects to the practice of writing. Gee distinguishes himself from those authors by extending the analysis of Plato to questions about power in society. He argues that there are "two sides" to Plato's view of literacy. The first is that writing makes dialogic discussion impossible, and therefore makes it difficult to tease out meaning (though oral epics can do the same thing). The second side, though, comes to light when one takes into account Plato's political views and his desire for the "philosopher king" as the ideal ruler of a society. Writing cannot defend itself and in the wrong hands, a written text can be used in ways the author never intended. The author cannot enforce one interpretation. In this sense, there are "correct" interpretations of texts. This discussion of Plato is similar to Gee's discussion of Freire. Even as Freire argues for a notion of "emancipatory literacy," other aspects of his writing indicates that there are in fact "correct" interpretations. Both Freire and Plato have a highly political view of literacy. Nothing comes "from" literacy, but many thing come "with" literacy: "attitudes, values, norms, and beliefs..." (39). New Literacy Studies is a way to try to study literacy as related to the "social practices" that accompany it. Reading is acquired by being "embedded" is a particular social practice (41). Furthermore, it cannot be distinguished from that practice. The chapter concludes with the "aspirin bottle" problem, in which Gee demonstrates that there are no "neutral" ways to read. It is set up as response to critics who would argue that Gee's theory is interesting but not practical in helping kids learn to read and write. Relationships: Paul Willis Good and Watt (1968), end of section warning about the negative consequences of literacy Lave and Wenger Chapter 6 - Discourses and Literacies In this chapter, Gee defines what he means by Discourse and argues that literacy is the mastery of a secondary Discourse. A Discourse is a "way of being in the world.. which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities" (127). They indicate "membership in a social group." There are five properties of Discourses (132): • They are ideological • Resistant to internal criticism and self-scrutiny • Discourses are set up in relation to other Discourses (oppositional in some ways) • Discourses argue for certain viewpoints and concepts and marginalize others. • They are related to the distribution of social power. Discourses empower when there are fewer conflicts with other Discourses. Gee argues (136-7) that Discourses are not determinate of behavior, success, or failure. Gee then uses the distinction between "acquisition" and "learning" as a way to help define what is meant by literacy in relation to Discourses. This distinction is crucial to the argument and is not one that I have heard used before (even in Gee's later work). Acquisition is a process of gaining something by repeated long term exposure and is related to thing that are necessary for functioning in a particular situation. Learning "involves conscious knowledge gained through teaching," though this doesn't have to involve someone called a "teacher." Furthermore, "learning" involves reaching an understanding (or partial sense) of meta-knowledge. (see Pinker 1989, 1994). Learning is tied to having a conscious awareness of the process by which one is gaining this understanding. Arguments about "informal learning," in my view, are often about "acquisition." Perhaps this distinction would help define the research questions that need to be answered with regard to informal learning. Gee introduces the concept of Primary Discourse and Secondary Discourse. The Primary is one's "first social identity." Secondary Discourses are those that people learn as part of participation in communities. Good teaching, then is about bring different Discourses into light in order to compare them and to raise awareness of them. Participating in a secondary Discourse involves interaction with others that do not necessarily share the same knowledge and experience. "I believe that any socially useful definition of literacy must be couched in terms of these notions of primary and secondary Discourse. Thus I define literacy as mastery of a secondary Discourse." (143) It's not clear if the medium or mode of representation matters in this argument. Relationships: Paul Willis (on schooling and classroom... especially idea of "penetrations") Jean Briggs (Inuit Morality Play) with respect to her notion of "plots" (a plot is not a Discourse, but...) AU - Gee, James UR - http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike09-20&path=ASIN/1850008302 ER -