Rodriguez post C

I fear this response may be brief, but the importance is none the less. I feel that Rodriguez and Gee's readings have brought to light an important concept to be sought after by aspiring students. Rodriguez has through his writing affected the future and state of his academic discourse. He has done this by relating his own individual experience, or as Bartholomae would say, "finding some compromise between idiosyncrasy, a personal history, and the requirements of convention, the history of a discipline," (511). Rodriguez gives us a prime example of a student whose upbringing has overtly affected his writing later as an academic.

Gee response

Gee's definition of Discourse is similar to my understanding of ideology. Primary Discourse and secondary Discourses under this definition could be combined to encompass the entirety of an individual's ideology, their thoughts, desires and actions as shaped by their sociopolitical standing and individual experiences. Though I do wish to complicate Gee's sense of Discourses especially the relationship between primary and secondary. Gee writes, "Aspects and pieces of the primary Discourse become a 'carrier' or 'foundation' for Discourses acquired later in life. Primary Discourses differ significantly across various social (cultural, ethnic, regional, and economic) groups in the United States," (527). He goes on to say that depending on the Primary Discourse from which one hails, for example an affluent white middle class Discourse, it increases the ease with which one can become fluent in secondary Discourses. This statement displaces agency from certain socioeconomic classes arguing that they are less able to develop secondary Discursive literacy as a result of their natural conditioning. I would argue that this inference is inaccurate and devalues too much one's ability to be literate in meta-knowledge, which gives agency and fluency to anyone who understands how to wield meta-knowledge.