Gee notes that Discourses “are always embedded in a medley of social institutions, and often involve ‘props’” (my italics 27) which speaks, in many ways, to one’s culture and the identities that work to make that person who they are. Discourse, then, has the ability to move one in and out of a contact zone because it has to do with a type of identification. This idea of identification leads to questions of ideology. Thus, one’s background (which is situated in the historical and the cultural) plays a huge part in how one recognizes and understands a concept.
Gee also says that “the complex relationship among Discourses … define and demarcate individual discourses” (32). I do not agree with this. I think that one’s individual idea is always at the root…it is the foundation for which they can understand. So, my thinking about Discourse is similar to our discussion about home discourse last week. The foundational, historical, cultural implications always play a part in how one is able to view something. For example, it would be hard for women to try to re-claim a word that has been used to degrade them. The B-word is an example. Depending of who says it, it can very negative connotations. Thus, the historical can never be dismissed from that word, but other discourses can be added to a persons understanding of the word. The other discourses that come into play should not negate the individual because the individual informs the collective. Moreover, Krista Ratcliffe, in Rhetorical Listening says that “discourses are invisible to the human eye and yet may simultaneously permeate multiple bodies as when millions of people view a movie” (69). Ratcliffe’s claim uses metaphor to describe how one’s historical/cultural understanding will shape their view of something, which speaks to the individuals perception. This idea leads me into this idea of how technology is perceived, depending on one’s ideology.
Monroe’s chapter “Putting One’s Business on Front Street” takes a close look at a Detroit High School’s interaction with email in the mid-1990s. The Black students worked with mostly white tutors from the University of Michigan with writing through email. What I glean from the reading is that the students had a different understanding about what it means to engage in an email conversation. The tutors viewed it as a private act, whereas the students understood it as a very public act. I think that the scenario alone looks at ideology and points to the fact that people use Discourse based on how they perceive the situation (and their reaction is based on their ideas about the situation). The idea of having “business” aired, especially when one’s history points to a theme of exploitation (in many ways) makes people leery of putting their stuff on blast. Thus, students should not be coerced to write authentic or true stories; however, I think that allowing them a chance to construct how they want to be perceived it the step that has to be taken. Monroe notes that “This power of self-invention and self-fashioning is even more important when students are sharing work online than when they are working on paper” (67). Thus, technology becomes an expressive avenue that allows students to participate in ways that do not compromise their integrity. Thus, if students wish to use signifying rhetoric to express themselves, it should be ok.
Gee also says that “the complex relationship among Discourses … define and demarcate individual discourses” (32). I do not agree with this. I think that one’s individual idea is always at the root…it is the foundation for which they can understand. So, my thinking about Discourse is similar to our discussion about home discourse last week. The foundational, historical, cultural implications always play a part in how one is able to view something. For example, it would be hard for women to try to re-claim a word that has been used to degrade them. The B-word is an example. Depending of who says it, it can very negative connotations. Thus, the historical can never be dismissed from that word, but other discourses can be added to a persons understanding of the word. The other discourses that come into play should not negate the individual because the individual informs the collective. Moreover, Krista Ratcliffe, in Rhetorical Listening says that “discourses are invisible to the human eye and yet may simultaneously permeate multiple bodies as when millions of people view a movie” (69). Ratcliffe’s claim uses metaphor to describe how one’s historical/cultural understanding will shape their view of something, which speaks to the individuals perception. This idea leads me into this idea of how technology is perceived, depending on one’s ideology.
Monroe’s chapter “Putting One’s Business on Front Street” takes a close look at a Detroit High School’s interaction with email in the mid-1990s. The Black students worked with mostly white tutors from the University of Michigan with writing through email. What I glean from the reading is that the students had a different understanding about what it means to engage in an email conversation. The tutors viewed it as a private act, whereas the students understood it as a very public act. I think that the scenario alone looks at ideology and points to the fact that people use Discourse based on how they perceive the situation (and their reaction is based on their ideas about the situation). The idea of having “business” aired, especially when one’s history points to a theme of exploitation (in many ways) makes people leery of putting their stuff on blast. Thus, students should not be coerced to write authentic or true stories; however, I think that allowing them a chance to construct how they want to be perceived it the step that has to be taken. Monroe notes that “This power of self-invention and self-fashioning is even more important when students are sharing work online than when they are working on paper” (67). Thus, technology becomes an expressive avenue that allows students to participate in ways that do not compromise their integrity. Thus, if students wish to use signifying rhetoric to express themselves, it should be ok.
No comments:
Post a Comment