In the revised addition, I explained more about how I would be using my sources. I also clearly stated my claims that I would be investigating throughout the paper.

Original:

Is it human instinct to ostracize? To make groups that specify who should and shouldn’t be allowed in, to create a unifying characteristic to define the created family? The closest social phenomena involves the tendency to form ingroups that define individuals of a certain identity, and the related formation of outgroups that do not fit that identity. This idea is translated into the work of one James Paul Gee in Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics. The ingroup is defined instead as a Discourse, the characteristics that make up a person’s identity and defines their social circles. Gee made several claims throughout his work, some of which were refuted by Lisa Delpit in her response called The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse. These works both contain key references for the bigger picture to be examined. The bigger picture that requires looking at the application of such ideas, supported by the work of June Jordan in Nobody Mean More to Me than You And the Future Life of Willie Jordan. Overall, there are two points to be made on the topic of Discourses and their tendency to be used as a scapegoat for exclusivity principles.

 

Revised: 

Is it a part of the human condition to ostracize? Does the instinctual tendency as humans to form groups destroy the potential of other groups’ success? Does the determinism of such a suggestion to the same? The closest social phenomena involves the tendency to form ingroups that define individuals of a certain identity, and the related formation of outgroups for people that do not fit that identity. This idea is translated into the work of one James Paul Gee in Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics. The ingroup is defined instead as a Discourse, the characteristics that make up a person’s identity and defines their social circles. From Gee’s perspective, the lines between Discourses are clear, and therefore not everyone is allowed in. The exclusivity of Discourses is one of the key parts to Gee, and it is the part that I have the most issue with. Lisa Delpit, in her response called The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse, expresses similar frustrations with Gee. Her works will be used as evidence to dispute Gee’s more controversial points. Both of these works both contain key references for the bigger picture to be examined. The bigger picture that requires looking at the application of such ideas, that will supported by the work of June Jordan in Nobody Mean More to Me than You And the Future Life of Willie Jordan. Jordan lived through experiences specially defined by Discourses, but did not always follow the determinism of Gee. Overall, there are two points to be made on the topic of Discourses and their tendency to be used for exclusivity principles. Firstly, Discourses are flexible and bend at will to the nature of humanity. Secondly, although the repercussions to joining dominant Discourses can at times seem impossible, they are most certainly not. Discourses, in all of their complication, are still fundamentally made by humans; and can therefore not limit human behavior to the degree that Gee implies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *