Gee's Key Points

Sherman Aspacio
24 February 2009
Precis #3

Gee begins his piece by defining Discourse. He defines it as "a sort of 'identity kit'" that defines a person's behavioral patterns and particular role (526). A person can (and does) have many discourses. Gee goes on to designate said discourses.
Gee argues that Primary discourse is the freebie we all get as human beings, the language in which we interact within the home element, the language we think in, etc. This is the only discourse with which we can be truly fluent (as it is attained through acquisition). This language is acquired and later expanded upon through learning.
Secondary discourses are those that come into an individual's life after acquisition of the primary discourse. A secondary discourse that is mastered that promises potential attainment of social goods within communities is called a Dominant Discourse. A discourse that is mastered that only brings harmony with the individual and the social network without promise of said goods is called a nondominant discourse.
Gee also brings up the tension and conflict aspect of mingling discourses. Often, one will take on secondary discourses that may not share values across the board with the primary discourse. This often causes a non-literacy of the secondary discourse and in stressful situations can be “socially disastrous” (528). Thus, Gee defines literacy as “the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary discourse” (529).
Secondary discourses are also handy in gauging the primary discourse in providing meta-knowledge. When one masters a secondary discourse, one attains a new perspective to evaluate one’s own primary discourse, or meta-knowledge. This self-observation is only critical when a secondary perspective is available, when one is literate.
Gee holds two theorems with his definition of literacy. 1st: You are either in or out. There is no middle ground, only fluency of the discourse or non-fluency. As Gee so eloquently put it, “There is no affirmative action for Discourses,” only speakers and apprentices (529). 2nd: All primary discourses are limited.
Literacy also has a gating function. Through superficial “trivialities,” people can be evaluated as a nonpartisan of a certain discourse and denied the social goods inherent. These trivialities cannot be learned through secondary discourse, Gee argues, rather, they must be attained through submersion into the discourse.
“Mushfake” is the pretension of a discourse through taking elements of the discourse and coupling it with a person’s reserve of meta-knowledge to make do (533).
“Filtering” is the process of taking values from different secondary discourses and applying them to the primary discourse (534). A child who does this, as apparent in the reading, will seem to have talent or native ability in secondary discourses simply through a long amount of practice.
One must not assume that bringing in and ingesting whole secondary discourses will benefit a young learner, though. Often times, a young learner will eat the plate along with the food, if you will, absorbing “a whole system of thought, embedded in the very linguistic devices she uses” (536). This was exemplified through a child who narrated a fight she was involved with, assuming that the unnatural elements of the situation were natural. In this case, one can readily observe the values that can filter into primary discourse through mastery of a secondary one.
Gee goes on to elaborate on all of these concepts in the second part of his piece. It is curious to wonder, what will happen to primary discourses? Are they as flexible as literacies? Can they change radically from generation to generation to create gaps in communication and understanding? How will subjective values mingle amongst different interest groups as more and more people absorb secondary discourses.
I hope this precis was helpful for you. Thanks for reading.