Robin,+3,+Gee+Discourse+&+Yegelski+Praxis

Robin, 3, Gee & Yegelski

__Gee, “Discourse”__. “At any moment we are using language we must say or write the right naming in the right way while playing the right social role and (appearing) to hold the right values, beliefs, and attitudes. Thus, what is important is not language, and surely not grammar, but saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations. Discourses are ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions and clothes. A Discourse is a sort of “identity kit” complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize” (1). **Isn’t this idea already called “social identity”?** **If Discourse is acquired through social practice, as Gee asserts, why can’t the concept remain “social practices”, also known as the social graces amendable to any given interaction, as it has been for decades? It seems to me, another situation of trying to fix what’s not broken, or in academic practice, reinventing something to re-muddy the water.** “Middle-class mainstream status-giving, superficialities impervious to overt instruction” meant to enforce a social status quo (5)? **Beg to differ. Many enterprising self-made fame and fortune seekers have soared to the top of the social pinnacle with less than perfectly placed “plural possessive third-person “s” agreement errors”. In fact, to go a step further, the prevalent entrée to popular culture appears to be the ability to mimic a meta-level incognizance of such linguistic and grammatical niceties. The more imperfect and vulgar the speech, spelling, grammar, social norms, and values, the higher the acclaim and richer the lifestyle; as the fame of reality stars (perversion of “star” qualities), media advertising, politicians, sport and entertainment industry, and the digital cloud attests.** __ Yagelski, “Writing as Praxis” __. **What a great lead-in from what I just stated in response to Gee’s observation.** NAEP asserts that of (2008) high school seniors, though the majority are competent writers, less than a quarter write at a proficient level and only 1 percent write at an advanced level and a third of (2010) high school juniors are not prepared for college-level writing (1, or 188). **So, either, the mainstream status-giving middle-class have lowered the meta-level, and the majority of millionaires exhibit poor diction and syntax or Gee is inadvertently referring to the 1% of American wealth-holders, and not the middle-class and that percent has not been tested by the NAEP for their ELA usage.** (p. 3) Writing can become a vehicle for genuine change only if we understand it as something more than a process of textual production…capturing the complexity and power of writing to understand ourselves and the world we share, as a way of living our lives more fully. Ontologically, a way of being in the world, writing to live more fully, a steop toward living peacefully and humanely, writing as praxis – Paulo Freire, 2005, //Pedagogy of the oppressed// – praxis as reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it. Language and literacy are integral to, essential to, that process of action and reflection. To say a true word – praxis – is to transform the world. **In 2008, or 09, I attended a conference in Macomb co. that shared a 16-unit literature package for teaching high school. The series is Learning Life’s Lessons Through Literature, and poses perspectives that encourage transformative thinking through life experiences using the literary educational lens of Inter-relationships and Self-reliance, Critical Response and Stance, Transformational Thinking, and Leadership Qualities.** **I think this is a similar theme of transformational writing that Yegelski refers to as a praxis of writing. And even though I love this literature teaching series, which does include an equitable and balanced amount of writing, I think there remains some missing nugget of writing instruction; I believe it could improve on the explicit instruction of evaluation practices, but aside from that, a little something more having to do with writing, deep, transformative writing. Transformation as a concept in how we think, view, interpret, apply, is all there, and reflective writing, writing from experience, choices in writing, those are present too, but I feel the niggling nuisance that there is one more little leap to make, as if one foot has made it over but not yet the other foot. Maybe it lies in making the transitional connection between transformative thinking to transformative writing. The transitional thinking coupled with the experiential writing is close, but not yet a cigar. I think Yegelski is on to something genuine with his ideas of writing as praxis (though “praxis” threw me for a loop), he defines it in such a way as I could clearly see how a nameless idea was producing affects (as deficiencies) in writing.**
 * P.s. “Mushfake” may have its linguistic roots in prison discourse, but “making do”, as a concept, has its roots in a “women’s’ lot” discourse. **