GEE: “The discourse practices associated with our schools represent the
world view of mainstream and powerful institutions in our society;
these discourse practices and their concomitant world view are
necessary for social and economic success in our society. But they
are also tied to the failure of nonmainstream children in our schools
and are rapidly destroying alternative practices and world views in
less technologically advanced cultures throughout the world. The
English teacher is not teaching grammar or even literacy, but rather
these mainstream discourse practices, practices which may be at
variance with the practices and values, with the identity and sense
of self, of nonmainstream students, practices which are related to
global political issues and to the literacy crisis in the United States,
which is construed as a social crisis.”
The passage is saying that the teachings in school can cause a huge separation between specific peoples. They called this a difference between mainstream and non mainstream children. I think that means that there’s a separation between cultures and the current worldviews in society. That can cause a huge gap between the success of each student because things are taught by teachers from experience and societal views and some students may not understand this. I think this passage reminds me of children who speak English as their first language and people who do not, and especially for people who live in non-English speaking households. That language barrier can cause huge misunderstandings in the classroom. This passage definitely makes me feel like there should be an easy solution to this issue but sadly it just isn’t that simple. Either way, inclusivity and compassion towards understanding all students may help teachers explain and teach better. The writer to me made the passage a bit difficult to understand which felt ironic because it’s true how language can bring people together but also cause confusion between different groups of people.
POSTMAN: “I have brought Freud into the conversation only to show that a wise man- even one of such a woeful countenance must begin his critique of technology by acknowledging its successes. Had King Thamus been as wise as reputed, he would not have forgotten to include in his judgment a prophecy about the powers that writing would enlarge. There is a calculus of technological change that requires a measure of even-handedness.”
The article states that in order to truly understand change you have to be willing to think about both the positive and negative impact they will have on society. I think this true because life is full of ups and downs and it will never just be one continuous thing. Change happens to us constantly and I feel like growing and taking in every possibility and outcome is how we will adapt. I like how writing and technological improvement has been compared to death because in the end mortality is the only thing that is constant, yet if we only focus on death and the negative then we would not enjoy life and all the good things that happen. It’s interesting to me because you cannot live life scared of change and the future. But in the same coin you must not be oblivious to the fact that it can affect us deeply and it should be handled carefully as there is no going back from this beautiful tragedy.
A very thoughtful response here. I appreciate your last comment about the Gee piece, that it’s ironic that the piece can be sometimes hard to understand. Gee’s piece reflects a certain “discourse practice” of academic writing. I think the important thing here is that there are different rules and expectations in different discourse practices.