James Paul Gee, in his “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction,” presents us with the concept of Discourse (with a capital “D”) as an “identity kit”, a culmination of both applied symbols and the emerging persona, or the “saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations” being displayed. Gee asserts that mastery of Discourses comes from “apprenticeship” and social practice supported by those who already have command of the Discourse, with our “original” sense of identity, or primary Discourse, acquired as participating members of our main socializing groups such as our families and peers, and underpin all later acquired Discourses (secondary Discourses). “Literacy” then, as Gee defines it, is “the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse”.
One such secondary Discourse I enact daily is that of a Professional, addressed by “Angela”, apart from my home-based self “Angie”, and I form and position myself within the workplace with more than just my name- or word-choices, but with values, attitudes, and beliefs I try to take on in combination with my actions, posture, and the clothes I select. I would argue there is a “Workplace Literacy” itself, involving skills of communication and collaboration within team setting, to function and complete objectives.
In the professional sphere, it is not always about expressing knowledge or field expertise, but in communicating your fit within a company or team (social group). Gee discusses how groups in a society (particularly in reference to dominant groups with regard to money, prestige or status) apply “tests” of fluency, which serve as gates to exclude or identify individuals as non-members (if not beginners) of the social role. In a recent job interview for advancement toward a Supervisory role, I was asked to identify a characteristic of a Supervisor I would not want to emulate. I saw this prompt framed in negative language as a test or trap to mark myself an outsider apart from those already in the position. With this in mind, I used it as an opportunity to align myself with those in the role, and to instead highlight the attributes I had observed that made those in the position stand out and excel apart from others. This is the sort of liberating literacy Gee points to, and the meta-knowledge and meta-values employed to critique our literacies and “the ways the constitute us” and “situate us society”.
Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe’s “Becoming Literate in the Information Age: Cultural Ecologies and the Literacies of Technology” highlight the significance of situating literacies within specific conditions (cultural, material, etc.), historical periods, and other contexts of their development and acquisition. Like Gee, they also impress access and support as important in developing literacies, but of interest to myself was the ability of an individual to exert their own agency in fostering and acquiring literacy practices asserted by Hawisher and Selfe. While emersion and social practice is critical, our own enthusiasm in a field can shape our literacies. This can be empowering that in professional life, my own drive to learn, examine, and thwart myself into practice can affect how I participate and communicate proficiently within my field.
Leave a Reply