Review_Author: Darryl Powe
Book_Author: Gee, James Paul
Book_Title: Social linguistics and literacies : ideology in discourses
Reference: 1996, London ; New York : Taylor & Francis
Date: 12/17/2004
Time: 5:59:51 AM
Remote Name: 128.175.34.35
Gee (1996) cites that the purpose of this book is to (1) expound upon a sociocultural approach to language and literacy, (2) provide for an analysis of language as language- in-use-in-society, and (3) to provide for and expand upon a specific theory of language and literacy centered on the notion of Discourses (D/discourse). He cites, Discourses (D/discourse) are ways of behaving, interacting, valuing, thinking, believing, speaking, and often reading and writing that are accepted as instantiations of particular roles or types of people) by specific groups of people, whether families of a certain sort, lawyers of a certain thought, bikers of a certain thought, business people of a certain thought, church members of a certain thought, African- Americans of a certain thought, women and men of a certain sort. (Gee, 1996. p. viii). The importance of language is highlighted because language makes no sense outside of discourse. In that language is common among all humans, one assumes that discourse is equally common. In that there an innumerable languages (with their respective dialects), one can also infer that there is an infinite number of discourses and types of discourses. One important factor in this analysis is that within all languages (with their inherent discourses) dialects arise from communicative practices within groups. And it is the interactions between these groups via discourse (Both D and d) that social stratification and marginalization occur and recur. Also prevalent in the text is Gee’s take on ideology as it been utilized by America’s social elite in an attempt to influence overall views on reading and other literacy practices. He defines ideology as having both positive and negative characteristics citing that when the term ideology is used we often assign a negative connotation to it. Ideology has been used, in fact, to draw distinctions between one’s group beliefs and value from another’s. Specifically he refers to DeTracy’s (1801) notion that one’s ideas, beliefs, and values (Ideology) are formed on the basis of upbringing and environment and not Cosmically or religiously predetermined. Similar to DeTracy, Marx also agreed that one values system is formed trough one’s background experience. Marx’s asserts that, “It is the failure of the elite and powerful in a society to realize that their view of reality follows from, and supports their positions of power that creates ideology. Throughout the text, Gee (1996) asserts that schools have not taught students to be literate. They are able to complete school-based literacy tasks effectively but literacy tasks outside of school have been purposefully neglected in order to replicate social norms, beliefs and values which result in the retention of power of those members of the higher levels of our social hierarchy. They are taught to read and to write but not in a manner that would lead to true self- determination and self- activation.[Literacy] is the means by which we make sense of reality, though it is not an accurate reflection of that reality, nor doers it lead to a just, equitable, and humane world” (p.26). In later chapters, Gee provides examples of how aspects of d/discourse, rather our perceptions of aspects of d/discourse lead to value judgments about people and specific groups. For example from a phonologic perspective Appalachian dialects of English are sensitive to /r/ or r- lessness – they sound foreign, whereas morphologically, Southern Americans utilize longer rimes (or more specifically longer within-word vowel productions) than Northern American-they talk slower. Pragmatically, Northern Americans utilize higher intensity vocal productions than Southern American –they talk louder. In the latter part of the text, Gee begins to outline his language/literacy theory. Again, he is forwarding the literacy myth as a socially pervasive entity. It is important to note that there great differences between a language (a rule governed socially shared system of communication), a dialect (a variation of a language) and literacy the ability to read and write via a language. In particular, he recounts how one’s discourse or use of language in society is used to assign group membership for either inclusion or exclusion. As in the first chapter, he relates his view of current literacy policy to pervasive social policies of the past. He repeats Levine’s (1986) treatise that, “Discussions of literacy are couched in terms of this same master myth: literacy = functional literacy = skills necessary to function in today’s job market = market economy = the economy” (p.122-123). This relates, in a critical fashion the impact and expectancies of this myth. “It is not just language and action that must fit together appropriately. In socially situated language, one must simultaneously say the ‘right thing’, do the ‘right thing’, and in saying and doing express the ‘right’ beliefs, values and attitudes” (p.124). The overall value of the text is that it provides a unique perspective on the value of literacy, its overall influence on social norms and group practices, and the manner by which these practices are initiated and influenced. Its reading would of greta value to educators and researchers interested in the social aspects of reading. It is comparable to the work of Donna Alvermann with its focus on student-valued literacy practices; as well as, Marilyn Nippold whose work focuses on the structure of adolescent literacy behaviors.