Gee’s first theorem states that when it comes to a discourse, “you are either in it or you’re not”(9). If you do not fully display the identity of a discourse you are a pretender. If we are using the study of language as a metaphor, you can only be a fluent speaker or a novice, no in-between. I find this to be very controversial because the world of discourses is so vast. The idea of being either in or out is too limiting.
The second theorem states that Primary Discourses can never truly be liberating. For literature to be liberating it needs to have a set of “meta-elements” which can be analyzed. It also states that Primary Discourses are not liberating because they require more than one discourse. Furthermore, this theorem states that “ Primary Discourses are initial and only contain themselves”(9). If this is true, then how can you add in a new discourse for liberation. You can’t have liberation if you only contain yourselves. You need to bring in new ideas to get new perspectives.
