“Mushfake” is turning something you have, into something better than you don’t have. A “Mushfake Discourse” involves strategies to make do with what you have, and to make up what you don’t have. I see this as one of the essential elements from Cuddy’s catchphrase “Fake it till you become it”. Gee states that practicing “Mushfake resistance” and using meta-knowledge are successful for students. This is because they gain the skill of “psyching out” their interviewers into making them believe they are well versed in a certain topic. I think this is a good practice. People respond well to confidence. Seeing someone who is confident, you usually can assume they know what they are talking about. If you teach students to act confident, eventually they will actually be confident.
Gee’s Two Theorems
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.
HW for Sep 6 annotation photos
Homework for Sep 6- Cuddy, Gee, and More!
Kiara Frischkorn
6 Sep 2018
Michael Cripps
English 110 I
Cuddy, Gee, and more Part II: Reading Response
1. Gee defines Discourses as “saying writing-doing-being-valuing, believing combinations”(6). Why is this “combination” important for Gee?
A discourse holds everything we value in a sort of “Identity kit”. You need to have intensity for a certain subject to make it a discourse. You need to believe and value everything around and in a subject, for it to be your discourse.
2. Gee writes “While you can teach someone linguistics, a body of knowledge you can’t teach them to be a linguist” If so, how does one become a linguist, a sociologist, biologist, etc.
You can give someone the knowledge of a certain topic, but it is up to them if they want to pursue that subject. Teaching a person to give CPR will not make them become a doctor. We pick our jobs based on passion. I am taking a marine biology class, but learning about tides and animals will not make me a biologist. The extra effort I put into my passion will drive me to become one. “Discourses are not bodies of knowledge”(7), but rather “Instructions on how to act, talk, and often write”(7). Having the knowledge of a veterinarian won’t make you one. However, if you wake up every day with the drive to save animals, that makes you a veterinarian.
3. Gee breaks down discourse into some different types of categories. What is the difference between primary and secondary discourse? Why is Gee’s distinction between dominant and nondominant discourses important?
Primary discourse is learning from an intimate group of people, it can be your family for example or a tightly knitted church group. “Primary discourse constitutes our original and home-based sense of identity, and I believe it can be seen when we are interacting with intimates in casual social interactions”(8). Primary discourses can become foundations that later discourses that you acquired later in life. Secondary discourses are the discourses we experience in the community, a local bar or shopping mall. They require certain commands if we acquire fluently, we become more apprenticeships with. The way I distinguish dominant discourses and nondominant discourses it imagines working for money compared to volunteering. “Dominant discourses which have the potential acquisition of social good like money”(8), while “Nondominant discourses brings solidarity with a large social group, and social goods for the community at large”(8). Dominant discourses keep personal gain in mind, while nondominant are better for the community.
