Month: September 2018

Introduction: In my introduction paragraph, I did not change the opening statement.  I felt like it was strong enough to keep as it was.  Before, I only introduced who James Gee was to the reader but after revision, I added the Cuddy intro in there too.  It was previously on page five, and I feel it benefits my paper by adding it to the introduction.  Overall, I also thought how I presented my points in the introduction was effective thus making me decide to keep them how they were.  

Evidence and Explanations: I did not end up adding any new evidence from the text into my paper during revision.  I felt that my quote choice was strong and effectively supported my points and arguments.  I added more “I Say” into a few of my body paragraphs, stating whether I agree or disagree with the Cuddy or Gee quotes I would mention.  I also shortened my explanations to the reader on what a primary Discourses and secondary Discourses were so I could spend more of my paper taking about my views.  

Reorganization: I did not move full paragraphs around during revision of my paper.  However, I did move around certain aspects of paragraph.  As stated earlier, I moved my Cuddy intro from page 5 to the introduction paragraph.  I was satisfied with my paragraph order, and thought they transition together smoothly in building my argument for the reader throughout the course of the whole paper.  

New Paragraphs: In total, my final draft was actually around 40 words shorter than my first draft.  I did not add new paragraphs to the final draft.  I actually wrote two additional paragraphs during revision I was considering adding, but they would have made the paper too repetitive and may have made the reader lose interest.  During revision, I went through my paper paragraph by paragraph and made the changes that I saw fit.  The paragraphs I already had do a good job in supporting my argument, and I did not have a need to make dire changes after also receiving positive feedback from my peers.

Three important ideas:

• One has the ability to create a mushfake Discourse, which is similar to Cuddy’s ideology of “fake it till you become it”
• According to Gee’s first theorem, a person who is not fully engaged in a Discourse is simply a pretender.  Cuddy’s story about her former student contradicts this belief as being a pretender led her to full acquisition of a Discourse.
• A person has the potential to acquire full mastery of secondary Discourses as long as the person has the determination and perseverance to fully immerse themselves in the Discourse.  

 

Idea #2 Paragraph

 

James Gee proposes two controversial theorems he follow his teaching of Discourses.  The first theorem deals with the topic of a person who has not acquired full mastery of a Discourse.  Gee states, “However, someone cannot engage in a Discourse in a less than fully fluent manner. You are either in it or you’re not.  Discourses are connected with displays of an identity; failing to fully display an identity is tantamount to announcing you don’t have an identity, that at best you’re a pretender or a beginner”( Gee 9-10).  By focusing on the label “pretender”, Gee overlooks the fact that it is not possible for a person to fully acquire a Discourse immediately. Just like learning a new language, it takes time for a person to learn everything about a new Discourse and apply it to his or her life to reach full fluency in the Discourse.  Cuddy mentions a real life story in her TED talk that contradicts Gee’s first theorem. Cuddy talks about her former student that was struggling in her class and came to her for help. The student felt as if she didn’t belong in her class, and Cuddy quickly offered her a solution. Cuddy tells the girl, “Yes you are!  You are supposed to be here! And tomorrow you’re going to fake it, you’re going to make yourself powerful, and, you’re going to go into the classroom, and you are going to give the best comment ever” (Cuddy 18:35). Cuddy’s advice to her student was to act like she belonged in her class until she truly felt as if she did belong there.  She did not have full fluency in this Discourse, thus marking her as a “pretender” according to Gee’s first theorem. However, this ended up leading her to full acquisition of the Discourse and she found that she did in fact belong in the class. This real life story proves that although one may be a “pretender” in a Discourse that he or she is trying to acquire, this method in fact does have the potential to lead to full fluency of a Discourse.  

 

Idea #1 Paragraph

 

Although according to Gee, full mastery of a Discourse is quite difficult to acquire, it is possible to achieve this using various methods.  If a person does not have the proper tools or ability to fully immerse his or her self in a Discourse, they have the ability to make with what they have.  Gee describes, “Mushfake, a term from prison culture, as making do with something less when the real thing is not available” (Gee 13). Using the logic of Gee, one has the ability to improvise when they are not able to have all the tools for a Discourse.  A person has the ability to create a mushfake Discourse, an improvised Discourse when they do not have full fluency. This idea correlates to the teachings of Cuddy. When Cuddy was first starting teaching at Princeton, she felt like she did not belong there and had to create a mushfake Discourse for herself until she was able to achieve full fluency.  Cuddy’s advisor told her, “You are going to fake it. You’re going to do every talk that you ever get asked to do. You’re just going to do it and do it and do it, even if you’re terrified and just paralyzed and having an out of body experience, until you have this moment where you say, “Oh my gosh, I’m doing it. Like I have become this. I am actually doing this””(Cuddy 17:20).  Cuddy was able to create her own mushfake Discourse when it came to giving talks at a very prestigious school, which led her to full fluency in her Discourse. By working with what she had in herself at the time, she was able to eventually realize her potential and ability in fully acquiring this new Discourse, and she was able to fully acquire it.

 

ENG110I

 

1.  After finishing my rough draft, I did not have too many concerns over my paper.  Overall, I was very satisfied with my work.  However, I did notice that I had a few too many run on sentences that I could split up to make it easier for the reader to understand.  

2.  My peers were very helpful and gave great comments on my paper.  One of the positive comments they all said was how they liked my quote integrations.  They all believed that I did a good job in introducing my quotations and also did well in explaining their relevance to my paper.  On page four of my paper, Brandon commented, “Great intro into the quote, and explaining it to the reader to understand”.  Their comments were very helpful and gave me confidence in my writing.

3.  I believe I worked best with Gee when describing just what primary Discourses and secondary Discourses are.  I explained both concepts in a way that would make sense to a reader who has no prior knowledge to what these are.  My peer Sam commented,”I think that this sentence is well worked and helps the readers understand discourses more and secondary Discourses”.  

4.  I believe that I worked best with Cuddy on page five, when I mention the two personal stories she shared in her speech.  I used her stories and connected them to the work of Gee and his explanations of what it takes for a person to enter a Discourse.  My peer Sam made another great comment on this page.  She said, “I like that you used this story she told because I think it is a very powerful story. It shows the difference when a person is powerless compared to when a person is powerful”.  

5.  My peers gave me lots of feedback that will be helpful in touching up my rough draft.  One main comment most of them had was based on my run on sentences.  In these run on sentences, I tried to pile as much information as possible.  I see now that it would be more effective to split these sentences up, to make my paper more fluid and easier to read.  Another great comment I got was from Kiara in person during our small group discussions in class.  She mentioned to me that it would give the reader more clarity and information if I describe the reasoning for the “D” in Discourse always being capitalized.  I found this to be very helpful as it was something that had never previously crossed my mind.  I believe that adding this information will really enhance my paper. 

6.  I will help the reader get my perspective by discussing my points in as clear a way as possible, and making my connections easy for the reader to understand.  

1. In the book, They Say I Say, Graff and Berkenstein preach their idea, “In our view, then, the best academic writing has one underlying feature: it is deeply engaged in some way with other people’s views”(Graff and Berkenstein 3).  It is very important to engage in others’ views in your writing.  One reason is there must be a statement or a type of well known fact that you must argue your point either against or in support for.  Graff and Berkenstein mention,”Therefore, when it comes to constructing an argument… we offer you the following advice: remember that you are entering a conversation and therefore need to start with “what others are saying,” as the title of this chapter recommends, and then introduce your own ideas as a response”(Graff and Berkenstein 20-21).  In order for your reader to fully understand your thesis and argument, they must also have knowledge on the argument as a whole and the side of the argument you are going against.  Another reason it is important to engage others’ views in your writing is that it can give the reader a better picture of the larger conversation that is being had.  Graff and Berkenstein write.”We also believe that you need to present that argument as part of some larger conversation, indicating something about the arguments of others that you are supporting, opposing, amending, complicating, or qualifying”(Graff and Berkenstein 21).  By engaging in others’ views in your writing, you are effectively giving the reader more information on the larger picture of the situation or argument you are writing about, thus keeping them well informed enough to form their own opinions on the subject.  

2.  As a high school writer, I often followed the generic five paragraph essay format, as taught by my English teachers every year.  One introductory paragraph, 3 body paragraphs with quotes integrated in all of them, and then the closing paragraph, the writer’s last chance to state their thesis to the reader.  In my writing, I would often state the argument first in my introductory paragraph, followed by a quick counterargument that came prior to my thesis statement.  This same method that has worked for me is even stated by Graff and Berkenstein in chapter one.  They state,”What we suggest, then, is that as soon as possible you state your own position and the one it’s responding to together, and that you think of the two as a unit”(Graff and Berkenstein 21).  I believe this method is the most effective at easing tension on the contradicting advice stated in the question.  Using the writer’s position and the one it is responding to together can effectively get your point across to the reader early in the paper, and give them a better general understanding of what you are trying to prove the rest of the paper.  

3.  I found many of the tips and recommendations made by the authors in chapters 3 about quotes and integrating them into your writing were concepts I had learned and used before.  Graff and Berkenstein mentioned one practice that stood out to me the most, as it has always been the more important in my writing.  Graff and Berkenstein explain,”The one piece of advice about quoting that our students say they find most helpful is to get in the habit of following every major quotation by explaining what it means, using a template like one of ones below(Graff and Berkenstein 47-48).  In high school, the explanation of the quotes were always the most important and most reitterated parts of the essay.  They were the make or break parts of your paper, and these sections were vital in order for the writer to prove his or her thesis to the reader.  In my opinion, there is no point in implementing a quote into your writing if you aren’t going to explain the meaning behind it and why you decided to put it into your writing.  By not giving an explanation, you are simply wasting the time of the reader, and also your own time.  

Gee has two theorems concerning his studies on Discourses that I found to be quite interesting.  The first theorem states that for a person to officially have a certain Discourse, they must fully embrace and display that Discourse, not just in the way they speak but through their values, actions, beliefs, etc.  If a person is unable to fully display the Discourse, than they simply do not have it.  I believe this is controversial because it people may argue that a person can have exemplify small traits from many smaller Discourses and still conform to those same Discourses.  Personally, I understand both sides to this argument, and I agree with Gee’s first theorem.  Gee’s second theorem states that primary Discourses are limited, and people need more Discourses in order to for their primary Discourse to be critiqued and analyzed.  I think this is controversial because many people must disagree with the idea that their primary Discourses are limited.  The idea that these primary Discourses can not be expanded upon must be seen as a sort of “limit” to how people can improve and expand upon themselves. 

“Mushfake, resistance, and meta-knowledge: this seems to me like a good combination for successful students and successful social change”(Gee 13).  Gee describes “Mushfake” as making do when a person might not have the right means or supplies to get it done,  such as prison inmates making makeshift items in their cell using any supplies that they can find.  Meta-knowledge is “liberation and power, because it leads to the ability to manipulate, to analyze, to resist while advancing”(Gee 13).  Using “meta-knowledge”, a person can take information from another type of “language” or Discourse and apply it to a current Discourse to become more consciously aware of how their current Discourse works.  Lastly, Gee mentioned resistance in his recipe for successful students and successful social change.  A person having resistance to a Discourse means that they don’t attempt to learn or become involved with a Discourse that may not have use for them.  I believe this is important because there is such a large number of Discourses a person can conform to, that it is important for a person to stay true to the Discourses they naturally conform with and will benefit them as a human being the most.  

The ideas of Cuddy’s TED talk and Gee’s teachings have many similarities in the overall message both people are trying to convey to their audience.  Gee describes “mushfake” as “making do with something less when the real thing is not available”(Gee 13).  It is a method of simply working with what you have, and “faking” some of a Discourse when needed.  This directly correlates with Cuddy’s main message from her speech.  Cuddy tells her audience as her closer, “Don’t fake it till you make it.  Fake it till you become it”.  Both talk about the process of “faking it” when all the necessary tools or motifs are not quite there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     Gee defines Discourses (capital D) as “saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing, believing combinations” (6). Why is this “combination” important for Gee? Gee offers a couple examples. Offer your own example of a Discourse in your response.

Gee describes Discourses as ” a sort of identity kit”.  The key word in his description is “kit”.  A person’s Discourse is all the traits that they have picked up by “being a member of a primary socializing group (family, clan, peer group)”.  This combination is important for Gee because a person’s Discourse is not simply the way they talk, but it directly impacts the way they interact, think, and their values.  I grew up in the Bay Area in Northern California, which is very culturally diverse.  I have always valued and appreciated the other cultures that people come from, whether they be the same as my own or not.  I  had the experience of living in a small town in Nebraska during my senior year of high school and noticed that the people who had lived there their whole lives had different beliefs and values than me.

Gee breaks down Discourse into some different types or categories. What is the difference between a primary and a secondary Discourse? Why is Gee’s distinction between dominant and nondominant discourses important?

A primary Discourse is picked up by an individual while they are growing up and is directly impacted by their environment, surroundings, and the people they are around.  A secondary Discourse are obtained through “various non-home-based social institutions- institutions in the public sphere, beyond the family and immediate kin and peer group”.  Secondary Discourses are learned and picked up on as people leave their home environment and experience new environments and surroundings as they explore more of the world.  Gee’s distinction between dominant and non dominant Discourses is important because the dominant Disourses are “secondary Discourses the mastery of which, at a particular place and time, brings with it the (potential) acquisition of social “goods”(money, prestige, status, etc.)” as Gee explains it.  The non dominant Discourses focus more on one social group, and does not have a broad horizon with society itself.

Cuddy’s research explores nonverbal communication, as she tells us (para. 4). Why is this nonverbal behavior important to those who would be in the Discourse of business? Be sure to provide evidence from Cuddy in your response.

This nonverbal behavior is important in the Discourse of business because body language speaks large volumes to other people who may be judging you. Cuddy mentions an experiment her and her peers preformed involving job interviews and body language.  The results spoke for themselves.  She stated, “We want to hire these people, all the high-power posers.  We don’t want to hire these people”.  The people they did not want to hire were the individuals who showed “low power poses”.  This is important in the Discourse of business because it is important to seem like an “alpha” in the business world and have a strong, confident demeanor.