1. After finishing this reading about discourse communities I am rather confused. Prior to reading Gee's text, we read texts that suggested to be a part of a discourse community you must learn everything before you are allowed to be a part of the community. You must learn to talk a certain way, obtain certain skills, and even dress a certain way in some cases. Each discourse community has it's own specific criteria. For example, athletic training students, you can't be an athletic training student unless you are knowledgeable about sports. But from Gee's description of discourse communities, I obtained the idea that to be a part of the discourse community you there must be complete enculturation. Meaning that this discourse community accepts you on the terms that you agree to learn their rules, how they speak, how they act, how they dress and all the necessary skills. The later of the texts, Gee's, seems almost like a college major; you agree to fulfill the requirements set forth by the university and the major if they accept you. Maybe I am misunderstanding what the authors are saying but the prior texts seem the person learns everything about the discourse community from the outside, looking in. While Gee's text suggest the complete enculturation of a person to learn everything. I'm assuming that this isn't very important or significant it just depends of the specific discourse community and how their growth.
2. I really enjoyed the metaphor Gee used to describe discourse communities. "A sort of 'identity kit' which comes complete with the appropriate instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize you as." When he beings discussing the primary discourse communities and their significance, I wondered how young to discourse communities start. Can a kindergartener be a part of a discourse community. Can you be put into a certain discourse community because you're parents were/are part of it? After internalizing the text I feel like I came to the conclusion that you have to be aware of how people perceive you to be apart of a discourse you choose. But why is this relevant? Parents, siblings might not realize that they're actions or decisions might make you be a part of discourse community without you having a choice. Along with that I wondered what primary discourses are. Are they your family, your socioeconomic level, your town, your biddy sports team, your church? How can come be a part of so many discourse communities when at some point the beliefs of them are going to overlap.
3. This question is probably irrelevant really to the point of the text but I still wondered when I was reading. Gee briefly touched on the consequences of discourse communities overlapping but didn't go into much detail. Can people loose discourse communities as they grow or is that discourse community always a part of them? This is a very cliche example but I was raised in a small town where everyone acts a certain way, talks a certain way and has very small minded beliefs. I was raised in this discourse community. Even more specifically I was raised in a church in which was a discourse community; certain beliefs, language and restrictions. The beliefs of that discourse go against beliefs of discourses here at OU. Many of the beliefs instilled in me by my primary discourse are still with me but they conflict with my current discourse. I feel like this question is extremely relevant in real life because generations have conflicts with beliefs; what our parents grew up believing was right and wrong, good and bad, unacceptable and acceptable is completely different then what we grew up with. But do those primary discourses every leave us?
