D/discourses

Ok, for this one I am going old school and refering to something I write a long while ago, my dissertation. The whole thing is available here (you can read it if you are having trouble sleeping :p)

James Gee (1991, 1996) expanded on Foucault’s (1969/1972) notion of discourse as a set of rules that linked language, institutions, and social relationships and also incorporated features that spoke to de Certeau’s (1984) notions of strategies and tactics. Gee (1996) divided the concept of discourse into two versions, one lower-case, the other upper-case. Lower-case discourses were described as specific behaviors, “ways of being in the world” (p. 127) that included language, gestures, clothing, values, and beliefs. Abstractly speaking, they were specific actions and features stripped of their meaning. In conjunction with lower-case discourses, upper-case Discourses were the sets of rules that dictated “how to act, talk, and often write” (p. 127). These rules were tied to notions of identity and related to a complex system of social connections. Discourse involved following certain social conventions to “‘pull off’ being a culturally specific sort of ‘everyday’ person” (Gee, 2005, p. 7). Discourses included the myriad rules that constituted social identities. Gee stated that practicing a Discourse included being a convincing member of a social group, whether it is a regular at a bar, an award winning physicist, or an avid hip-hop fan. These rules gave meaning to and also dictated how to use various discourses.

D/discourses were always bundled together. Gee (1996) emphasized that the division of lower-case and upper-case was artificial and only separated the terms to make his academic arguments. An example of the intertwining of D/discourse can be seen in making eye contact. As a behavior, making eye contact is an example of a discourse that belongs to a number of Discourses. Depending on the context of the person making eye contact, the Discourses that constitute her/his social identity, making eye contact can be used variously to insult, ask a question, indicate attention, or show sexual interest. Gee (1991) likened Discourses to “identity kits” (p. 3). In a manner of speaking, big D Discourses were kits that contained the little d discourses.

Summation: So the little d is the behavior and the big D is the rule of society that makes you do the little d like you do in that particular context. Simple, right?

An identity kit? (Not to scale; contents may vary) 

The point here is that we teach students lots of little d behaviors and tasks, but sometimes (always?) we do not so much take into account their big D identities. It's a way of talking about why students do not think tasks done in school are important outside of school. Because the little d activities may not jell with  their big D experiences or desires. That is an issue of relevance and worth.