On one hand, Gee talks about an explanation of what exactly literacy is.

On the other hand, he explains the differences in the different types of discourses, and that social norms are also forms of discourse. Gee contradicts himself. At the same time that he argues the difference between language and literacy, he also implies in a distinct difference between discourse and Discourse. I agree that there are other examples of discourse besides speaking, language, and literacy. He argues that being American or Russian, or a man or woman are forms of discourses, and I agree because these are messages that are conveyed. His argument that European social theory is a little more complex is supported by new research showing that the points he makes in the article seem to be more commonplace there. In recent discussions of what exactly literacy is, a controversial issue has been whether it is simply the ability to read or write, or something much more complex. On the one hand, some argue that literacy is the mos t basic and important skill to have in regard to language because deciphering symbols on a paper determines your ability to write. On the other hand, however, others, including Gee argue that literacy is just the master of or fluent control over a secondary Discourse.