Megan Augustin English 401 March 2, 2012 The Happy Medium of Discourse When I entered the university setting

as a freshman in college, I was under-prepared for the college writing discourse. I struggled to create a bridge between my dominant discourse and the university discourse. I understood that my discourse was inappropriate for the university discourse, but I did not understand how to maneuver my way through academic writing. Today, as a practicum student, I have seen my psychology students struggle in the same ways that I did; they are struggling to enter the university discourse. How do we help students acquire a discourse that accommodates both the primary and secondary discourse? In her essay, The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse, Lisa Delpit discusses the necessity of embracing the home discourse and the discourse of school in order to maintain voice. According to Delpit, There are primary discourses, those learned in the home, and secondary discourses, which are attached to institutions or groups that they might encounter (Delpit 492). In other words, primary discourses are the discourse that students are most comfortable with because it is their home language, and secondary discourses are discourses that students struggle to enter because they are typically associated with the university context. Delpit used the Marge example to further her claim. Marge was very talented student, but she did not understand how to maneuver her way through academic writing, reading, and talking (Delpit 494). Marge was unable to enter the university discourse because she could not make the proper approximations to enter the foreign university discourse even though she was maintaining her voice. Delpit agreed with James Paul Gees claim that One never learns simply to read or write,

but to read and write within some larger discourse, and therefore within some larger set of values and beliefs (Delpit 492). Delpit did agree with Gee that there is a need for students to enter a different discourse than their own; however, Delpit found that only using this larger discourse or secondary discourse could limit or extinguish voice within writing all together. Delpit also differed from Gees claims in that students could learn a secondary discourse and use it to enhance voice rather than diminish it; individuals can learn the superficial features of dominant discourse, as well as their more subtle aspects (Delpit 501). David Bartholomae, in his essay Inventing the University, agreed with Delpits claims that students need to enter and learn a secondary discourse in order to be successful in that specific community (university discourse community). Bartholomae claimed that students should be explicitly offered the steps that allow them to learn to speak our language (Bartholomae 3). When students can understand the language, they have gained audience awareness, which according to Bartholomae, is one of the keys to enter the university discourse community. However, Bartholomae claimed that appropriate voice could be gained from authority, not from the primary discourse or comfortable discourse: the voice or the persona of an authority is rooted in scholarship, analysis or research. They [basic writers] slip, then, into a more immediately available and realizable voice (Bartholomae 5). However, Bartholomae claimed that an air of authority could only be gained when writers fully enter the university discourse (Bartholomae 5). Is the loss of voice worth gaining an air of authority? Delpit agreed with Bartholomae that the secondary discourse is necessary, but she differed in the fact that ignoring primary discourse may not be necessary. Peter Elbow, in his essay Closing My Eyes as I Speak, also found that completely entering the secondary discourse could limit the creative process and as a result hinder voice.

Elbow claimed that in beginning drafts, ignoring audience initially (limiting the use of a secondary discourse) can lead to better writing (Elbow 176). Elbow furthers his suggestion by claiming that audience should not be completely ignored, but audience awareness should be limited when creating a draft. Therefore, Elbow found that the writer should focus on the primary discourse to keep voice intact. Elbow claimed that, the voice that emerges when we ignore audience is sometimes odd or idiosyncratic in some way, but usually it is stronger (Elbow 177). In other words, voice is stronger when it is not inhibited by a secondary discourse. Elbows theories do not see the necessity for multiple perspectives (the primary and secondary discourse)just one perspective (your internal perspective). According to Elbow, audience awareness does not foster creativity it inhibits voice and identity within writing. However, voice is not the only important factor when it comes to writing in an academic context; authority is also necessary. Delpit, similar to Elbow, questioned the necessity for students to enter the academic discourse. However, Delpit did understand how essential the university discourse is for academic writing. Delpit claims that as educators, we are expecting a lot from our studentswe expect them to learn a new language, change their voice to an academic voice, and in a way change their values to mimic academia. Delpit used Keith Gilyards writing to demonstrate the struggle that students face when they are asked to make approximations to enter the foreign university discourse: I was torn between institutions, between value systems. At times I saw no middle ground (Delpit 497). The inability for students to find middle ground causes them to shut down as a student and choose to not learn (Delpit 497). Delpit argued that students struggle to enter the university because they refuse to ignore their identity, and to agree to learn from a stranger who does not respect your integrity causes a major loss of self. The only alternative is to

not learn and reject the strangers world (Delpit 497). In other words, students are loosing their sense of self (voice) because they are entering a foreign discourse, and as a result are refusing to enter the discourse at all. But is it wrong for educators to ask students to enter a discourse where they will be successful? Delpit claimed that educators question whether they are acting as agents of oppression by insisting that students who are not already a part of the mainstream learn that discourse (Delpit 491). In other words, teachers wonder if they are making students feel disheartened and feel as though they have lost their identity and voice by forcing students to enter the university discourse. But this may not be the case. According to Delpit, acquiring the ability to function in a dominant discourse need not mean that one must reject ones home identity and values, for discourses are not static, but are shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and by the form of their participation (Delpit 499). In other words, students must find their voice within the university discourse, and students can alter this discourse to embody their identity and voice instead of rejecting the university discourse completely. Elbow agreed with Delpit that students are struggling with identity and voice when attempting to enter the university discourse, but Elbow found that students should ignore audience to find their voice instead of finding their voice within the university discourse. Elbow claimed that writer based prose (the focus is put on the writer and their intentions) allows the writer to emit a stronger voice, whereas reader based prose (the focus is put on the reader and their interpretations) inhibits writers voice because the emphasis is placed on the reader. In other words, a stronger voice is emitted when the focus is taken off the secondary discourse. He also claimed The self functions as audience in much the same way that others do (Elbow 185). That is to say, the secondary discourse is not necessary because the

primary discourse, to a point, acts as a secondary discourse. However, only considering the primary discourse does not fully accommodate the secondary discourse, which is necessary for students to enter the academic community. Bartholomae completely disagreed with Delpit and Elbow and claimed that students loose their voice because they are lacking knowledge of their audience, not because students are being forced into a new identity. Bartholomae claimed that voice is transmitted through the text when a writer locates himself as a writer in a familiar field stereotypes (Bartholomae 10). In other words, voice is created with the knowledge of the audience. Bartholomae claimed that it is necessary for students to establish a voice that has authority instead of creating or using their own voice because it might not fit in to the academic discourse setting. Until students can understand the university discourse, they must mimic the voice and language of this new discourse. Bartholomae found that students could most easily enter the university discourse by finding a commonplace within their writing. Commonplaces are the best way for students to make successive approximations to enter the university discourse. Delpit agreed with Bartholomae that there is a necessity to find a middle ground between discourses. Delpit claimed that, individuals have the ability to transform dominant discourses for liberatory purposesto engage in what Henry Louis Gates calls changing the joke and slipping the yoke (Delpit 498). In other words, students can use the university discourse (either in language or norms) to challenge beliefs and to challenge the conventions of voice. Students have to know the joke before they can challenge it. Delpit demonstrates the idea of slipping the yoke with Richard Wrights essay (Delpit 500). Wright was able to break conventions using his voice by entering the academic discourse. Educators must help students acknowledge their voice and embrace it through the discourse associated with academia. This allows students to enter the

university while breaking conventions to liberate their voice. Educators have to help students use the not learning to their benefit by creating a rebellious voice that pushes the boundaries of the university discourse while remaining a part of that discourse.

Works Cited Bartholomae, David, Inventing the University, Teaching Composition: Background Readings, Bedford/ St. Martins, New York, 2008, 2-31. Delpit, Lisa, The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse, Teaching Composition: Background Readings, Bedford/ St. Martins, New York, 2008, 491-502. Elbow, Peter, Closing My Eyes as I Speak, Teaching Composition: Background Readings, Bedford/ St. Martins, New York, 2008, 172-194.