Reyna 1

Luis Reyna
Instructor Laurel Cooper
English 101
16 March 2015
The Ties that Bind a Discourse in a Changing World
Discourses help shape our identity and develop the way we present ourselves to
society. It is important to know how discourses change in order to help them improve. I
feel like in general the process of change is really significant. I want to expand on how
discourses change with the fact that Discourses are resistant to internal criticism and
self-scrutiny (Gee 73). Meaning you cant really judge your own discourse because of
the fact that you are a part of it. By criticizing your own discourses you are going against
their values, and according to Gee this would define them as being outside the discourse
and not even a part of it. Gee, however does say that it is possible to criticize particular
discourses from other discourses. This makes it so that change is even possible but there
are many factors that affect it. This ranges from the way discourses criticize themselves,
the way the individual portrays themselves, and the way society looks that them. All of
these aspects are important in changing a discourse. Throughout the essay I will be
analyzing the text What is literacy by Gee, Arts of the Contact Zone by Mary Pratt
and the film Stranger with a Camera by Elizabeth Barret. I think the most important thing
to remember is that the individual and the groups values and actions are both equally
important when criticizing a discourse. I believe that you cant criticize an individual
without looking at the discourses they are a part of, but you also cant criticize the whole
group because of an individual. We need to take both of them into account.

Reyna 2
Gee defines a discourse as a socially accepted association among ways of using
language, of thinking, and of acting that could be used to identify oneself as a member of
a socially meaningful group or social network. (73). He basically defines it as a
combination of language and social practices within a specific group that individuals
associate with. Throughout the text, Gee states that everyone is a part of a discourse
whether its your race, gender, religion, or even just a club. When considering the film
Stranger with a Camera, the state of Kentucky could be considered a discourse but the
people from Appalachia would definitely be considered a discourse of their own. Not just
any type of discourse, I believe that the people of Appalachia would consider themselves
as being in a safe house. According to Pratt, a safe house is a social/intellectual place that
is full of like-minded people. I believe safe houses are a type of discourses but a safe
house is more closely bonded. In a way it is more intimate. You can think about it this
way, your school is a discourse and a club you are a part of is a safe house. The
Appalachian people all knew one another and for the most part had the same mentality,
goals and values. They all lived the same lifestyle. They lived in a place where mining
was there number one resource and for the most part they were very reserved people.
However, according to the rest of the nation this is the place where the American Dream
failed. With that being said, I believe that this gave the outside world an easy target to
pick at. The media showed up and starting picking at the discourse and basically stating
everything wrong about them. They were being looked as living in poverty and living
terrible lives. But it shouldnt have been that way. The Appalachians didnt see
themselves in this way. To them they were happy. They had enough to get food on the

Reyna 3
table and were happy living their lifestyle. If they felt fine why should outsiders be able
to tell them different?
I believe Gee would say that outsiders shouldnt be able to tell them different
because he states, the discourse itself defines what counts as acceptable criticism (73). I
think Gee is saying that each group decides exactly how much they are allowed to
critique themselves and how much criticism they will accept from outside sources. This is
definitely different for every discourse. I feel like discourses with stronger values will
tend to stick to those values and not change. Meaning they wont accept any criticism
because they only believe in their own ideas. The Appalachians seemed to fall under this
category, they didnt what to change at all. Their criticism level was very low. The media
should have respected their decisions and been mindful of the people. There is nothing
wrong with a discourse that doesnt want to change. But even Barret said The ties that
bind communities together are not always positive. This makes me think that something
that makes a group of people strong could be having a negative impact on others. The
Appalachians were so strongly bonded that they supported a man from their own
discourse, killing a man from another. They lived by something called the code of the
hills which is basically we dont bother anyone so dont push us aroundor else
(Barret). Hobart Ison clearly agreed with this idea because he took it into action.
In relation to Gees ideas and his quote, every act of speaking, writing, and
behaving a linguist does as a linguist is meaningful only against the background of the
whole institution of linguistics (73). I interpreted this in two different ways. The first
was most people might interpret which is that whatever a linguist does is only meaningful
because of what linguistics consists of. If it werent for the reputation of the institution

Reyna 4
then nothing would be meaningful. A linguist is only a linguist because of the fact that
linguistics exists. The other way I saw it was that based on the fact that a linguist is in
fact a linguist and in a way is representing the whole institution, I believe that each
individual has a weight of responsibility to portray his or her discourse in the proper
manner. By representing the discourse in a proper manner I mean actively abiding by
the groups rules and speaking and acting like them even outside the discourse. This goes
for all discourses. This is essential because whatever the individual does, will affect the
image of the whole image of the group. For example, I feel like now in our culture we
really like to judge the whole institution based on ones individual doings. If there is an
attack involving a Muslim individual, people tend to blame the whole religion, if a black
male attacks someone, people blame the whole race. These are just a few examples of the
harsh reality. With that in mind, I think this is one of the ways discourses change.
Discourses let society input on what they should look like; they try and become what
others say they should be.
When looking at the incident that happened in Appalachia, the media and the
general society were judging the whole institution for what Hobart Ison did. Ison killed
Hugh OConnor for filming on his property. Ison thought that the media was ridiculing
Appalachia because of the way they lived. Ison thought he did everyone a favor for
killing him but what he actually did was put an even worse image on the Appalachian
people. This clearly proves that the actions of an individual are just as important as the
entire groups. Sometimes we have no control over how someone else perceives us. This
is basically one of the ideas that Pratt talks about. She uses Ethnography to describe texts
that are written by outsiders, who get to decide what things get talked about and how s/he

Reyna 5
represents the culture. This is exactly what happened to the Appalachians. Outsiders were
only looking at one side of the story and they only saw the actions of Ison. There needs to
be communication between the people writing ethnographic and auto ethnographic text
(same as ethnography but written by insiders, often counters the way others have chosen
to represent them) and determine how the discourse should be criticized, taking into
account both the actions of the individual and supporting discourse.
Gee states, It is sometimes helpful to say that it is not individuals who speak and
act, but rather historically and socially defined discourses speak to each other through
individuals. The human instantiates, gives body to, a discourse every time he acts or
speaks and thus carries it, and ultimately changes it, through time. Americans tend to be
very focused on the individual, and thus often miss the fact that the individual is simply
the meeting point of many, sometimes conflicting, socially and historically defined
discourses (75). Gee seems to be saying that we cant just look at one part of the
individual. The individual is made up many discourses. They are the meeting point of
different discourses. So it is unfair to just pick out single things like race and religion. In
the context of a Stranger with a Camera, I think I would have to slightly disagree with
Gee. Specifically when he says that discourses speak through the individuals. It might be
because Im American but in my opinion it wasnt the group who shot OConnor it was
Ison alone. Hobart Ison individually killed OConner, thats a fact. In a way he spoke for
the discourse of Appalachia but no else revolted against all filmmakers. Meaning they
werent on board with everyone going out and murdering innocent people. However, the
people thought that what he did was justified. The Appalachian people were very
supportive of what he did. They even baked him cakes while he was in jail. It is partly

Reyna 6
the fault of the whole Appalachian group for having the mentality they did once Ison
killed OConnor but ultimately Ison was the one that did it. Yes he is a part of the
Appalachian discourse but he also probably had different values and experiences that
would give him the courage to kill a man. This goes to say that even individuals from the
same discourse, better yet safe house, have different perspectives even if they have the
same ideology.
Individuals from outside and inside discourses need to be aware of one another
and be able to communicate properly on how they portray one another. If discourses
know why they are being portrayed a certain way that is unappealing to them, then they
can work on ways to change their discourse and make it more beneficial to them. After
all, discourses are made up of individuals and individuals can have different perspectives
even if they follow the same ideology as their discourse. The people of Appalachia were
an example of how in order to properly change a discourse we not only need to criticize
certain individuals or the whole group but asses both of them. If we dont do this we will
have the same results we did with Appalachia.

Reyna 7
Works Cited
Barret, Elizabeth. Stranger with a Camera. Online Video. Vimeo. Vimeo, 2013. Web. Feb.
2015.
Gee, James Paul. "What Is Literacy?" Participating in Cultures of Writing and Reading.
Ed. Donna Qualley. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2015 73-81. Print.
Pratt, Mary Louise. "Arts of the Contact Zone." Participating in Cultures of Writing and
Reading. Ed. Donna Qualley. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2015 104-117. Print.