Barclay’s Formula

Do you think that people have to leave behind conflicting values of their primary Discourse in order to enter the dominant Discourse?

I think this is an interesting question to think about. From one angle one may say yes, like Gee, and then on another angle you may say no, like Delpit. For me personally I think it may be a little of both; it just depends on the aspect of the Discourse and what you are leaving behind. For example, in Delpits The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse She talks about a man who is torn between succeeding in school and being told that he can succeed and the expectation of the street gangs and doing heroin. The man says “I saw no middle ground or, more accurately, no total ground on which anomalies like me could gather” (Delpit 551). In a situation like this I personally believe that in order to succeed in one area, specifically¬† succeeding in school, the man must leave behind the aspects of his primary Discourse that involve the drugs and gang life. However, in a different situation this may not be necessary. For example, in past and present society the expectation when a woman marries is to take the last name of her husband. However, if a women doesn’t take the last name of her husband, does that mean she is not married? No it does not. So if you do not leave behind your last name (part of your primary Discourse), that does not mean you are unable to enter another dominant Discourse.