Gatekeeping in Discourse and Education

April 11, 2016

One of the things I admire about children is their abundance of questions. Children often need explanations of why the things that adults accept as normal are the way they are. The first time they are told eating their boogers is gross, or that they have to wear their seatbelt, they want an explanation of why? As I read, What is Literacy? By James Paul Gee, Intertextuality and the Discourse Community by James Porter, and Reading and Writing Without Authority, by Ann M. Penrose and Cheryl Geisler, I couldn’t help but remind myself of a toddler needing a further explanation on something that these authors addressed as though it was a developed normal. I wanted to know why these elite communities, referred to as discourses, exist as they do (defined by these authors as regulated, elite, controlled….) and where this idea or societal tendency even came from. Penrose and Geisler used the term “insiders” to describe accepted members of a discourse and used “outsiders” in reference to people who are not an accepted member of any mainstream discourse; Gee refers to insiders as “mainstream” and outsiders as “non-mainstream.”

The articles written by Porter, Gee, and Penrose and Geisler all made implications at one or more points about discourses in the education system and the insider/outsider perspectives being problematic. Gee even asked in his conclusion that we recognize the disadvantage that non-mainstream children have, and that we do more to ensure that these outsiders have more opportunity and help to become an insider. But none of the authors address why discourses have to be so elite and why one must conform and uphold (to varying degrees) the regulations and what has been deemed socially acceptable characteristics of members of successful mainstream discourses, or else be shunned and viewed as an outsider.

As I have learned from experience, the best way to fix a problem or learn about something is to start from its origin. Is it human nature? Have people in large societies always categorized themselves and each other and made it more difficult for anyone who isn’t an insider to achieve society’s view of success? Is it something that, through history, we have found to be the necessary way to structure our society? Is there no other way to have successful people without them having to conform to a mainstream (regulated) discourse? I feel as though this conversation about discourses, insiders and outsiders, and the sharing and regulation of information inside these discourses, would not be complete without including some information about the origin of the perspective of insiders and outsiders in these communities, their success, and the reasoning behind the categorizing and upholding of discourses and the expectations of people who wish to be insiders. More simply put, I think it’s important to know why discourses are the way they are.

James E Porter wrote Intertextuality and the Discourse Community and explained the perspective that, especially in cases of academics, any piece of writing a person creates is not necessarily original and is actually just borrowed from past works of writing in this discourse. These make what he quotes Vincent Leitch as calling a “Cultural Salvation Army Outlet with unaccountable collections of incompatible ideas, beliefs, and sources.” While Porter did a very thorough explanation of discourse communities; “a group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated….. a discourse community shares assumptions about what objects are appropriate for examination and discussion, what operating functions are performed on those objects, what constitutes ‘evidence’ and ‘validity’, and what formal conventions are followed,” he still addresses the regulations of discourse with an attitude of “this is just the way it is.” I even got a sense of distaste from the words used to describe discourses as “regulated,” and the way he put quotations around “evidence” and “validity.” He also states that writings which come from any discourse must “have an ethos… conforming to the standards of the discourse community” and also uses another quote from Leitch that “they work to deny the material existence of discourse itself.” These statements seem to hint at the structures of discourse being problematic and some points in his paper suggest that the regulations constrain original thought and require conformity for one to be considered an insider. Porter has some very valid information about discourses and how they influence teaching and writing styles, and society in general. But he does not ask, or theorize why discourses are so regulated by the people in them, nor does he examine why they require conformity of their insiders, especially to such a degree that anyone not conformed to their ideas of what is “acceptable,” is shunned.

Reading and Writing without Authority, by Ann M. Penrose and Cheryl Geisler, is about a study performed on Janet and Roger. Janet is a college freshman and Roger is working on his doctoral work in philosophy. In the study, they are both asked to write a paper about the same thing, but the way they write is completely different. Janet refused to enter herself into her paper, was afraid to make her own definitions, and wouldn’t acknowledge that she or the authors of the texts she was given, had anything to do with the sharing of knowledge, and was instead only looking for the absolute fact. In her notes, she showed that she was capable of critical evaluation, but was afraid to let it show in her final paper. Roger approached the writing assignment as a chance at sharing information, categorized definitions with the authors of the texts, and inserted his own ideas and definitions. The study was designed to prove that “the information transfer model leaves little room for provisional or hypothetical thinking. Roger, speaking as an authority, can be… exploratory. He can, and does, change his mind as examples point to inconsistencies in his thinking. Janet has no such luxury. She must find the truth. And while she acknowledges no authority of her own, she must speak authoritatively.” 

In this paper, Penrose and Geisler used Janet to “illustrate the degree to which such personal authority is denied in school contexts,” and to address the “extent of power that individuals are willing to claim within the educational and larger social systems.” I feel like this last statement was in the right direction of the information that is lacking from this discussion but they stopped there and continued with their analyses of Janet. They also state that Janet’s way of doing things was much more difficult, so it was not her lack of ability but rather her lack of acknowledgement in her own role in sharing information that made things harder on her. They address the education system as being to blame, but they do not exactly go into the reasoning behind why. It’s important to explore more of the social science or development behind why students in the education system are made afraid to insert their own authority and basically, according to Penrose and Geisler’s summary of Janet’s perspective, develop a mindset that gives themselves a role as outsiders. This is addressed as problematic but how does one fix a problem if they don’t know what the cause is? I also feel they could have furthered the thought process on this subject by posing a question such as; Why do we use the information transfer model in education if this is the continual (implied as negative) result?

In “What Is Literacy?” by James Paul Gee, he calls discourse an “identity kit” and defines it as “a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‘social network.’ Gee addresses an important topic having to do with what he calls “mainstream” versus “non mainstream” children and their statistical likelihood of ‘success’ in achieving insider status in a mainstream discourse. He makes a list of important points and I found one to be closely drawing in on the subject but then stopped short. Why are discourses so elite? Why are some people who have not achieved, as he calls it, “mastery” in a discourse left outside rather than brought inside and given the opportunity to learn and acquire said mastery. As Gee puts it, “no matter how good our schools become……. Non mainstream children will always have more conflicts in using and thus mastering dominant secondary discourses.”

The authors acknowledge gate-keeping and that it is problematic but again, it seems we are missing something, why is there gate-keeping in the first place?

In looking for more information about why discourses and gate-keeping are the way they are, I did not find as many options as I had hoped for. Many of the papers I read approached the subject of discourses like “it’s just the way it is but it sucks sometimes,” And did not theorize why. However, it is very essential to think about the implications of elite discourses as Penrose and Geisler, Gee, and Porter explained them, and the way they play into our society as a whole. And I did find two articles that briefly gave a bit deeper insight into the reasoning behind the insider-outsider perspective. Intercultural Comparative Research: Rethinking Insider and Outsider Perspective was written in 2014 by Peter Kelly. Seeking Inclusion in an Exclusive Process: Discourses of Medical Student Selection was written in 2015 by Saleem Razack, Brian Hodges, Yvonne Steinert, and Mary Maguire. I think it is essential to note that the articles written by P&G, Porter, and Gee, were written in the late eighties and early nineties, and that these two articles I present were written in the last two years. The recent group of articles presents several of the almost exact same problems that were mentioned in the articles, which were written roughly 25 years ago. I think it is safe to say that at least some people have found discourses in our education to have some of the same problems for 25+ years.

The excerpt by Razack, Hodges, Steinert, and Maguire, is about the selection process for medical students at a university and the -mostly- unintentional bias that occurs during said process. It does not mention all societal discourses but does offer insight into the unfairness of the applicant selection of a medical community and has some important information about the psychological reasons behind some of the bias that happens, which I think can be applied conceptually in a broader range to all discourses especially those in academics. They referred to Michael Foucault’s theory of discourse;

“how, in a given set of social conditions and history, it becomes possible to say that certain things are ‘true’ and other things are not. What is considered to be true is linked to power dynamics that are embedded in discourses and practices that are not immediately visible to people involved in their reproduction. Accordingly, discourses form objects and exist through systems of distributions of power, which can lead either to the reproduction of existing structures or to the production of new ones. Conditions of possibility emerge as statements of truth and make it possible to think, say, and do certain things and not others.”

They referred to the highly complex Gadamer- Habermas debate “concerning the nature, goals, and limitations of textual interpretations,” in which Gadamer states that “people are limited by pre-understandings that condition the meanings they take from their interactions with the world.”

In conclusion, I feel that it is vital to not only understand the what and the who of discourses but also lay a foundation of why, to help anyone who already doesn’t know. It is also an important thing to understand why humans live in ‘clique’-like discourses before we can change the way some people are blatantly left on the outside despite their ability and knowledge. If we are an advanced society then why do we uphold practices that leave some perfectly intelligent and capable people outside and keep with the same cycle? After reading these articles and searching for an answer to why discourses are gate-kept, I feel that I know a little more, but that this is an important subject that deserves attention, I feel prompted to research it further and it is my hope that someone else will read this and wonder, too.