POST 15

Both Swales and Gee both focus their articles on what they believe a “discourse community” is, and essentially they differ on what defines membership.  Swales takes his own stance that a discourse community membership does not require and actual joining, but more or less that we become members of the discourse communities that we belong to by default.  It is the choices that we make such as our interests, who we communicate with, how we communicate, and other decisions like those that define what communities we are immersed in.  On the opposing side, Gee takes a different approach to explaining discourse communities.  What Gee focuses on is the difference between dominant and non-dominant discourses.  Dominant discourses are the communities that provide its members with social skills alongside other skills that help members with materials or items that are necessary to functioning successfully in society.  Non-dominant communities, according to Gee, are those that provide us with things that advance the member’s social network. Gee also argues that if a person is not a member of a particular dominant community, then they can use their affiliation with their non-dominant community to “fake” dominant membership.

            John’s adds to Swales and Gee’s by introducing the topic of the conflict that takes place within every discourse community, with academic communities being the focus.  Most of the time, “students” who want to become a member of a specific community must comply with the standards that are affiliated with that community.  Conflicts can arise when those standards are not met, or when there are other aspects that prevent membership. To become a member, it is almost fact that sacrifices of other communities must be made, such as family and friends.  For example, in order to become a member of a sorority here on campus, you have to sacrifice time, and that time comes away from other communities such as academics and social.