Discourse Communities 1.3

P.1 Our social contexts

This post includes the third in a series of introductory lectures on Discourse communities as well as some homework for further reflection.

Find the rest of the posts in this series here if you missed them!

In Discourse Communities 1.1 I wrote about what Discourse communities are and how we might begin to recognize them in our own lives. In Discourse Communities 1.2, we examined the ways that Discourses define themselves internally and in opposition to other Discourses. In this post, we will look at the ways in which Discourses are created, not in a vacuum, but out of historical context.

In Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, James Gee writes

All Discourses are the products of history (see Foucault 1969, 1980, 1985; Fleck 1979). It is sometimes helpful to say that it is not individuals who speak and act, but rather that historically and socially defined Discourses speak to each other through individuals. The individual instantiates, gives voice and body to a Discourse every time he or she 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 the meeting point of many, sometimes conflicting, socially and historically defined Discourses. 

Whenever we have a conversation or a debate, whenever we give or listen to a speech, whenever we consume or create media, we are participating in a discourse. But what Gee tells us is that we are not acting solely as individuals, speaking from an individual perspective; we are speaking as members of our Discourse communities.

This means that the ideologies, rules, values, viewpoints, social power, hierarchical structure and history of our Discourses are speaking through us. If you are a feminist, you are a part of the feminist Discourse. This means that the opinions, beliefs, values, etc. that you hold are not yours alone, but the product of centuries of people who have defined and redefined what it means to be a feminist and the historical oppressions that women have faced.

When Gee says that “the individual is the meeting point of many, sometimes conflicting” Discourses, it means that through birth and by choice, we are part of many Discourse communities, and their values may not always be aligned. You might be a feminist, but you may also be part of a religious Discourse which is inherently patriarchal. Navigating that may mean eventually rejecting one Discourse in favor of one that aligns with your personal values, it may require cognitive dissonance to be part of both, it may require codeswitching, or you may hide your membership in Discourses that contradict one another.

Oftentimes, as we grow up, the Discourses we belong to are “invisible” to us, in the sense that they are so ubiquitous in our lives that we don’t realize that not everyone believes, behaves, or speaks like we do. When we begin to encounter other families as children we may realize that what we considered “normal” is in fact only normal to us. We may also begin to discover that some people’s communities are considered better or worse or have more or less power than our own, and in these cases we may be required by our own Discourses to accept or reject these differences.

In a white supremacist, male supremacist, capitalist society, we are continually asked to reaffirm cultural hierarchical norms and our belonging to those groups, acceptance of those groups, attempts to conform to those groups, or our rejection of these groups has advantages and consequences.

Consider the following three (made up) individuals as an example¹:

• Person A belongs² to the Discourses of being white, being wealthy, being a cis-male, being straight, being Christian, and being American. Essentially, they belong to all of the dominant cultural groups that create the rules for what it means to belong. They hold immense social power and are able to move easily and comfortably through most spaces because they created and belong to those spaces. There is very little conflict between the Discourses they belong to and they can expect others to conform to them, rather than having to conform to others. This is not to say that there aren’t rules and loyalty tests to belonging, just that the rules and loyalty tests were designed by and for them, so unless they are choosing to reject the community and its values they are well-protected within the systems these communities have created.
• Person B belongs to the Discourses of being white, being middle-class, being a cis-female, being straight, being non-religious, and being American. They hold membership in some, but not all, of the dominant cultural groups. This means that their power fluctuates depending on social context. In spaces created by and for white people, they may be comfortable. However, in spaces created for men, they may find that they have to adapt to rules and attempt to conform to standards that were not created for them. The primary beneficiaries of affirmative action were white women, which meant many were able to gain access to spaces previously available only to their male counterparts. This did not necessarily mean that they were considered equal in the eyes of their male peers though. Loyalty tests, such as being able to laugh along with sexist jokes and endure sexual harassment without complaint, were often imposed by their male colleagues. The advice that women should “be more like men” in the workplace or the white feminist goal to “break the glass ceiling” is an attempt to gain membership to a club that was neither designed for or by women. Additionally, white women who feel powerless at home or in the workplace may take out that frustration on people who have less power than them in the social hierarchy, most notably with BIPOC people of any gender.
• Person C belongs to the Discourses of being white, being poor, being a cis-male, being straight, being Christian, and being American. In this case, Person C may find themselves frustrated because they grow up in a white supremacist and male supremacist society, but they are unable to entirely reap the benefits of their privilege (or the privileges they have been told they are entitled to). When they are told they are privileged they may push back because they cannot see the privilege that they hold, as their life does not look or feel privileged to them³. When their attempts to gain access to women or success are frustrated they may take out their anger on those with less privilege and power than them (usually women or BIPOC)⁴.
• Person D belongs to the discourses of being Black, being poor, being a trans-woman, being queer, being non-religious, and being an immigrant living in America. In this case, they have little to no power in any space they enter. The rules of the society they live in were made by and for people who not only do not look like them, but in this case, by people who have a history of enslaving, raping, beating, killing, oppressing, and imprisoning people like them. They must learn the rules of the society they live in in order to survive, but oftentimes, they will need to hide or suppress or deny some of their identities, or attempt to avoid as much as possible spaces that are openly hostile to them. Further, even spaces that are made for and by them have the potential to be destroyed or disrupted by those with more social power than them. If they are frustrated, the only people they can take out these frustrations on are members of their own communities, or themselves.

These are just four examples of intersecting identities and Discourses and how they may manifest in a very generalized way. The point that I am trying to make is that the Discourses we belong to affect how we navigate the world, how we perceive ourselves and others, how others perceive themselves and us, how we interact with one another, and the power (or lack of it) that we hold in a given social context.

Some questions you might answer for yourself about your own Discourse communities:

• If you are Person E, what are your intersecting Discourses?
• What are spaces or Discourses where you feel comfortable? Where they were made by and for people like you? Are these spaces common? What are your interactions like with people who do not belong to these spaces?
• What are spaces or Discourses where you feel uncomfortable? Where they were made by and for people who are not like you? Do you encounter these spaces often? What are the interactions like?
• Have you ever used your privilege or power in a negative way (e.g. taking out your bad mood on a barista, where the customer has more power than the employee)?
• Do you ever use your privilege or power in a positive way (e.g. a man calling out another man for telling sexist jokes or a white person calling out another white person for microaggressions against BIPOC)?
• What are some ways that you feel empowered or disempowered in your Discourse or in other Discourses that you don’t belong to?
• Are you ever afraid to acknowledge your privilege? Are you ever afraid of losing some privileges (e.g. if doing the right thing for someone with less privilege goes against the “rules” of your Discourse, do you comply with or reject those rules)?
• Do you understand the history of your Discourse communities (e.g. the history of “whiteness”)?
• Do you listen to people of other Discourses that have less social privilege than you? Do call outs of your community make you feel defensive?
• Do you consume media (books, movies, music) from people of other Discourses? How often? Is your primary media consumption of people in your own communities?

In lesson 2.1 of this topic, we will discuss how we can leverage the power of our roles within our Discourses to enact social change.

1. These are hypothetical and certainly not representative of every person who might belong to the same collection of Discourses. Rather, these examples are meant as a way to show how belonging to intersecting Discourse communities can affect our social power in the world. ↩︎
2. When I use “belongs” here I mean in the sense of being born into the Discourse community. ↩︎
3. This is precisely why an understanding of intersectional feminism is so important, as it addresses the fact that we often experience a mix of being oppressed and oppressor, privileged or disadvantaged. ↩︎
4. We have seen this with the oft discussed “male loneliness epidemic” and the “incel” Discourse community. ↩︎