In his research article, James Gee maintains that the only way to learn any Discourse is to be completely immersed in it and complete an “apprenticeship” of sorts (8). What Gee means is that it’s impossible to learn a Discourse without first being immersed in it. Gee’s theory of the way Discourses can be developed is extremely useful because it sheds light on the difficult problem of making sure everyone has equal opportunities to be exposed to dominant secondary Discourses.

In Gee’s view, “our primary Discourse constitutes our original and home-based sense of identity, and, I believe, it can be seen whenever we are interacting with ‘intimates’ in totally casual social interaction,” (8). In other words, he believes primary Discourses are only valuable in unprofessional situations and early life. Gee’s claim that primary Discourses can’t be useful outside of the home rests upon the questionable assumption that people can’t learn when to use their primary Discourses to their advantage. 

As the prominent author Lisa Delpit puts it, “teachers also successfully taught the more subtle aspects for dominant Discourse,” (549). Delpit is describing the way she believes teachers can (and have) directly teach their students a dominant Discourse. Delpit is right that school is a perfect place to learn a new Discourse, but she seems to be on dubious ground when she claims that students are developing dominant Discourses because of lessons taught to them by teachers.

According to June Jordan, her students were “now writing with remarkable beauty, purpose, and enjoyment” in their primary Discourse of black English by the middle of her semester-long course (369). Jordan’s anecdote here serves to prove that primary Discourses are useful. I agree that utilizing a primary Discourse can lead to more powerful writing, a point that needs emphasizing because so many people find primary Discourses disposable.