"Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice": Confusing, but understandable...

To me, the conversation between Swales and Gee is discussing what exactly is “discourse.” Swales talks about how a group can be discourse community if they meet a specific series of characteristics. He also talks about how other people can be partially assimilated into a discourse and then leave the community. Gee counters with how his beliefs are that a “Discourse” is more of a ongoing process that everyone is born into. People who aren't born into a specific discourse is doomed to only being a pretender to what they want to be a part of. Through life, Gee also discusses how mentors are “gatekeepers” of sorts that test their students constantly on their knowledge of a specific discourse. Swales focuses on the community while Gee focuses on the individual.

Johns comes in with an explanation of the deeper meaning of discourse and discourse community through the use of examples that students can relate too (Ie: AARP and Bicycling examples). She also talks about the reasons why people join groups and how their relationship to a discourse community changes overtime. She provides information on the items that help bring a person into s discourse, but she then provides the new material on how one can be pushed out of a discourse. She talks about the conflicts between being a part of a specific discourse and the sacrifices it might cause. In an academic discourse, Johns discusses that one must devote themselves to academia and distance themselves from social pursuits and family.

She also goes on to talk about the “who's in charge” factor when a new recruit is initiated, and how a person can change through evolution of a community and breaking the old, in place, rules that are there. Authority is that driving force in a community that provides the test to make sure the members are passing through the right gates and growing in the community as they should be. With breaking the old rules, Johns discusses how a student can be in higher praise because they can break the rules, only with that understanding of the rules themselves and “breaking them in the right way” so to speak. This rule breaking is what seems to be a “development of identity in a discourse community”.