Gee argues that “you can’t be let into the game after missing the apprenticeships and be expected to have a fair shot at playing it” (Gee 10). I agree with Gee here as I believe there is a threshold, while being very flexible, that if you pass it is nearly impossible to overcome. Some generation, language, cultural, or knowledge barriers you can simply not overcome. I utilized this quote earlier in my argument to further illustrate Gee’s ideas and show something I do agree with and can support, before moving on to criticize some of his other work.
“Discourses are connected with displays of an identity; failing to fully display an identity is tantamount to announcing you don’t have that identity, that at best you’re a pretender or a beginner” (Gee 9-10). I disagree with what Gee says because he almost discourages trying something if you are not good at it, but the only way to get good at something is to try it. In my writing I used this as a view into Gee’s argument, to later disprove when it came to the “I say” portion of my essay.
Gee states that in a master-apprentice relationship, the master “make[s] it look as if they can do what they really can’t do” (Gee 11). I agree that this is the basis of teaching someone something, as they have to to try something they have never done before so the master tries to make it seem like they can. However, I do not agree with Gee’s driving opinion behind this, his negative idea about being a “pretender” or a “fake” as this is the masters very job, and nothing would ever get better if this did not happen. I used this near the conclusion of my paper to disagree with and lean more towards Cuddy’s argument because I disagree with the motivations and driving ideas of Gee.
Cuddy says that her student “had not just faked it till she made it, she had actually faked it till she became it. So she had changed” (Cuddy). I agree with Cuddy here because I believe that people can change who they are, reinvent themselves if they believe hard enough and put the work in. I believe that if this was not true there would not be a point in doing much of anything. I used this instance as a way to frame Cuddy’s argument that I could support in my side of the argument. I went over it briefly and then later highlighted its merits.
