“Not only does the oppressor initially hold the monopoly on power, which sometimes must be snatched from him piece by piece, but the dominated depend on him for the production of discourse. The dominated thus are beholden to the dominator even in the need to give meaning to their condition. The may reject or accept this meaning, but for a long time they will continue to define themselves in its terms” (Lise 147).

Sorry for the long quote to begin, but I think it points out what is perhaps the most troubling thing with the dominant discourse, that, at least initially, we have to define ourselves by it (or against it), and therefore it is the foundation (or the source of reaction) for all our work. We, every one of us (do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars), have learned the very patterns of our thought via the dominant discourse. The Looney Tunes I watched, the third grade Life Science book I read (or more often didn't), the way my elders talked to me and taught me, all of that was in the form of the dominant discourse.

While in this seemingly innocuous form (“That's a lovely dress” and “Keep your eye on the ball”) is when the dominant discourse is most dangerous. This is when it carves the deepest ridges in your brain, setting you up to become the people most people never escape being. From a pedagogical standpoint, this is what the teacher is battling against in helping student writers (especially those from marginalized groups) discover their voice. A lifetime, not so much of ‘shut up,' but of language (and culture) from which we have to learn a whole other language: our own.

Works Cited

-----

HOME