Alex Douglas
English 308J
Matt Vetter
June 2, 2012
Goose
Got You on the Down Low.
An
Enthographic Study of Acacia International Fraternity
It is a beautiful
spring day on the Ohio University Campus. The air warmly wafts the
promise of renewal as birds chirp and squirrels scamper on the
uneven pavement. A young man with a backpack slung over his shoulder
passes by an older student engrossed in conversation with a pretty
girl. He pauses for a moment and then calls out “Dodi!“ The
older student looks up, smiles, these two fraternity brothers are
part of a bigger community. The community of discourse.
The concept of a
discourse community has been created and subsequently altered, added
upon and ultimately improved by many authors within the field. The
complexity of a discourse community was best described by John
Swales, who was one of the first writers to shape the concept and
brought it to the attention of other prominent writers. Swales
argues in his article, The Concept Of Discourse Community, that we
need to clarify and offer a set of criteria for discourse
communities, narrow enough to eliminate many of the supposed
discourse communities (Swales). Swales believes that by having
strong characteristics and a rigid definition of discourse
communities, we will be able to understand and identify discourse
communities with more accuracy. He then proposes six overarching
characteristics that are necessary for determining if a discourse
community has been formed.
The first
characteristic he identifies is that a discourse community has a
group of common goals that each member of the community abides by and
adheres to. His second is the idea that a community must have a way
of communicating between its members. This can be a very broad
category as just about any mode of communication that members use can
fill this criterion. Not only must the members be able to
communicate, but they must also exchange information. This brings us
to Swales third characteristic, a discourse community provides
feedback and information. His fourth characteristic is that a
discourse community possess one or more genres. This criterion
refers to the fact that discourse communities are always changing and
incorporating elements form other groups. For his fifth
characteristic, Swales argues that a discourse community must have
developed lexis that are unique and shared between members in a
community. This sixth and final
characteristic is that the community must keep a balance between new
members and old, as not to lose any relevant aspect of their
community.
I believe that
Swales has provided us with a great platform which other writers can
use to further expand on the concept of discourse communities. James
Paul Gee is one such author. In “Literacy, Discourse, and
Linguistics,” Gee creates the idea that “Discourses” are more
than a literary group. He asserts that a “Discourse is a sort of
'identity kit; which comes complete with the appropriate costume and
instructions on how to act, talk and often write, so as to take on a
particular role that others will recognize”,(Gee 484). This is an
aspect I had yet to think of, and as I look deeper into discourse
communities, I have seen that the linguistic aspect is only a
fraction of the attributes necessary to belong to a discourse
community.
I believe that one
person, who even though she didn't specifically write on discourse
communities, can still be integrated in to the discussion, is Deborah
Brandt. Brandt, who wrote on the aspect of sponsorship in regards to
literacy in her article, “Sponsors of Literacy”, focuses on the
assistance we receive from older, wiser, more experienced members of
a community. I believe that her aspect of sponsorship can be
directly tied to Swales' notion of keeping a reasonable ratio between
novices and experts (Swales 473). Brandt is arguing that a sponsor
teaches us and guides us on a path to higher knowledge and
understanding, just as you would follow in someone’s footsteps when
you are initiated into a discourse community.
Acacia
International Fraternity
Fraternities and
Sororities are two organizations that have a large impact on the life
of its members and community as a whole. These organizations strive
to better its members by instilling them with values and lessons that
they can apply to their general lives. When I arrived at Ohio
University I joined the Acacia International Fraternity. I visited
many Fraternities when first arrived at OU and I was surprised how
tight knit each organization was. My fraternity in particular
excelled at building bonds between its members. Once a person has
decided that they want to join the fraternity, they must get approval
from all the members, as we will not permit any element of discord to
enter our ranks. The “Pledge” then enters his eight week
pledging process in which he will be molded and eventually conform to
the norms of the community. The Pledge will be allotting time that
could be spent elsewhere, to furthering, not only their social
pursuits, but academic as well. Another aspect of fraternity life is
having a “Big”. A Big is a person that chooses you to be their
apprentice. They will help shape you into a member of the community.
After I learned about the concepts of discourse communities, I soon
realized that this community was built on a few simple ideals that
mirror and ultimately conform to Swales' Six Characteristics of a
Discourse Community. Each fraternity has its own founding set of
rules and goals that the members abide by. They include guidelines
about how to conduct you in many varying situations including
business, formal, social settings in general. Even though members
have different focuses, we all have the common objective of bettering
ourselves and our community. Acacia also uses many forms of
intercommunication to make sure members can discuss important events
and issues. In addition to having formal message boards, Acacia
utilizes a variety of participatory mechanisms, including but not
limited to, text messaging, email, posters, and weekly Chapter
meetings. These methods are not just to talk about miscellaneous
items. Each message that is exchanged is an opportunity to further
the goals of our community. Acacia has also acquired specific lexis
that others outside the community may not understand or take the
wrong way. Because of the large geographic area its members hail
from, each person brings with them words and phrases that can be
integrated into the discourse community, though only if the members
support the assimilation. The final aspect that binds Acacia as a
discourse community is the fact that they are a selective group and
will only allow a determined number of new initiates to join each
quarter.
Methods
In order to get an
in depth look at Greek life I first chose to interview members of a
fraternity. Both interviews took place in the fraternity house. I
felt that by interviewing them in their fraternity house, it would
help them remember and draw back on experiences that they had
undergone. I believed that this approach would give me the best
results. I decided to ask them questions that would allow me to gain
data to determine if Greek life is in fact a Discourse Community.
However, I also wanted to determine how authority is delegated and
relinquished within the community and ultimately discuss the
relationship between experts and novices. In order to accomplish
this, I decided to interview two members, one older and one younger,
to observe how they viewed each other. For the young fraternity
member, I chose to interview a new member who had just gone active in
the fraternity to gain insight into how he perceived his role in the
hierarchy of the fraternity. I met with Scott Lore a recent initiate
into Acacia and his Pledge class president. I believed that due to
his high position within his Pledge class and his low position within
the rest of the fraternity, he could offer a unique perspective. I
met with him the previous week and I asked him questions relating to
Swales' six characteristics to determine if Acacia is a discourse
community. In addition I also asked questions regarding how he views
authority and seniority within the group. I wanted to see if he
regarded himself and the new members with the same rights and
equality as he did the older members. I also took the time to
interview Michael Cerri, who will be hereunto being referred to as
“Goose”, a 5th year active in the fraternity. Goose
has been a driving force within Acacia; he has served on our
Executive board for 4 years and has held numerous positions of
authority, including Risk Manager, Pledge Educator and Rush Chair.
His positions as Pledge Educator and Rush Chair put him down in the
trenches with our new and incoming members giving him a closer look
at the inexperienced members of Acacia. I was intrigued to find if he
truly respected and acknowledged the views and opinions of the newer
and younger members.
After I had gathered all my data from my interviews, I determined
that as one of the most senior members, I should also look to my own
experiences and observations in dealing with the struggle of
respecting the younger and inexperienced members
Results
In Ann M. Johns'
“Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership,
Conflict, and Diversity,” she continues the work of John Swales by
examining the role of conflict within discourse communities. She
expands on the areas of the cost of affiliation, conflict, and issues
of authority. Johns argues that, in an academic discourse community:
[Students] may
have to make considerable sacrifices. To become active academic
participants, they sometimes must make major trade-offs that: can
create personal and social distance between them and their families
and communities. Students are asked to modify their language …
[and] they often must drop... their affiliations to their home
cultures in order to take on the values, language, and genres of
their disciplinary culture. (Johns 511)
Whenever you become
affiliated with a discourse community there are drawbacks. These can
range from the tangible such as financial obligations to the abstract
such as changing beliefs. She also brings to light the idea that
conflict within a group can be attributed to a need for power and
identity.
Going back to
Brandt's concept of sponsorship, we can see that she believes that
having a sponsor is a very meaningful and substantial part of gaining
literacy. She puts a focus on the idea that sponsorship can create a
stronger link to learning and access (Brandt 336).
In my interview
with Scott I asked him questions regarding Johns' and Brandt's
theories. I first asked what kind of sacrifices he had to make in
order to become a part of Acacia. Scott attributes many sacrifices
he has had to make this year to his initiation and membership in
Acacia, though he believes they are worth it. He argues that even
though he had to give up some of his free time and pay membership
dues, the affiliation with our community is worth any price. I then
asked him to elaborate about his role as a leader to his Pledges and
as a subordinate to the Actives. He offers the opinion that by being
simultaneously a leader and a follower, he has had to deal with
conflict on both ends of the spectrum. He talks about times he has
had members of his Pledge class resist some of his directives causing
friction with his subordinates, and he has also disagreed with the
decisions of the Actives, putting him in the middle of the argument.
When I asked him how his Big acted as a sponsor in his furtherance to
becoming a member. He believes that having someone who is there for
you and wants the best for you in your undertakings is essential to
the process of becoming a member. He talked about how he stared
emulating his Big's lexis, and manner of dress. Scott wished to
conform to the standards and norms that the community had
established. I noticed that this behavior is similar to what James
Paul Gee referred to as and “Identity Kit”. Scott was being
integrated into a member of the community by his sponsor.
I asked Goose the
same questions but due to his length of tenure in Acacia his answers
were different. When he originally joined Acacia, it only possessed
12 members. He discusses on all the sacrifices he had to make in
order to turn the Chapter around. According to him, they had to
restructure the organization from the ground up to ensure that Acacia
would never sink to that level again. He talked about how much time
he put into their 5k, which in its first year managed to raise more
money for charity than all the other Greek organizations combined. He
has seen the Chapter at its worst and at its best. When I brought up
the concept of authority and his opinion of the new members his tone
changed. He talked about how that the aspect of hard work had been
replaced with apathy and complacency. He defends the senior members
saying that they know what needs to be done to keep Acacia on the top
but; the younger guys have never seen the bad and have never had to
put in any work to build the Chapter up. He believes that he has put
in enough time and effort and that the responsibility should fall on
the younger members. This ideology can be compared to what Johns'
says about professional academics, “some professional who
understand the rules can also break them with impunity. They can
push the boundaries because they know where the discipline has been
and where it may be going, and how to use their authority, and
expertise (Johns 516).” Goose is breaking the established norms of
our community by missing meetings and not attending events causing
conflict with the younger people who do not understand his reasoning.
As the Pledge Educator, Goose put a strong emphasis on the need for
a Big or “sponsor”. He has seen and lived the success stories
about wayward Pledges being brought back into the community and their
resulting successes, mirroring Brandt's own experiences with Raymond
Branch and Dora Lopez, two youths that succeeded in part because of
the sponsorship they received (Brandt 337).
Conclusion
The evidence
I have gathered from this ethnographic study on the Acacia
International Fraternity I have further exposed the complex
relationships between junior and senior member in a discourse
community. I have also analyzed the effect that having an
experienced member act as a sponsor can benefit
a newcomer’s integration into a discourse community. I believe
that there is a great deal
of aspects we could look into with regards to sponsorship in
discourse communities.
Works
Cited
Brandt,
Deborah. “Sponsors of Literacy” Writing about
Writing. Ed.
Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 2011.
Print.
Cerri,
Michael. Personal interview. 28 May. 2012.
Gee,
James. "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics." Writing
about Writing.
Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin,
2011. Print.
Johns,
Ann. "Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice."
Writing about Writing.
Ed.
Elizabeth
Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 2011. Print.
Loree,
Scott. Personal interview. 28 May. 2012.
Swales,
Johns. "The Concept of Discourse Community." Writing
about Writing.
Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin,
2011. Print.
Appendix A
Interview
Questions
6
Characteristics of a Discourse Community
- Does your Community have any shared goals?
- What methods do you you use to communicate with other members
- What is the purpose of this communication?
- Does you community have any specific genres?
- Does your community have any unique words or phrases?
- How do you control the inflow of new members and the outflow of old ones?
Authority
and the Role of Sponsorship
- What sacrifices have you had to make to be a part of Acacia?
- How do you believe having Big (sponsor) affects new members?
- How do you view conflict between younger and older members?