Gee’s theory of “Mushfake Discourse” is extremely useful because it sheds light on the difficult problem of partial acquisition vs. true acquisition.  Gee explains the term “Mushfake Discourse” as, “partial acquisition coupled with meta-knowledge and strategies to ‘make do’”(Gee 13). I agree with Gee’s idea here because “mushfake” is a simple and understandable concept that is complicated when placed in the context of Discourse.

I agree that unlike Gee’s belief, true acquisition is possible because Susan’s experience with writing papers confirms it.  “Susan continued to work with Marge, both in and out of the classroom, during the following year. By the end of that year, Marge’s instructors began telling Susan that Marge was a real star, that she had written the best papers in their classes” (Delpit 548).  Delpit is providing proof that true acquisition is possible, which in turn discredits the need for “mushfake”.

I agree that there is an important difference between true acquisition and “mushfake” because Jordan’s students’ experience with writing in Black English confirms it.  “We were checking out a language, not a mood or a scene or one guys forgettable mouthing off” (Jordan 366).

By focusing on the idea of a successful combination alone, Gee overlooks the deeper problem of how Discourse complicates each aspect of that combination, which makes it less of a “good” combination.  “‘Mushfake’, resistance, and meta-knowledge: this seems to me like a good combination for successful students and successful social change” (Gee 13). I disagree with Gee’s idea here because this combination is more complicated than he leads on, and in actuality more success can come from avoiding this combination.