Summary Of James Gee's Essay 'The Mind At Work'

James Gee start his paper; “Semiotic Domains: Is Playing Video Games a “Waste of Time”?” off with two reasons of why literacy should not be thought of so broadly. This already gives hint that literacy is not just the ability to read and write but much more. When reading anything we read the words as is, not giving them any sort of depth. James Gee wants us to think of literacy not by its generic meaning but by signs or semiotic domains. Gee wants his readers to think of literacy as each different word has a different meaning relating to the content, culture and social practice. Gee explains that literacy should be thought of as semiotic domains in which in each semiotic domain or field there is a different type of literacy. When using literacy

Mike Rose does an excellent job proving this to be true. In Mike Rose book “The Mind at Work” he prove that there is a certain intellect in common workers when doing blue collar jobs. While reading about Vanessa the hair stylists, she uses a different type of literacy pertaining to her domain. When we want a haircut we use words that are not in the literacy of that field or show pictures in which the stylist translate to their proper meaning. Rose becomes an active learning when he participates in Jerry Devries’s carpeting workshop experience. There he experiences firsthand the different type of literacy used in that domain and how certain words may have a different meaning in a particular domain. Gee states “I want to argue that learning in a semiotic domain crucially involves learning how to situate (build) meaning for that domain in the sorts of situation the domain involves” (26). The same word can have a different meaning when it comes to the domain. For example Gee writes “To understand the word “work” in these cases, you need to ask yourself what you take the situation to be (e.g., talk about contributions to knowledge or about disciplinary or institutional political affairs) and what semiotic domain is at stake (here academics, not the cannery or a movie set” (26). It is kind of like reading Shakespeare in a way, we think about the

Semiotic domains can be looked at as internally and externally. Gee explains semiotic domain as internally by “For instance, as part of their typical content, such games involve moving through a virtual world in a first person perspective (you see only what you are holding and move and feels if you are yourself holding it) and using weapons to battle enemies” (27). He uses a first person shooter game to describe semiotic domain internally. To define semiotic domain externally, Gee writes “Thus we can talk about the typical ways of thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, and believing, as well as the typical sorts of social practices associated with the semiotic domain” (28). After reading the definitions, I could relate back to a dance workshop I was in. On day one the dancers had to pair up with a composer to play a game. The game involved saying a dance term that relates to a music term. As I played the game I was clueless in trying to find the meaning to multiple words told to me and vice versa for the composer as well. The literacy used in music is completely different in the literacy used in dance. We would have to be a part of that semiotic domain to understand their specific