Theory 1

The first theory is describing how unlike a language where you can be partially fluent, in a discourse are either fluent or you aren’t. There is no in between, you are in or you are out. This is a controversial topic because it is very non inclusive and leaves a lot up for interpretation. Some things that make it controversial are what classifies that you are in the discourse and who gets to make these rules.

Theory 2

The second theory I believe is stating that the secondary discourses of people are more influential and descriptive of who people are. They are more representative due to your ability to choose them. This is controversial because it is a conservative viewpoint which claims that your actions are more influential to who you are than your upbringing. I found this one very confusing so I may have misinterpreted the text.