Miller's discussion of genre seems to be rooted firmly in what is practical. In fact, she claims that "a useful principle of classification for discourse, then, should have some basis in the conventions of rhetorical practice, including the ways actual rhetors and audiences have of comprehending the discourse they use" (152); this is a point that I particularly enjoyed because it would make the use of genre in classrooms far easier. Also, I respect her awareness of the point at which theory meets use--an awareness that is often forgotten by theorists. In addition, Miller answers the arguments against genre with a gesture of practicality: "the urge to classify is fundamental, and although it involves the difficulties that Patton and Conley point out, classification is necessary to language and learning" (151). Thus, she has, in a very simple way, addressed the concerns of language and restriction that would necessarily arise from genre divisions/classifications.
Miller also provides examples as context for her argument; she claims that "inaugurals, eulogies, courtroom speeches, and the like have conventional forms because they arise in situations with similar structures and elements and because rhetors respond in similar ways, having learned from precedent what is appropriate and what effects their actions are likely to have on other people" (152). And, in order to provide some guidelines for the construction of genres, she gives not only a bulleted list of "features" but also explanations that what would eliminate certain potential categories (163). Clearly, she has developed a well thought out system for recognizing and establishing genre. In fact, it is this thoroughness and adherence to practicality that lends itself so well to Devitt, Bawarshi, and Reiff's "Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse Communities." However, I still feel hesitant to commit myself to this idea of genre.
My hesitation lies mainly in the idea that there will always be rhetorical spaces that don't exist within/are excluded from a genre. Also, if a rhetor acknowledges a genre and then intentionally subverts the conventions of that genre, would he still fall within that genre? I, admittedly, can think of no examples off of the top of my head, but I'm sure that this will come up in class discussion.
I enjoyed reading your response, Samantha, and you've focused on some important aspects of Miller's piece. I especially liked your comments on Miller's interest in practicality, even as she's theorizing the concept of genre. Both of the articles mention their interest in an ethnomethdological study of genres, which Miller defines as seeking "to explicate the knowledge that practice creates" (155), and I think this lends itself well to that practicality. Your hesitance here seems well-founded, and you're right in pointing out that Miller doesn't address the idea of subverting genres. However, to subvert would be in response to a recognized genre, right, so perhaps the subversion still accounts for/falls within the generic classifications. Thanks for your thoughtful contributions here and in class!
ReplyDelete