Author: Daniel Libertz

I honestly can say that I have never been more confused in my life upon completion of Miller’s “Genre As Social Action.” I am having a hard time thinking of something to write about because I am having a hard time comprehending any part of that reading. In my opinion Miller does not quite know what a genre is herself. She seems like she is talking in circles and is using language that is hard to interpret the meaning, however I will try my best and write about what I could somewhat understand.

I believe the main thing I pulled from this reading was that everyone interprets what a genre is in their own way, meaning there is no concrete definition. I can infer this from two separate locations in the reading, the first being on page 158 where she says “We may not know our own motives, we cannot name them, what recurs for me does not for someone else; with a wealth of stimuli and a dearth of shared knowledge, we hardly know how to engage each other in discourse.” Now what I’m getting from that excerpt is that we all think differently, we all have different motives and experiences, and because of this, it shapes how we think and view a certain concept. Miller talks about Fisher and Burke’s ideas about genre being connected to motive and situation, and how those two concepts are related. She further explains how situations create motives within people and these are what conceive a genre when these are used to guide a certain writing. So when we talk about how people write about their own experiences and situations, we can further gather that people have their own definitions of genre as well in that way.

When I look at genre in this way, it is quite clear that Miller does not define genre as the layout of the paper, or the organization. She looks at it in a way that writers write what they know and write based off of their own personal experiences. I infer this from the last passage on page 156 which continues on to page 157. She talks about how as humans we must all interpret and define a certain situation with our our opinions on what is happening in our surroundings, and based on this, writers interpret what happens to them in their own ways and they describe that in their works for us as readers to understand their point of views and beliefs in rhetorics.

In Miller’s section titled Implications, she says “Genre is distinct from form: form is the more general term used at all levels of the hierarchy. Genre is a form at one particular level that is a fusion of lower- level forms and characteristic substance.” What I am getting from this is that form is a completely different concept from genre, however, I am not going to sit here and pretend that I know what those hierarchal terms even mean. I read in previous pages that form and substance when mixed together, create one of the highest levels on the hierarchy of meaning, but I cannot figure out how to connect those idea. I assume genre is another separate level from form and substance but even then I cannot be sure.

However, i feel like I kind of understand what Miller was talking about when she explains how we all interpret different aspects of the world in different ways, and I can tell how this relates to how we should write publicly. We need to write about things that we are familiar with, and even if we are not familiar with certain topics, we can relate them to topics we already know a little bit about that are similar and form connections in that way. By doing this, we have some sort of knowledge about something we have never experienced and we can sound educated and passionate when writing about them.

In this this week’s reading, Carolyn Miller utilizes the perspectives of rhetorical criticism and theory in an attempt define rhetorical genre. She finds, however, that rhetorical genre is based in social action rather than formal qualities or substance of text. In other words, rhetorical genre is based completely on social context (i.e. situation and motive) not the actual text (i.e. layout, media, tone etc.). She derives this perspective from Campbell and Jamieson (C&J) and Burke and Schutz. C&J claim that “rhetorical forms that establish genres are stylistic and substantive responses to perceived situational demands” [3]. Miller goes on to explain that genre is therefore fully rhetorical, a connection between intention and social effect of social action. C&J also describe genre as without limit or framework: “The critic who classifies a rhetorical artifact as generally akin to a class of similar artifacts has identified an undercurrent of history rather than an isolated act in time” [3]. Ergo, genre is an open class. Another idea that is also brought up a lot is the idea of exigence, or social motive. Burke describes exigence as thus, “Motives are distinctly linguistic products. We discern situational patters by means of the particular vocabulary of the cultural group into which we are born” [8]. Schutz says about the same thing, “Typified patterns of the Others’ behavior become in turn motives of my own actions” [8]. Miller puts in most plain terms as a set of social patterns and expectations that provide socially objectified motive [8].

What is unique about her characterization of the idea of genre is that it does not classify rhetorical text based on its word choice, or layout, or formatting etc. Rather, genre of rhetorical text involves characterization by situation and motive. It is not what the author wrote meaningful, but rather his intentions or motive for such a text as well that the situation that centered the author during the fabrication of the text. For example, the text uses when Gerald Ford pardons President Nixon; the motive for Ford was that the Watergate scandal was put behind us as soon as possible to “protect national interest” [8]. The reoccurrence in this example is political affairs between the president and the rest of the public. Ford’s exigence and the situation are the two important pieces to help put Ford’s writing into a genre.

Miller’s definition of genre can assist us in writing better publicly. If our work is put into genre’s by merely situation and motive, then ideally, we should be intently focused on these two concepts. As public writers, we must be aware of the world around us and make sure that our motives coincide with society and reoccurring history. This will help us to be sensitive of our audience as well as adhere to strict motive. We also must use the situations given to us by society as our motives. If we follow these guidelines for genre given to us by Miller, I have no doubt we could all be one of the great rhetoric and public writers.

 

 

Upon reading this essay, and blanking out more times than I can count on what was just said, one thing I can say definitively is that defining a genre is no simple task. There were so many different genre theories that there was no way to actually keep them straight. One thing this is essay did portray well, though, is the fact that these genres should be “classified” in a much different way. Before this idea is discussed any further, it’s important to actually understand what a genre is. In Miller’s words, “rhetorical criticism has not yet provided a firm guidance on what constitutes a genre.” (151) It only took one sentence into the essay for it to be established that, as of now, no one truly knows exactly what constitutes a genre. On that solid note, let’s delve into how one can categorize these “genres.”

For a lot of writers, it may be hard to try to shape their paper and pick a style if they aren’t experience with using rhetoric. One thing a genre can do, however, is provide a template to help start the piece. Out of the seemingly endless number of theorists mentioned in this essay, I found one that could really support this idea. Walter R. Fischer came up with a theory centered around the four primary “motive states” and their implications. In this theory, genres are defined and placed under different classifications of rhetoric, including the four motives. This theory reminds me of a flowchart can be easily followed to find a specific genre or genre category. If someone were to write with the intention to persuade on a formal level, they can follow the flowchart and come to the essay block, for example. From here, they will come to the final, and most specific level in this theory, where it classifies based on style. While I definitely found this theory to be very thorough, I had to agree with Miller regarding its shortcomings. The first shortcoming mentioned is that it is far from all encompassing. These genres all fall into rigid categories, meaning that there will be things that won’t perfectly fit because they need a category that doesn’t exist.

Fischer’s theory did, however, make a better attempt at accounting for reactions and motivations that arise because of situational influence than many of the theories. This theory is still far from perfect though. This fact made me stop and think. If genres are seemingly impossible to nail down, then why are we trying so hard to do it? Is it really worth the effort? In my opinion, I think the answer is a firm no. Even though these categories of genres can be helpful for a writer to figure out where to start, I find the idea of trying to categorize the millions of possible genres into set groups ridiculous. Miller is trying to say that these need to be categorized under social events and actions but even that is a task and a half. If public speech was a category, for example, there would be immeasurable amounts of different events that can fit under it. There could be riots, protests, promotional statements, campaign speeches, etc. All of these events are fundamentally different so it seems absurd to try to place them under the same heading. Just because they are all trying to make a persuasive impact on the public, does not mean they should be treated the same.

Before I sat down to read, I skimmed the questions we were supposed to answer. I wrote them down on the first page of the text as a way to remind myself what was expected of me. Immediately I realized this reading was going to be a lot more difficult than I expected. I found myself having to reread sections because I simply could not understand what Miller was even saying.

Before reading this, I thought genres were simple. This book is YA, this book is poetry, this is a vignette, so on and so on. I thought at first this was what Miller was saying as well. On the first page, she illustrates this idea of the genre: “For example, rhetorical genres have been defined by similarities in strategies or forms in the discourses, in similarities in audience, by similarities in modes of thinking, by similarities in rhetorical situations.” What made The Fault in Our Stars YA was because it was essentially like every other YA book on the market: boy and girl meet and fall in love, lots of issues along the way, etc. However, Miller goes on to say that classifying genres and theories surrounding genres aren’t so black and white.

Miller is arguing that writing is a response to a situation, or so I believe. This can be seen on the following page: “Thus, 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.” I thought this clearly related to public writing because having seen other people write in formal settings we understand what our writing should look like. We all, having been conditioned in the public/private school system, understand what to write when.

As I continued to move through the reading I saw Miller throw in a lot of words I had never seen before or did not quite understand. From the beginning, she is throwing around the words “genre” and “discourse”. I didn’t see much of a solid definition in the reading so I quickly googled it and saw discourse is the use of language written or spoken. That being said I think Miller did a great job of highlighting all the different ways people have grappled with discourse and genre and what they really mean because even I was confused with the different theories being thrown at me. While I never even thought of genre as something as deep as Miller is describing and will probably never give a second thought to it, I thought it was interesting how Miller argues that genre can easily shift.

She brings up Campbell and Jamieson who argue that somehow all of this “provides insight into the human condition.” I at first thought this was just some wacky view that communications majors have, but after a little thinking, I thought maybe they have a point. How we write is usually a reflection of who we are as a person. We are writing to address something in society, aka exigence. Exigence is a response to a situation, so if writing is a response to a situation, we must understand the exigencies. That is, we must understand why people are writing to classify it as a genre. We can’t simply say this is YA because of the writing style. We can’t say this is a vignette. Or maybe you’re like me and such distinctions don’t matter to you. Either way writing is a powerful tool we have and sometimes it’s important to pay it close attention.

Before this reading, I assumed I knew what a genre was, thinking of “mystery” and “fantasy” novels. However, Miller calls into question the very foundation of genres and offers several powerful assertions about their true nature. While using rhetorical criticism and theory, Miller connects genre to a social action, as opposed to form or substance. To her, “a genre embodies an aspect of cultural rationality”, “as a recurrent, significant action” (165). In essence, a genre reflects on the culture in which it was written. I absolutely agree with this statement. Looking back at old speeches and epic poems, I realize now that characteristics of an ancient culture are hidden within the lines, beyond solely form or substance. The particular genres of a culture demonstrate what “worked” in persuading and connecting to the audience during that time period. An outdated genre may decay, while new ones may evolve (53). Substance and form, alone, would not cause a genre to decay in this sense. Furthermore, Miller gives genre a much more flexible definition. In the context of social action, genres may have unique elements, but all are linked to a certain cultural rationality. A genre only applies as a tool for characterizing culture, while remaining fluid and changeable. Form and substance are rigid and have a plethora of variations and minute differences among writing in a genre.

To Miller, genre as a social action is a multilayered fusion of substance and form, rather than simply one or the other. This distinction is what allows genre to represent an aspect of culture. Miller quotes Sharon D. Downey, and her “rule-based explication of genre” which “tell us how to fuse form and substance to make meaning and regulative rules that tell us how the fusion itself is to be interpreted within its context.” (161). The combination of substance and form creates almost a three-dimensional view of some characterization of culture. It shows the techniques writers used to effectively communicate with their audience, and what the audience deemed persuasive. Consequently, genre should be viewed as not solely a classification, but as a rhetorical tool for writers. This should be our main takeaway from Miller’s essay, in regard to public writing. When a writer defines their purpose, and beings to connect with their audience, the genre of writing must also be considered. Similar situations imply similar genres should be utilized, implying they are not solely a set of universal classification that a writer must adhere to. Instead, they are immensely more flexible. Just like the rhetorical appeals, a genre also helps strengthen the rhetoric by spreading the rhetoric in a socially accepted format, for that time period.

As Miller explains, genre has two sides. There is the view of the writer and that of the reader. The writer uses genre as a tool to further his rhetoric. It also serves “both as an index to cultural patterns and as tools for exploring the achievements of particular speakers and writers” (165). For the reader, on the other hand, genre offers a familiar layout and hints at what the overall message might be from the writer. They also learn what to expect when reading a particular genre.

To connect genre to our own campaign plan, we are creating a video meant to be spread on various social media sites. This genre has proven to be an effective tool for driving millennials to action. It reflects on our reliance and virtual worship of technology, and how writers have used that to their advantage. We are in a similar situation to other activists, and they have often used videos to push their message. With their success, we plan on adopting a similar fusion of form and substance—in other words, the same genre.

 

Carolyn Miller does are incredible job digging through various essays and studies on rhetoric in order to better understand it. She gets perspectives from all sides so she may fundamentally break down the concept of rhetoric and genre and everything in between. She writes that “the urge to classify is fundamental.” While I think this is an interesting point, I believe it is fundamentally flawed along with the other arguments she presents.

Miller claims that her desire is to study rhetoric in “ethnomethodological: it seeks to explicate the knowledge that practice creates.” Furthermore, she emphasizes that genre cannot equal discourse. By doing this she is explaining the heart of her argument: while many of the people before her have tried to classify rhetorical genre taxonomically, she is trying to do so in a different way. Her main focus entails looking at people socially, and her form of classification (if you can really call it that) becomes much more broad.

She goes on to say that there are two major problems: understanding the relationship between the rhetoric and its context, and understanding how a genre fuses “its situational with formal and substantive features.” What this means is that, essentially, there are a significant number of factors one must understand in order to relate rhetoric to a genre. It goes beyond the typical genre of “form” (such as length, layout, etc.), and it is also the point where I began to question the purpose of her arguments.

Millers’ claims severely narrow the scope of rhetoric, and, as a result, hers becomes a very subjective classification. The impact of trying to understand rhetoric in its context, along with the other constraints she mentioned, is the creation of complex notions that are riddle with convulsion. I would argue that, based on her argument alone, drawing any consensus would be nearly impossible—and if there’s no consensus, then why did she set out to classify rhetorical genre anyway.

Later she says, “Studying the typical uses of rhetoric, and the forms it takes… tells us less about the art of the individual rhetors… then it does about the character of a culture or an historical period.” In context, Miller is attempting to demonstrate that perception is key to understanding rhetorical genre. With this I agree. But I believe this very argument makes her claims irrelevant. If two people from different time periods were to look at the same piece of rhetoric, their opinions would be swayed by their own perception, influence by time, and changed culture. By her own example, trying to classify rhetoric —even socially—would be flawed and impossible.

To attempt to study rhetorical genre and define it—even broadly as she tries to—seems to go counter to her entire argument. She admits that her argument is not one for taxonomy, that genre evolves, decays, and changes. But that, I believe, counters the entire purpose of her study. There is no consensus drawn, not even in the current time period, because there are so many influences to perception. If anything, I felt her arguments suggest that trying to classify genre in this way is not only impossible, but unnecessary.

 

 

I find Carol Miller’s point very interesting about determining a genre based on the events surrounding it. The specific example she mentioned was a eulogy in this case “We should recognize a lecture or a eulogy or a technical manual or a public proceeding by our type of the typified rhetorical situation.” This is a very realistic argument, because if we let every audience decide to make their own observations about genre on the given rhetoric, then it is likely that different responses with emerge. This is difficult to say though, because if we really want to categorize all types of rhetoric into genres should we only go off one person’s opinion. In that case what would happen if that person’s opinion on the specific genre is not one of common belief. However, using a large audience when deciding a genre could not necessarily be a bad thing. In most cases in writing or even just everyday occurrences, I would prefer a larger audience to bounce ideas off of to come up with a more precise and succinct conclusion. I do agree with Miller on the fact that genre should not be decided like a formula, like it is this length long, touches on these topics, and uses this language then it has to be this genre. She makes a good point though that “form and substance thus bear a heirarchical relationship to each other”. Since these two factors are in tandem with each other, can we make assumptions of genre when we see a specific pattern of form and substance.  This of course would be slipping back into the hole where we make genres based on these commonplace tools. However, it is later after Miller compared all her sources that she concluded that not just the typical “hierarchical levels” make up the genre. Other contexts such as speech and what happens outside of the text that decides the genre. This could indicate that the audience does matter though since Miller says to reference other sources. In many cases though the intended genre can be interpreted differently. For example, if I write a creative poem and my audience interprets it in a very factual or theoretical way, should the poem really be considered of the creative genre. This is where it gets sticky, because there are infinite ways to interpret rhetoric and the author might have different expected intentions of the interpretations. It is so difficult, there is never a clear line, because genre cannot be write or wrong nor can it be absolute. There are many different ways to go about this and I suppose the best way to do it is to stay away from all the structural implications that piece may have, because writers can manipulate those tools very easily to make you believe something else than is intended of the true genre. That is why I think the audience is always the best decision maker. We have learned from Booth that one of the most important relationships in writing is between writer and audience. Since this is such a fundamental relationship in writing we should apply it to assigning genre too. Between these two groups there is a strong connection to the piece in interest. Specifically, for writing in public I would suggest to have my audience decide the genre, because public writing is arguably a very writer-audience based type of writing.

     Many view genre as a property of writing rather than a way to understand how to write efficiently. Grasping the concept of genre can help explain the way a reader confronts, interprets, acknowledges, and shapes their text. Genre emphasizes learning from the past and the society in order to compose a piece of writing that incorporates rhetoric. In other words, the writer should analyze past genres to see which ones effectively persuaded their audience. Miller mentions in her journal that genre represents action and involves situation and motive. She supports her claims with the words of several professional writers including Kenneth Burke, Campbell, and Jamieson. These writers explain that “genre is composed of a constellation of recognizable forms bound together by an internal dynamic” (Miller 152). This means that genre is a combination of several elements that can be seen by the reader and all work together to achieve an unspoken goal determined by the writer. The idea of genre allows the writer to consider the influence their writing may have on the reader. A genre is a “rhetorical means for mediating private intentions and social demands” (Miller 155). To explain further, this supports that genre bridges the gap between the audience and the writer and allows the reader to begin understanding the writers purpose. As a reader, this can be extremely beneficial in appreciating a piece of writing and realizing why the writer made the decisions that they did.

     Throughout her journal, Miller tries to persuade her readers that her analysis of genre is complete and understandable. She explains in her journal the shortcomings of several other genre theories. For instance, she mentions that other claims lack clearly defined “theoretical clarity and analytical agreement” (Miller 154). Additionally, she alleges that other claims possess a level of complexity that is too high for most readers to understand based on their experiences. Basically, what this means is that the definitions of genre are so advanced that many people are unable to understand their meanings. Genres exist at various levels of abstraction from the very broad to the very specific. In order to fully grasp the concept of genre, the reader must be able to think in several different ways.
The relationship between rhetoric and its context is essential to understanding genre as a form of rhetorical action. It is the rules that tell the reader how to combine the nature of writing and the substance. These rules provide the writer with the tools to connect the structure and word choice of writing to the meaning behind it. Being able to point out the meaning in a piece of writing makes it much more meaningful for the reader. From personal experience, while reading a persuasive piece of writing, I go into reading with a much more open mind because I know that the author is hoping to change my opinions on a matter. In an attempt to give the author a fair chance, I am much more impartial than I would have been if the persuasion caught me off guard.

     Genres are often shown in patterns and are made up of several strategies. These strategies are determined by the writer through understanding the public. It acquires meaning from social context. This definition of social context varies from culture to culture. Therefore, genre is continuously evolving and is an open concept. This can make it difficult to define genre as a whole. One of the most important qualities of genre is that it helps to establish a sense of cultural experience around us. Genres can serve both as a guide to cultural patterns and as a way to explore different forms of writing. Overall, genre serves as a key to understanding how to participate and contribute to public action. Both of which are important for a writer to understand so they can create a rhetorical piece.

According to Bowdon and Scott, the distinction between professional writing and other kinds of writing, such as creative and academic writing, is that professional works are produced for “actual, concrete audiences who will use them to make decisions or perform actions”.  From this I extrapolated that professional writing is simply much more serious than other forms.  It must be accurately researched and edited such that it does not broadcast any misinformation.  Professional writing is written for an audience that uses the piece as a basis for further action to be taken.  It is important for the author of a professional piece to write with this in mind, for lacking to do so can result in a large portion of individuals who read the piece determining an action based on misinformation.  The study of rhetoric helps further explain this question.

Some professional writing has the intent of persuasion.  This is an example of implementing rhetoric in professional writing.  I think intending to persuade an audience in a professional piece accentuates the importance of providing accurate information within the piece.  Professional pieces are read with the mindset that they are providing an informed message written by someone knowledgeable on the topic.  This, in combination with a persuasive tone, can be dangerous.  Readers will be more apt to agree with someone they believe to be knowledgeable in the topic.  This helps to further differentiate professional writing from other kinds of writing.  Other kinds of writing do not have this factor to worry about.  If a non-professional piece intends to persuade an audience, they are not expected to be an entirely credible source.  In my experience, readers put less stock in pieces without professional credentials.  Because of this, there is less of an impact of writing a misinformed piece. 

Another use of rhetoric in professional writing, according to Bowdon and Scott, is that professional writing has an emphasis on its intended audience.  This can be exemplified through the hypothetical comparison of a New York Times article and an article found in PubMed.  The intended audiences are vastly different, and so each article will have an entirely different style and content to accommodate such.  Professional writing is different from other styles of writing because it has to take this into account.  Professional writing has an intended audience, and must have a piece that keeps this in mind.  Success in a professional piece will be seriously hindered if it is written without keeping so in mind.  If a New York Times article had the style and content of an article found on PubMed, it would not be a successful piece simply because the audience the New York Times has a much different background and interest.  The majority of readers within the New York Times audience would either be unable to understand, or be wildly uninterested in, such a piece. 

Because my public interest narrative from last week had a mainly scientific focus, my professional writing piece would be based on providing a piece produced with that in mind.  I would have to keep the rhetorical aspects of intended audience and use of persuasion in mind to create a successful professional piece.  Knowing there is a persuasive nature to my piece, I would make sure to broadcast only credible and accurate information so as to avoid misinforming my readers and influencing their opinion with inaccurate details.  Thinking about these aspects of rhetoric will help my piece be more successful. 

Public writing, to an extent, involves a sort of compartmentalization. We have been conditioned through all our years of school to understand how we speak to our fam, our homies, is not how we would speak in a more formal setting. We’ve been conditioned to understand how public writing should look, so much so it may be a bit difficult to illustrate it into words. As Bowdon and Scott mentioned: rhetoric can be taught and developed. For example, I would not be writing “issa call to assemble” for the white paper assignment. However, rhetoric is situational. Let’s take this past presidential election as an example. Hillary Clinton changed how she acted, the words she said, to become more likeable with a younger, largely minority-filled voting group. The only difference between me using more academic language and her utilizing slang words and teaming up with Beyonce was the situation. This brings us to one of the concepts discussed in the reading: kairos. The idea that you are saying the right words at the right place and at the right time. We must, as rhetors, be able to read the dynamics of our audience and adapt. I’ll call on my own personal experience and the topic of my group project for class: food deserts. Now I have personally experienced being in a food desert in my hometown and was privileged enough to only see it as an annoying hassle, not a dire situation. Yet, I have experienced numerous forms of racism (internalized and external) and sexism. How, as a woman of color, can I take my emotions and transform them into professional writing, especially when I am so passionate about it? How can I become the next public face of the people of color while appealing to white people? How can I make them understand my struggles as an immigrant from the Dominican Republic?

Well, I can start by using what classical rhetoricians have created: the five canons. These canons are invention, style, delivery, memory, and arrangement. I will preface this by saying by no means are the colloquialisms of minority youth somehow less academic than how white youth speak, it is merely a language that is understood almost exclusively by those surrounded in urban areas. I have to switch up my style, my slang because it isn’t viewed by the majority as academic. I will never let that part of me go, but I have to compartmentalize myself for now until my language is seen as important by all. With that being said, I can use this concept to turn my experience into something that everyone can digest. Even as a person of color, I may not have fully experienced the extent of food deserts but I must use my experience and privilege to illustrate the effects of it along with my partners. I can specifically focus on accessibility, a subpart of the arrangement canon. I have to make the audience feel what those plagued by food deserts feel every single day.

I must also focus on clarity and voice/tone which are subparts of the style canon. I can’t “go off on people”. I have to remain composed even if every inch of me wants to start yelling and throwing things. Unfortunately, it will only deter my group from reaching our goal of educating. While people of color understand “the nod”, the unspoken gesture of “Duh, c’mon. We’ve been dealing with this crap forever. This is nothing new to me”, not all white people understand our struggles. Even if it pains me, even if it angers me, I need to step away from myself and reach the masses and not preach to the choir.

That’s the amazing thing about rhetoric. It takes practice. While I may be naturally gifted with eloquence, speaking from my rear end won’t always get the point across. I can and will become more persuasive as time goes on. Because “Issa call to assemble” will have to be at another time, in another place. But this is right now, right here.