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 An outdated genre may decay, while new ones may evolve (53).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.