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.
I really appreciate your summary of the article and understanding of Millers’ concept of genre as more action-oriented than categorical based on substance of writing. I do agree as well – your conclusion to say that, incorporating what Miller wrote into our own work is to help us be aware of the audience and create something meaningful to a situation. “As public writers, we must be aware of the world around us and make sure that our motives coincide with society and reoccurring history.”
However, is it necessary that we must only reinforce what the public wants instead of what, too, we feel the public should be informed about? If not bringing someone to awareness of an issue that is opposite their own current motives is beneficial, then is it not allowed to be considered a rhetorical genre? Does this mean that the “greater good” is solely isolated by what the public may consider “socially acceptable” instead of “beneficial for all”?
I think it is more so that just so long as an action and intent to create substance from discussion rather than just fancy words, it would fall under what Miller considers rhetorical genre. Otherwise, what would be the point of always just going along with society and historical views? That would be unacademic and overall pointless to something like a field of literature.