5.28 Reading Response

Texts:
Bawarshi & Rieff, Chapter 1: Introduction &
Chapter 5: Genre in Rhetorical & Sociological Traditions

Bawarshi and Rieff start off the introduction to this book by discussing the debate on the definition of genre between those who view genres as containers of meaning versus those who see them as meaning-making. They state this confusion has to do with whether genres “merely sort and classify the experiences, events, and actions they represent” or whether they “reflect, help shape, and even generate what they represent in culturally defined ways” (3). This is not a new concept for us. All of the reading we have done in class thus for has already introduced us to this debate and also informed us that over the years genre scholarship has turned to take a point of view more similar to the latter. However, what I find still interesting about this is how people only ever saw genres as “containers for meaning” in the first place. Can anything really ever be just a container? Isn’t there always just sort of influence by just being there in presence? Take for example an actual container. Say that I have a liquid. If I put it in a bowl, I see it completely differently than if I put it in a cup or a jar. Soup that’s in a mug is drinkable but soup that’s in a bowl needs a spoon – either way it’s still soup but the container changes they way I not only see, but use, what it contains. I don’t see how genres could have only been perceived simply as labels or containers. By just existing and being associated with things they have influence. Maybe this is just my perspective as I have always been someone who things that things always interact and are socially constructed.

Another point I liked in the introduction is when Bawarshi and Rieff point out why studying genre is more important than just for scholarship. They say that it “helps us understand and prepare students for the increasingly specialized communicative needs of disciplines, profession, and everyday life” (5). I find this interesting and helpful because of our perspective that we took from our Workplace Communication class when we briefly studied genre. Genre isn’t just for theorizing and pondering – we can actually put it into action by using what we know in practice.

In chapter 5, Bawarshi and Rieff comment that a perspective of genre as rhetorically and socially dynamic, ideological, performative, intertextual, socio-cognitive, and responsive (basically all the things we have heard mentioned before in our readings) suggests that it can’t really be taught (60-1). They say that this kind of understanding implies that genres “cannot be explicated, explained, or acquired only through textual or linguistic means; they also cannot be abstracted from the contexts of their use for pedagogical purposes” (61). They even mention that some scholars have questioned the value of teaching genre explicitly (61). So then what are we doing in this class? Can genre really be taught? Can we even learn it? If genre is so complex and dynamic, how can you really teach it so someone can learn it? Instead of teaching, can we only describe genres and show them to others in an attempt to make them aware of genre and hoping they get the hang of it? Bawarshi and Rieff mention some solutions to this dilemma. It’s more about learning to recognize situations and relationships and to orient oneself properly. Some pedagogical approaches look more at genre awareness, ethnography, and situated apprenticeship (61). I found this really interesting because I feel that we are learning a lot less traditionally in this class. We are more being submerged into these readings and areas and kind of exploring for ourselves and toying with our own notions of genre. I think that’s kind of what was implied in this part of the reading.