Texts:
Devitt, “A Theory of Genre” (p. 12-32)
Bawarshi, “The Genre Function” and “Greeting Cards and the Articulation of Desire”
Reciprocal Relationship:
Devitt comments that “genre and situation are reciprocal, mutually constructed, and integrally interrelated” (25). Their relationship must be reciprocal and dynamic “because people construct genre through situation and situation through genre” (Devitt 21). In this reciprocal relationship, “situations and their participants are always in the process of reproducing each other within genre” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 354). As “typified sociorhetorical actions,” genres are essential for reproducing the situations to which they in turn respond; they shape social realities and people, while people also shape them (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 353). Furthermore, “genres are both functional and epistemological” – they help us function in situations while also helping shape our recognition of situations (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 340).
I find it very interesting that there are so many factors affecting the relationship that the situation and we have with genre. This makes sense through because when you think about the complexity of each situation and all of its actors, there is nothing that does not add to defining it. Each situation can vary so greatly. Thus, it makes sense that not only should the genre influence the situation, but also all of the situational factors working to determine the genre. Is there anything that does not contribute to this reciprocal relationship? I feel like all of this makes it very hard for situations to replicate themselves, thus adding to the point I read today that situations aren’t really recurring but instead only seem to happen in the same kind of way because of similar contexts.
Identity Construction, Social Action, & Resistance:
Genre can shape and enable social actions by rhetorically constituting the recognition of situations in which we function, and we all function “within genre-constituted realities within which we assume genre-constituted identities” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 340, 354). Thus, genre is constitutive of identities within and related to discourse and social action and identity construction are genre-mediated and genre-constituted (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 343). Even “humble genres” can organize and create a variety of desires that regulate and help people perform situated activities and subjectivities (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 106). We confront representations of identity and how we should behave when writing within a genre (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 110). Take for example greeting cards. Their display is “organized by subjectivities and relations” that “are largely indicative of what our culture sanctions as the potential social relations and identities we can assume on a given occasion” (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 108).
I find it intriguing that genre helps to shape our identities and actions. It makes complete sense even though I never really thought about it. Although we may feel like free actors, we are constrained by the limits of the situations and genres in which we are working. Also,because “genres situate writers within positions of articulation,” we must make a choice to appoint that articulation (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 111). Bawarshi points out that, within a situation, “what we choose is always going to situate us within a discursive and ideological formation that frames who we are and how we relate to the receiver” (“Greeting Cards” 108). So furthermore, the choices we make help to define the situation, but at the same time the context of the situation constrains us. Then, are we ever really free to choose our own identities or courses of action? Is or was there ever a time when we are not influenced by situations, contexts, and genres? Also, the choices we make seem to help shape these genres, making them alter and shift slightly over time to fit how our society is changing. Thus, genre constrains our choices, identities, and actions, but also allows us a little freedom to shape it in exchange.
Context, Culture, & Other Genres:
The context of situation is not only a physical fact but also constructed by people and their actions around that discourse; this in combination decides what is relevant and constitutes the situation (Devitt 19). In genres, an “individuals’ actions construct and are constructed by recurring context of situation, context of culture, and context of genres” (Devitt 31). Existing ideological and material contacts help to construct genres but are also constructed by those performing genre actions (Devitt 26-7). This is where culture plays into context. Culture “influences how situation is constructed and how it is seen as recurring in genres” and is “more than an interpretive context for genre but as an element in the dynamic construction of genre” (Devitt 25-6). Furthermore, “genre enables us to assume certain situational roles, roles established by our culture and rhetorically enacted and reproduced by genre” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 354).
Also tying into the context of situation is the role of other genres. There are “always already existing genres that are also a significant part of context” and these emphasize the past in the present (Devitt 25, 28). It is these antecedent genres that “play a role in constituting subsequent action, even acts of resistance” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 341). Devitt comments that these “preexisting genres are part of what enable individuals to move from their unique experiences and perceptions to a shared construction of recurring situation and genre” (Devitt 20).
This continues on with a comment I had for yesterday’s post about history and other actors being able to influence our own situations and actions. We build on the past and come to address situations based on how society and our predecessors have done before us. Like I said before, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time we come across a situation with exigence. Bawarshi comments that genre and exigence are recursively and inseparably linked (“Genre Function” 354, 356). Genres are both “rhetorical actions andrecurrent situations” because they help people construct and rhetorically respond to recurrent situations; so exigence is both a form of social knowledge and genre knowledge (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 357). The contexts provided by our culture and already established genres help us to know how to perceive and act in the particular situation and address these exigencies. Although every situation cannot be the same, previous ones still give us a hint of what to do in similar ones. So although genres can be constraining as I mentioned above, they also help guide us and save us a lot of time and effort in determining how to handle certain situations.
The “Genre Function:”
One thing that I found very different and intriguing was the “genre function.” Barwarshi introduces the idea of the “genre function” much like the author function. The genre function “constitutes all discourses’ and all writers’ modes of existence, circulation, and functioning within a society” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 338). It constitutes responses, reactions, and assumed subject roles in relation to situations (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 341). Thus it “rhetorically constitutes our social realities” as it is “the social and rhetorical scene within which we enact various social practices, relations, and identities” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 357). I vaguely understand what this means. It seems, though, as if the genre function would pretty much permeate all of society and its situations. Is there anything that would not be touched by this genre function? If so, what? I’d really like to learn more about this.
The Place/Role of Genre:
Because genres “function on an ideological level, constituting discursive reality,” their role, then, is to provide “the ideological context in which a text and its participants function and attain cultural value” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 349). Genre acts as a social semiotic, representing “the vehicle through which communicants interact with a situation type” and creating the conditions in which texts, writers, and readers function (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 351). Furthermore, Devitt situates genre’s place “between the textual and the contextual, the individual action and the social system” and “between an individual’s actions and a socially defined context” (29, 31).
Genres seem to be placed in so many different locations and play a variety of roles. So then, if they can be this diverse, is it not hard to place a definition on them? This is actually something that I have seen throughout all of the pieces we have read so far. All of the authors seem to comment that scholars debate on how genres should be defined and many contest what variables these definitions should include. They stand on different sides about what genre can do. I think that defining genres, though, kind of constrains our view of what they encompass and what they can do. If we constrain the definition of genres, I think we too narrowly perceive what they entail. However, I see why a definition is necessary – people like to agree on things so they can move forward in exploring them along the same lines. If we are all over the place in deciding what genre is, how do we move forward in our investigation of it?
Devitt, “A Theory of Genre” (p. 12-32)
Bawarshi, “The Genre Function” and “Greeting Cards and the Articulation of Desire”
Reciprocal Relationship:
Devitt comments that “genre and situation are reciprocal, mutually constructed, and integrally interrelated” (25). Their relationship must be reciprocal and dynamic “because people construct genre through situation and situation through genre” (Devitt 21). In this reciprocal relationship, “situations and their participants are always in the process of reproducing each other within genre” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 354). As “typified sociorhetorical actions,” genres are essential for reproducing the situations to which they in turn respond; they shape social realities and people, while people also shape them (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 353). Furthermore, “genres are both functional and epistemological” – they help us function in situations while also helping shape our recognition of situations (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 340).
I find it very interesting that there are so many factors affecting the relationship that the situation and we have with genre. This makes sense through because when you think about the complexity of each situation and all of its actors, there is nothing that does not add to defining it. Each situation can vary so greatly. Thus, it makes sense that not only should the genre influence the situation, but also all of the situational factors working to determine the genre. Is there anything that does not contribute to this reciprocal relationship? I feel like all of this makes it very hard for situations to replicate themselves, thus adding to the point I read today that situations aren’t really recurring but instead only seem to happen in the same kind of way because of similar contexts.
Identity Construction, Social Action, & Resistance:
Genre can shape and enable social actions by rhetorically constituting the recognition of situations in which we function, and we all function “within genre-constituted realities within which we assume genre-constituted identities” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 340, 354). Thus, genre is constitutive of identities within and related to discourse and social action and identity construction are genre-mediated and genre-constituted (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 343). Even “humble genres” can organize and create a variety of desires that regulate and help people perform situated activities and subjectivities (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 106). We confront representations of identity and how we should behave when writing within a genre (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 110). Take for example greeting cards. Their display is “organized by subjectivities and relations” that “are largely indicative of what our culture sanctions as the potential social relations and identities we can assume on a given occasion” (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 108).
I find it intriguing that genre helps to shape our identities and actions. It makes complete sense even though I never really thought about it. Although we may feel like free actors, we are constrained by the limits of the situations and genres in which we are working. Also,because “genres situate writers within positions of articulation,” we must make a choice to appoint that articulation (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 111). Bawarshi points out that, within a situation, “what we choose is always going to situate us within a discursive and ideological formation that frames who we are and how we relate to the receiver” (“Greeting Cards” 108). So furthermore, the choices we make help to define the situation, but at the same time the context of the situation constrains us. Then, are we ever really free to choose our own identities or courses of action? Is or was there ever a time when we are not influenced by situations, contexts, and genres? Also, the choices we make seem to help shape these genres, making them alter and shift slightly over time to fit how our society is changing. Thus, genre constrains our choices, identities, and actions, but also allows us a little freedom to shape it in exchange.
Context, Culture, & Other Genres:
The context of situation is not only a physical fact but also constructed by people and their actions around that discourse; this in combination decides what is relevant and constitutes the situation (Devitt 19). In genres, an “individuals’ actions construct and are constructed by recurring context of situation, context of culture, and context of genres” (Devitt 31). Existing ideological and material contacts help to construct genres but are also constructed by those performing genre actions (Devitt 26-7). This is where culture plays into context. Culture “influences how situation is constructed and how it is seen as recurring in genres” and is “more than an interpretive context for genre but as an element in the dynamic construction of genre” (Devitt 25-6). Furthermore, “genre enables us to assume certain situational roles, roles established by our culture and rhetorically enacted and reproduced by genre” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 354).
Also tying into the context of situation is the role of other genres. There are “always already existing genres that are also a significant part of context” and these emphasize the past in the present (Devitt 25, 28). It is these antecedent genres that “play a role in constituting subsequent action, even acts of resistance” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 341). Devitt comments that these “preexisting genres are part of what enable individuals to move from their unique experiences and perceptions to a shared construction of recurring situation and genre” (Devitt 20).
This continues on with a comment I had for yesterday’s post about history and other actors being able to influence our own situations and actions. We build on the past and come to address situations based on how society and our predecessors have done before us. Like I said before, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time we come across a situation with exigence. Bawarshi comments that genre and exigence are recursively and inseparably linked (“Genre Function” 354, 356). Genres are both “rhetorical actions andrecurrent situations” because they help people construct and rhetorically respond to recurrent situations; so exigence is both a form of social knowledge and genre knowledge (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 357). The contexts provided by our culture and already established genres help us to know how to perceive and act in the particular situation and address these exigencies. Although every situation cannot be the same, previous ones still give us a hint of what to do in similar ones. So although genres can be constraining as I mentioned above, they also help guide us and save us a lot of time and effort in determining how to handle certain situations.
The “Genre Function:”
One thing that I found very different and intriguing was the “genre function.” Barwarshi introduces the idea of the “genre function” much like the author function. The genre function “constitutes all discourses’ and all writers’ modes of existence, circulation, and functioning within a society” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 338). It constitutes responses, reactions, and assumed subject roles in relation to situations (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 341). Thus it “rhetorically constitutes our social realities” as it is “the social and rhetorical scene within which we enact various social practices, relations, and identities” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 357). I vaguely understand what this means. It seems, though, as if the genre function would pretty much permeate all of society and its situations. Is there anything that would not be touched by this genre function? If so, what? I’d really like to learn more about this.
The Place/Role of Genre:
Because genres “function on an ideological level, constituting discursive reality,” their role, then, is to provide “the ideological context in which a text and its participants function and attain cultural value” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 349). Genre acts as a social semiotic, representing “the vehicle through which communicants interact with a situation type” and creating the conditions in which texts, writers, and readers function (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 351). Furthermore, Devitt situates genre’s place “between the textual and the contextual, the individual action and the social system” and “between an individual’s actions and a socially defined context” (29, 31).
Genres seem to be placed in so many different locations and play a variety of roles. So then, if they can be this diverse, is it not hard to place a definition on them? This is actually something that I have seen throughout all of the pieces we have read so far. All of the authors seem to comment that scholars debate on how genres should be defined and many contest what variables these definitions should include. They stand on different sides about what genre can do. I think that defining genres, though, kind of constrains our view of what they encompass and what they can do. If we constrain the definition of genres, I think we too narrowly perceive what they entail. However, I see why a definition is necessary – people like to agree on things so they can move forward in exploring them along the same lines. If we are all over the place in deciding what genre is, how do we move forward in our investigation of it?
No comments:
Post a Comment