Texts:
Shryer & Spoel: Genre Theory Health Care
Two concepts that I found very interesting in this reading were how power and hierarchy and also unpredictability tied into identity formation. Issues of identity seem important to look at, particularly in this field, because of the hierarchies and power relationships that are inevitable and inherent in the workplace. Genres can serve as “mediating tools that simultaneously structure and constrain the possibilities for rhetorical action and afford opportunities for the strategic improvisation for agency in the process of identity formation” (271). Also, the tensions and improvisations of each genre’s performance makes the rhetorical shaping of identity unpredictable (271).
Schryer and Spoel explain that “some genres exist in a relationship of power with other genres” because they also regulate and control them in addition to contributing to internal regulated and regularized resources (250). In connection to activity theory, the tools that we use in an attempt to pursue our objectives helps to internalize the values, practices, and beliefs we associated with our social situations (254). This encasing of ideology contributes to enforcing those power relationships. Already established genres are social structures that provide both resources and constraints that shape the behavior of people in the workplace (253). The workplace seems like an obvious place for power relationships and hierarchy just because of management and different positions – just the way it is set up – but it is also interesting to think about how these genres also can contribute to this by imposing certain constraints.
The discussion of how health-care communities continually work on professional identity formation as they participate in the field’s discursive practices seems like it would also be applicable to a variety of other fields as well. I feel like all workplaces have their workers kind of work out their place as they participate – nothing ever really seems stable. Schryer and Spoel even say that “individual and group identities are not static constructs but are improvised” (258). Furthermore, not only do present situations and practices influence identity formation, but also past experiences and orientations. This past socialization and practice are embedded in genres that affect present situations but never in predictable ways (258). As symbolic structures, genres overlap and contribute to changing fields, prompting shift and change and “the actions of agents using genres are never entirely predictable (259). It seems that in the workplace, with these unspoken rules and restraints and the variety of contextual factors, identity formation could always be changing and there should exist a shifting power balance. Something would always contribute to the context and situation at hand, but how can you ever really tell or predict what that is? I have blogged about this previously – there is just so much to every situation and context, it seems impossible for us to recognize or identify anything or everything that could be influential.
Showing posts with label identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label identity. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
5.29 Reading Response
Texts:
Bawarshi & Rieff, Chapter 6: “Rhetorical Genre Studies”
One of the points that Bawarshi and Rieff make in this chapter is that rhetorical genre studies have claimed that genres are “dynamic rhetorical forms that develop from responses to recurrent situations and serve to stabilize experience and give it coherence and meaning” (79). So at the same time genres are dynamic but also help to stabilize. Although these seem to be complete opposites and may seem impossible, Bawarshi and Rieff comment that genres must accommodate both stability and change because variation is an inevitable part of recurrence and then cannot become obsolete (79). This makes me wonder what counts as change in this case because genres already seem so dynamic. Couldn’t change mean almost anything and wouldn’t that rule out the stability? How big does something have to be to change a genre? Can something small be influential? Can small changes prompt a change in genre or does it have to be big? Can it be just one even or does it have to be a variety of events or at least something consistent? Who decides or says that the genre has changed – who has the authority in this case? Or is the change just accepted by the community or does it even go barely recognized? Or can all of this happen and genre change is really just situational? Are there any rules for what changes genres or is it just a free for all? These questions just lead me to wonder how we identify a change in genre – what prompts it and what counts as a change and how is that recognized.
After discussing the different genre claims in RGS, Bawarshi and Rieff summarize by saying that genre is complex and dynamic, marked by both stability and change, serves as situated cognition, is connected to ideology, power and social actions and relations, and recursively enacts and reproduces community (82). What I find interesting is because genre can do all of these things; it seems very influential since it permeates so much and so many areas. Bawarshi and Rieff state that genres “do not function in isolation” but they also interact with a variety of things and other genres. So then I continue back to my questioning of genre change. If genres are interconnected to other genres and other elements/factors, how is it possible for them to change? Wouldn’t any change prompt a series of other changes? If it is so complex, does everything else have to change as well? Which has to change first? Or can they change in isolation with no other effects? Can one thing prompt change or is it something reciprocal? Because of all the elements involved, I think that the latter is more likely. However, then it seems like things would constantly be changing and that goes against the factor of stability that Bawarshi and Rieff discussed. It is a little confusing and although I know genres are “stabilized for now” how fine is that line between stable and changing?
Continuing on with my discussion of whether or not genre can be taught from yesterday’s post, Bawarshi and Rieff made a few additional points in this chapter. They say that because genre knowledge is a form of situated cognition, it can only be acquired over time (82). Furthermore, genres can’t be defined or taught just through their formal features because how we understand parts of the situation (object, outcomes, meditational means) and how we use them determines how we see them (103). Bawarshi and Rieff comment “genre knowledge is not fully activated or learned until the object/motives are acquired and become real for their users” (103). So unless the situation and its results are real, we won’t fully understand – formal knowledge is not enough (103). We need to be immersed in the genre and experience it for ourselves to really learn. I also thought their point on students feeling the authority being important in learning.
Just to touch on a few more points that I found interesting, I liked how Bawarshi and Rieff commented that subjectivity and identity were intertwined in genre knowledge and performance (104). I though this is very important because everybody brings something different to a situation – background knowledge, experience, perspective, etc. – so it seems that nothing can every really stay constant in terms of this subjectivity and identity. What we have individually definitely would influence what we know about genres and how we use them. I also like how meta-genres can help to smooth tensions between activity systems (101). This seems key since so many activity systems and genres overlap, there is bound to be a variety of contradictions. I also found the concept of uptake interesting to describe the complex ways genres relate to and take up other genres in activity systems (83).
Bawarshi & Rieff, Chapter 6: “Rhetorical Genre Studies”
One of the points that Bawarshi and Rieff make in this chapter is that rhetorical genre studies have claimed that genres are “dynamic rhetorical forms that develop from responses to recurrent situations and serve to stabilize experience and give it coherence and meaning” (79). So at the same time genres are dynamic but also help to stabilize. Although these seem to be complete opposites and may seem impossible, Bawarshi and Rieff comment that genres must accommodate both stability and change because variation is an inevitable part of recurrence and then cannot become obsolete (79). This makes me wonder what counts as change in this case because genres already seem so dynamic. Couldn’t change mean almost anything and wouldn’t that rule out the stability? How big does something have to be to change a genre? Can something small be influential? Can small changes prompt a change in genre or does it have to be big? Can it be just one even or does it have to be a variety of events or at least something consistent? Who decides or says that the genre has changed – who has the authority in this case? Or is the change just accepted by the community or does it even go barely recognized? Or can all of this happen and genre change is really just situational? Are there any rules for what changes genres or is it just a free for all? These questions just lead me to wonder how we identify a change in genre – what prompts it and what counts as a change and how is that recognized.
After discussing the different genre claims in RGS, Bawarshi and Rieff summarize by saying that genre is complex and dynamic, marked by both stability and change, serves as situated cognition, is connected to ideology, power and social actions and relations, and recursively enacts and reproduces community (82). What I find interesting is because genre can do all of these things; it seems very influential since it permeates so much and so many areas. Bawarshi and Rieff state that genres “do not function in isolation” but they also interact with a variety of things and other genres. So then I continue back to my questioning of genre change. If genres are interconnected to other genres and other elements/factors, how is it possible for them to change? Wouldn’t any change prompt a series of other changes? If it is so complex, does everything else have to change as well? Which has to change first? Or can they change in isolation with no other effects? Can one thing prompt change or is it something reciprocal? Because of all the elements involved, I think that the latter is more likely. However, then it seems like things would constantly be changing and that goes against the factor of stability that Bawarshi and Rieff discussed. It is a little confusing and although I know genres are “stabilized for now” how fine is that line between stable and changing?
Continuing on with my discussion of whether or not genre can be taught from yesterday’s post, Bawarshi and Rieff made a few additional points in this chapter. They say that because genre knowledge is a form of situated cognition, it can only be acquired over time (82). Furthermore, genres can’t be defined or taught just through their formal features because how we understand parts of the situation (object, outcomes, meditational means) and how we use them determines how we see them (103). Bawarshi and Rieff comment “genre knowledge is not fully activated or learned until the object/motives are acquired and become real for their users” (103). So unless the situation and its results are real, we won’t fully understand – formal knowledge is not enough (103). We need to be immersed in the genre and experience it for ourselves to really learn. I also thought their point on students feeling the authority being important in learning.
Just to touch on a few more points that I found interesting, I liked how Bawarshi and Rieff commented that subjectivity and identity were intertwined in genre knowledge and performance (104). I though this is very important because everybody brings something different to a situation – background knowledge, experience, perspective, etc. – so it seems that nothing can every really stay constant in terms of this subjectivity and identity. What we have individually definitely would influence what we know about genres and how we use them. I also like how meta-genres can help to smooth tensions between activity systems (101). This seems key since so many activity systems and genres overlap, there is bound to be a variety of contradictions. I also found the concept of uptake interesting to describe the complex ways genres relate to and take up other genres in activity systems (83).
Thursday, May 17, 2012
5.17 Reading Response
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)