Devitt claims that we have been creating dichotomies (such as form from content, writer from society, and product from process) that are unproductive. She believes that a new conception of genre can help collapse these dichotomies and, possibly, bring us to “a unified theory of writing” (573). The old conception understands genre as a set of categories with forms to fill. The new conception “shifts the focus from effects (formal features, text classifications) to sources of effects” (573). When we identify a genre, “we make assumptions not only about the form but also about the text’s purpose, its subject matter, its writer, and its expected reader…and [we] respond accordingly” (575). Genre, then, “entails purposes, participants, and themes, so understanding genre entail understanding a rhetorical and semiotic situation and social context” (576). Utilizing Bitzer, Devitt asserts that genres “develop…because they respond appropriately to situations that the writers encounter repeatedly” (576). So, a first writer responds fittingly, a similar situation occurs, the writer goes back to what has been done in the past. In this way, genres are social constructed. “Knowing the genre, therefore, means knowing such things as appropriate subject matter, level of detail, tone, and approach as well as the usual layout and organization” (577). At the same time, “genre not only response to but also constructs the recurring situation” (577). Put another way, when we choose the genre, we are choosing which situation to see (578). Genres, then, are dynamic, and because they are dynamic, writers can respond creatively to writing situations. They can choose to adhere to, violate, and combine existing genres. In summation, Devitt writes, “[G]enre is a dynamic response to and construction of recurring situations, one that changes historically and in different social groups, that adapts and grows as the social context changes… Genre is…a maker of meaning” (580).
0 Comments
|
Tags
All
|