The concept of rhetorical genre would be expandable as that of the concept of pure rhetoric. I'm not exactly sure that there is one way to put rhetorical genre into on specific class or category; I do agree with the reading that there is a huge problem in defining this term because of the complexity in both terms separately as well as combined. I somewhat feel that this all depends on the implications of the words and the use of the language along with the intended meanings. We have rhetorical genre, rhetorical situation, which in turn rolls into a generalization of recurrence; followed by definition, perception and meaning which unfold with its exigencies in various areas which sometimes provide a sense of purpose or intention.
I know I’m generalizing, but all this connects to communication, intention and audience appeal. I feel as though I could be an advocate for any of the terms in regards to supporting or not supporting rhetorical genre, and it all would be determined on the rhetor’s communication.
W. Barnett Pearce and Forrest Conklin talk about the communication problems in the hierarchical model effectively and I think some of their examples are being exemplified with the terms in this reading. What’s wrong with there just being a problem with the combining of terms or words to create or recreate theories or complex concepts ?
Miller, Carolyn. "Genre as Social Action." Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984) 151-169
We can all agree that the urge to classify is fundamental, whether it be animal, humans, or words and language. Miller’s main exigence is to make rhetorical genre a stable and classifying concept as well as ensuring that the concept is rhetorically sound. Miller believes that genre study is valuable because it emphasizes some social and historical aspects of rhetoric that other perspectives do not. Genre can represent “typified rhetorical action.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that rhetorical genre cannot and will not ever be defined in such a way that it is cut and dry. Genre is a classification of things determined by situational factors. In the case of rhetoric, I think the term can be broken down into language and situation. Therefore, I think of rhetorical genre as the classification of instances in which rhetoric is used.
However, my definition of rhetorical genre is somewhat shot down by Miller when she says that rhetorical genre is “more than just a formal entity… it becomes pragmatic, fully rhetorical, a point of connection between intention and effect, an aspect of social action.” This short explanation is useful in my understanding of rhetorical genre except that Miller uses the term rhetorical in her definition. But back to the point, rhetorical genre is the point of connection between intention and effect. What exactly does that mean?
I love your statement about the complexity of both terms. If you asked two random people to define rhetoric, you most likely would get two very different answers. The same goes for genre. If you ask two people to define the term, you would probably get two very different ideas. In putting two complicated terms together, you get more complication.
Rhetorical genre, as well as many other aspects of rhetorical do, as you said, all connect to communication, intention, and audience appeal. All of these concepts feed off of each other. I again agree that I could be an advocate for any of the terms in regards to supporting or not supporting rhetorical genre.
Works Cited
ReplyDeleteMiller, Carolyn. "Genre as Social Action." Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984) 151-169