Miller: Blame Your Senses on Your Interpretations

In Carolyn R. Miller’s “Genre as Social Action” she wrestles with issues in rhetorical criticism, specifically those dealing with problems surrounding what constitutes a genre.  Miller’s work originally makes an effort to construct a definition of genre.  However, as I continued to read her work I found that it fleshed out much more than what her thesis had suggested.  One specific part of Miller’s writing that I found a particularly interesting was one that dealt with issues surrounding “perception” and “definition.”  Miller made claims that I believe are somewhat revolutionary, her writing suggests that human perception is not only something that is relative, it is a concept that human’s have created.  That is, “Situations are social constructions that are the result, not of ‘perception,’ but of ‘definition.’ Because human action is based on and guided by meaning, not by material causes, at the center of action is a process of interpretation” (Miller 156).  In other words, for as long as they have been alive, humans have been gathering sensory data and using it to build their opinions on certain situations.

It is through our past experiences that we create our own set of rules and stipulations telling us what is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary and happy or sad.  These experiences shape our psyche and help us form our own opinions in turn allowing us to communicate effectively.  Miller’s essay states that it is through successful communication that a group of people are able to understand abstract concepts like genre.  “Successful communication would require that the participants share common types; this is possible insofar as types are socially created (or biologically innate)”  (Miller 157).  I believe that what Miller is trying to say is that we learn how to compartmentalize and interpret data through social interactions.  Could this method of learning how to interpret data be the reason for the lack a proper lack of genre in the area or social criticism?  If human’s are learning to interpret data through the experiences that they are witnessing, then one individual's perception is going to be inherently different than another persons.

This difference would lead to an alternative interpretation of a rhetorical concept from person to person (Also explaining why so much of our class discussion involves us getting into groups and communicating our thoughts about difficult rhetorical criticisms!).  Further supporting this theory is the fact that throughout her writing Miller discusses the different way’s that other theorists interpret data. “Campbell and Jamieson’s approach to genre is also fundamentally Aristotelian”  (Miller 152).  “Bitzer’s work brought a specific version into prominence in rhetorical theory”  (Miller 155).  I was surprised to find such enlightening information within this text.  Miller’s piece did an excellent job unpacking this eye opening concept.

Works Cited
Miller, Carolyn. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 151-169.