Miller's Features of Genre

In Carolyn Miller's conclusion, she outlines five features of her genre as social action.  Her argument is compelling, but I am not sure I am completely onboard.  The way she defines genres strays away from some preconceived beliefs of genre:

1) Genre refers to a conventional category of discourse based in large-scale typification of rhetorical action; as action, it acquires meaning from situation and from social context in which that situation arose (Miller 163).

This first statement is one that I find myself sympathizing with.  A genre obtains its specifications from the circumstances that are present during the situation.  For example, a speech given at a funeral usually celebrates the life of the dead person.  You will not hear a degrading discourse but one that is positive and uplifting because of a funeral's social function.

2) As meaningful action, genre is interpretable by means of rules; genre rules occur at a relatively high level on a hierarchy of rules for symbolic interaction (Miller 163). 

Is not this statement restricting the power of genre as social action?  When you set rules to something then it becomes closed and restricted.  I may be interpreting this wrong but I find the statement a little contradictory.  Does society set these rules and hierarchies? 

3) Genre is distinct from form: form is the more general term used at all levels of the hierarchy.  Genre is at one particular level that is a fusion of lower-level forms and characteristic substance (Miller 163).

Miller places a very helpful chart diagram that connects action, form, and substance.  She says the combination of form and substance becomes an action (Miller 160).  This statement is fairly straight-forward saying genre is a subdivision of a more general form.  Can genre be separated from form?

4) Genre serves as the substance of forms at higher levels; as recurrent patterns of language use, genres help constitute the substance of our cultural life (Miller 163).

Is Miller saying genre has a more important role than substance?  Genres are characterized by use of language.  Here again, she is linking the concept of genre to social-based characteristics.  So does the situation predict the genre or do we predict the genre? 

5) A genre is a rhetorical means for mediating private intentions and social exigence; it motivates by connecting the private with the public, the singular with the recurrent (Miller 163).

As I said in my road map, the genre connects perception (inaction) to reality (action).  I view it as a call to action rather than the actual action.  Can genre be successful if separated from rhetorical discourse?  While she brings up some interesting and new thoughts on genre, I find myself being wary of agreeing with her wholeheartedly.  Classifying genre is an arduous task in and of itself.

Works Cited

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