Solitary Classification

"I will be arguing that a rhetorically sound definition of genre must be centered not on the substance or the form of discourse but on the action it is used to accomplish" (Miller 151). 

I know this is in one of the first paragraphs in Carolyn Miller's article, but I personally love this point. I believe it allows for things that are completely different but if they serve the same purpose/motivation, they're classified in the same category. If something is meant to scare you but it's written in a poetic format, it should still be in the horror category, not something like non-fiction poetry. Also, her definition can be used to help describe controversial gender roles, like if she has the body part of a woman but acts and has the intent of acting/thinking like a man, then that person is a man etc. I feel like that connection creates a sort of bridge between gender roles and genre. Both are extremely similar since they're both labels, things are classified into a certain category.

"'From day to day, year to year comparable situations occur, providing comparable responses.' The comparable responses, or reoccurring forms, becomes a tradition which then tends to function as a constraint upon any new response in the form' Bitzer" (Miller 2).

Bitzer, in this quote is pointing the way to genre study, to notice all the standards of genre that develop over time, that become a sort of tradition. A tradition that is not really broken, and if it is--it calls the genre or whatever it is into question. People figure out what is or is not appropriate regarding certain things. It's a depressing thought in a way because it means that change is difficult. It's like being told that doing something is bad for your entire life, then when someone finally tells you that it is good, its hard for you to even acknowledge the idea just because of how you have the concept set up in your head. With change being difficult, is it possible for things to remain alone, without a classification or category, since they're something new and different from everything that people have seen before? How can you classify something when you can't see the connection/relationship, or if you do see a relationship, but it's not enough to truly classify something.

Regarding classification, I understand that the standards and rules for it are developed over time, but does that then mean that what would be seen as one type of genre in one era be in the same category centuries later, if so--are things then lost in the midst of the shift from old genre to new genre? I agree that standards of things should change over time because of all the new things that occur whether it's technological like the Industrial Revolution or through social change, the way people think changes because their lives are changing. If I lived exactly like one of my ancestors, we'd probably have the same standards regarding certain things but since that is not the case--I may see the standards she/he would believe in as important or not as important because of all the new information that has come around since then. I believe it leads to a solitary classification of sorts since an idea one might have now, will not be the same as later on; so the idea you have now is only there for a specific period of time until it changes or adapts.



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