March 19, 2012
Understanding Miller's Idea of Genre
I feel extremely confused by Miller's proposal/argument on genre, but I suppose I'll try and work out my frustration here. I understand that what Miller is saying is that genres are the product of social constructs. Or maybe not the product so much as the manifestation on recurrences in situations that have become socially perceived. I was particularly confused on the use of the word exigence, because it seemed to fit so many abstract definitions. One of those instances in which we define a word by, not what it "is," but by the productivity of the thing...it's strange to think, about, I know, which is why I think I may have been so confused. I think I have come to understand exigence though, as some sort of awareness in the social world that "provides an occasion, and thus a form, for making public our private versions of things." (Miller 158) I think then this idea of form takes us to another level when we're talking about Miller's whole argument and the genre. Substance and form are fusing to create meaning, which is what determines genre, the meaningfulness, or the similarities, of experiences or situations within our culture (159). In some ways, I see a lot of Bakhtin present here in Miller's argument. The idea of social constructs we see being developed as the basis of genres reminds me of heteroglossia, and the way that social/historical implications give something meaning. In that same way, we give situations, or the recurrence of situations, meaning by applying them to ourselves and then coming up with a construct as a community. I think Bakhtin would agree that not only historical, but situational factors determine meaning. And I also think it can be said that situational factors often have a huge bearing on the historical as well. Basically, Miller denotes the usefulness of genres, saying they help us to better understand situations we arrive at, and we learn our role for productivity. "As recurrent, significant action, a genre embodies an aspect of cultural rationality." (165)
1 comment:
I think what Miller is trying to do in defining genre is to avoid some complex taxonomy where the characteristics of a certain genre are merely materialistic. She's striving toward an active understanding of genre that has a cultural and historical context. It's almost as if genres are living breathing entities that arise from those who participate in it (i.e. court speech, punk rock, modernism, etc.) rather than being imposed in retrospect as a means of organizing rhetoric, art, or literature.
In terms of your confusion about exigence, in Miller's words it is "a form of social knowledge... an objectified social need"(157). In essence, exigence is the condition that makes social interactions possible, or a "social motive"(158). These motives are by byproducts of socialization and they provide the conditions for our social actions.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.