Notes on Genres Are Enacted by Writers and Readers
Genre Are Enacted by Writers and Readers
Core claim: genres are enacted, not merely defined by stable formal features.
Common-sense view sees genres as recognizable forms with fixed structural or thematic traits (e.g., detective novels vs. romance novels; scientific articles).
In writing studies, these textual structures are viewed as the visible effects of human action, routinized within specific cultural conditions (reader expectations, institutional norms, market forces, etc.).
The textual forms are akin to a fossil record—evidence of writers using familiar discursive moves in response to social contexts.
Foundational idea and key sources:
Carolyn Miller, 1984: Genres as Social Action, arguing that genres are shaped by social action rather than fixed forms. The view is influenced by Mikhail Bakhtin.
Influential scholars who continued this line in organizational settings: David Russell (1991), Charles Bazerman (1988), Catherine Schryer (1993), among others.
Core idea: genres are habitual responses to recurring socially bounded situations; regularities in textual form arise from repeated actions and are reinforced by institutional power structures.
Core claims about what genres are:
Genres are constructions of groups, usually sanctioned by organizational or institutional power.
No single text is a genre; a text can only be an instance of a genre as it enters a context (an activity system) where it might be used.
Readers and users of texts influence whether a text becomes an instance of a genre, just as writers do. See cross-reference to 1.2, “Writing Addresses, Invokes, and/or Creates Audiences.”
Creating a genre is not an action of a single individual; it results from socially mediated actions that accumulate over time, so genres are only relatively stable.
Stability and change in genres:
Generic forms are open to hybridization and change over time.
JoAnne Yates (1993) provides a historical account of genre hybridization amid American industrialization steps:
Standard features of genres (e.g., the header block of a business memo in the upper left corner) became stable because they facilitated information storage and retrieval when documents were stored in vertical stacks.
Today, these conventions persist in some forms (e.g., email memo headers) but are less stable due to changes in use contexts—users can hide or minimize headers in many email programs.
Schryer’s phrase: “stable for now” forms reflect that observed stability is contingent on current use contexts and may evolve.
Historical and historical-context examples:
Memo header block in the upper left corner as a case of form stability driven by practical retrieval needs in physical file storage.
Transition to email shows how stable conventions can shift with new technologies and workflows.
Implications for analysis and practice:
Genres are fundamentally social actions—understanding a genre requires seeing how writers and readers collectively enact and respond to social contexts.
Because genres are socially mediated, changes in institutions, technologies, or audience expectations can reconfigure which discursive moves count as genre-appropriate.
The stability of genres is always provisional and contextual; researchers and practitioners should attend to current use contexts and power structures.
This perspective highlights the ethical and practical aspects of genre work: genres are deployed to align with or enforce institutional norms and market demands, which can shape what counts as credible or legitimate writing.
Key concepts and terminology to note:
Genres as social action: genres arise from habitual, repeated actions within socially bounded situations.
Activity systems: contexts in which texts are produced and used, which influence whether a text becomes an instance of a genre.
Stable for now: a caveat that apparent stability in a genre is contingent and may evolve with new contexts or technologies.
Hybridization: cross-genre blending and the emergence of new forms as contexts change.
Sanction and power: institutional or organizational power often legitimizes certain genre forms over others.
Connections to broader themes in threshold concepts (overview):
Threshold: Genres are not fixed forms but situated practices—understanding them requires grasping their social enactment.
Relevance to writing instruction: teaching genres involves helping students recognize how texts function within specific communities and institutions, not just how they look structurally.
Interdisciplinary links: draws on rhetorical theory (Bakhtin), organizational communication (Russell, Bazerman), and professional writing (Schryer).
Cross-reference and context cues:
See 1.2, “Writing Addresses, Invokes, and/or Creates Audiences,” for how audience considerations contribute to genre enactment.
The discussion aligns with how nonliterary genres (e.g., scientific articles, business memos) are understood in professional and organizational settings.
Summary takeaway:
Genres are enacted through collective, socially mediated actions across writers and readers, shaped by institutional power and use contexts, and are stable only insofar as current contexts sustain them. They evolve via hybridization and changing audience and material conditions, rather than being fixed, autonomous forms.
Recap of the most important points to remember for exam readiness:
Genres are enacted, not just defined by form.
Textual form regularities emerge from social actions and power structures.
No single text is a genre; a text becomes an instance of a genre within an activity system.
Readers contribute to genre formation as much as writers do.
Genres are relatively stable but open to change (hybridization) and are context-dependent (stable for now).
Historical examples (e.g., memo headers) illustrate how use contexts shape stability; new technologies (e.g., email) can alter conventions.
Foundational theorists to know: Miller (1984), Bakhtin, Russell (1991), Bazerman (1988), Schryer (1993), Yates (1993).
Notable dates and references (for quick recall):
Miller, 1984: Genres as Social Action 1984
Bakhtin influence (late 20th century) 1986
Russell, 1991; Bazerman, 1988; Schryer, 1993; Yates, 1993 1991, 1988, 1993