Static vs. Dynamic: A Response to Amy J. Devitt's "Generalizing About Genre"

In "Generalizing About Genre," Amy J. Devitt presents a traditional and a "new" conception of genre. She characterizes the conventional form of genre as "trivial," as "a classification system deriving from literary criticism that names types of texts according to their forms" (573-574). Her new conception of genre argues that genres arise in response to "situations that writers encounter repeatedly" (576). In other words, rather than a writer being forced to shoehorn his or her text into the form of a specific genre, the form is defined by the needs of the authors who choose (or find it necessary) to write in that genre. In effect, "writers [...] construct situation by constructing genre" (578). Devitt further points out that, this being the case, genres are subject to change as context changes, context including everything from surrounding environments, potential readers, previous texts, and societal pressures, among other things.

Devitt's new conception of genre seems to be more of a reversal than a complete reimagining of what genre means. In effect, she's flipped the traditional understanding of how genre and writer interact - writer must conform to genre's formal standards - by suggesting that the community of writers create a genre's formal standards based on the purposes they need that genre to serve. I don't know that such a reversal is as radical as Devitt seems to think it is. In fact, I think it's sort of understood by most experienced writers that the standards of any given genre were developed for pragmatic purposes at some point in the past. What is interesting about Devitt's reimagining of genre is the concept that these standards can be modified due to societal changes or the needs of readers or writers. In general, we (and our students) think of genres as a collection of static rather than dynamic standards, a set of rules that we must follow regardless of context.

In class, I stress to my students that while each genre has its own set of standards, these are always open to modification should the need arise to do so. For instance, while it is commonly taught that academic research papers should be strictly objective - even our Norton Field Guide stresses this belief - I would argue that complete objectivity is not only impossible, but also undesired. A student's biases will creep into the paper anyway, so if the opportunity arises, why should we not encourage them to put those biases to constructive uses that will support the thesis of their paper? Along similar lines, while first person is often discouraged in academic writing, I encourage my students to use it when it is appropriate. I would much rather see a student write "I would argue..." than "some would argue..." The "some" in the second clause is an abstract and unidentifiable term. Who are these "some" and why should I care what they argue? The student, on the other hand, I can assume to be somewhat knowledgeable on the subject about which they're writing, and so their argument will carry more weight than that of an abstract "some."

I've always thought of genres as a set of guidelines that are designed to be broken in creative ways rather than as a rigid set of rules that must be followed. That being the case, I found Devitt's new conception of genre not to be a radical reimagining, but nonetheless an informative reversal of traditional thinking on the subject.