Beyond essence (or, getting over there): Cognitive and dialetical theories of genre
Michael Sinding
Abstract
Michael Sinding
Abstract
Genre theories frequently err by shortchanging the full range of genre processes. Focusing on only one stage or context — tradition, author, text or reception — can hide a whole world of genre-relevant facts. A more adequate analysis should consider at least the following factors in the prototypical sequence leading to a new genre member: There is a collection of past works constituting a genre; a writer reads some of those works, and then models a new work after them; a work with some of the genre’s defining features results from this creation; and some readers of the work recognize its relation to its models and its generic intention. The present drive to supersede ‘essentialist’ theories of genre might dovetail with a remedy to this problem. But the available versions of dialectical genre theory — favored candidate for a post-essentialist view — use a method of analysis that unifies the often fractious aspects of genre in a way that fails to respect their di¤erences. Deborah Madsen writes, ‘There appears to be a new consensus emerging in genre theory. [ . . . ] No longer is it thought to reside with the author as an intention, nor is genre considered to be an e¤ect manifest by the reader, least of all is genre treated as a stable core of meaning inherent in the text. The assumption of ‘‘essence’’ or generic identity, upon which taxonomy relies, is now read as an open invitation to deconstruction’ (1994: 7). She later concludes, ‘Genre theory in the wake of poststructuralism must take the form of a post-essentialist theory. This is only possible if genre is located, not in the text, nor in an abstract definition, but in the discourse that relates text to theory’ (1994: 18). This zone of consensus is better labeled post-Jamesonian, given its use of historicizing critiques of essentialism to fulfill Jameson’s project of a ‘dialectical genre theory’. Adena Rosmarin, John Snyder, and Deborah Madsen, in their di¤erent ways, all wish to pursue Jameson’s aim of taking genre study to a new meta-level, which will attend to its own structure and purposes. A
OpenAlex reports 7 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Genre theories frequently err by shortchanging the full range of genre processes. Focusing on only one stage or context — tradition, author, text or reception — can hide a whole world of genre-relevant facts. A more adequate analysis should consider at least the following factors in the prototypical sequence leading to a new genre member: There is a collection of past works constituting a genre; a writer reads some of those works, and then models a new work after them; a work with some of the genre’s defining features results from this creation; and some readers of the work recognize its relation to its models and its generic intention. The present drive to supersede ‘essentialist’ theories of genre might dovetail with a remedy to this problem. But the available versions of dialectical genre theory — favored candidate for a post-essentialist view — use a method of analysis that unifies the often fractious aspects of genre in a way that fails to respect their di¤erences. Deborah Madsen writes, ‘There appears to be a new consensus emerging in genre theory. [ . . . ] No longer is it thought to reside with the author as an intention, nor is genre considered to be an e¤ect manifest by the reader, least of all is genre treated as a stable core of meaning inherent in the text. The assumption of ‘‘essence’’ or generic identity, upon which taxonomy relies, is now read as an open invitation to deconstruction’ (1994: 7). She later concludes, ‘Genre theory in the wake of poststructuralism must take the form of a post-essentialist theory. This is only possible if genre is located, not in the text, nor in an abstract definition, but in the discourse that relates text to theory’ (1994: 18). This zone of consensus is better labeled post-Jamesonian, given its use of historicizing critiques of essentialism to fulfill Jameson’s project of a ‘dialectical genre theory’. Adena Rosmarin, John Snyder, and Deborah Madsen, in their di¤erent ways, all wish to pursue Jameson’s aim of taking genre study to a new meta-level, which will attend to its own structure and purposes. A
Key concepts: Essentialism, Deconstruction (building), Context (archaeology), Dialectic, Identity (music), Epistemology, Meaning (existential), Linguistics