this is an edited transcript of a Gmail chat conversation i had with a lawyer i am friends/go dancing with, who asked me what's the difference between a discourse community and a genre. because our two fields have a lot in common (law, and rhetoric), we actually have more than a few of these conversations looking for the places where the different things we do all day intersect.
me: discourse communities use genres, but the two are not the same thing.
P: alright, that makes sense. like a star wars fanfic DC uses the genre of fanfic.
me: sure.
P: actually there the genre kind of defines the DC.
me: not really. fan fiction has subgenres. and most of those people gather in communities of some sort. which means fanzines, print or electronic, are in their orbit. so are forum posts, blog posts, workshop-style responses.
P: which are all also genres.
me: and as fans they probably participate in critique or review of books and movies involving their particular fandom.
P: so this is what you want your students to do tomorrow?
me: no. i want us to be able to identify a genre, and identify features of the genre. although that genre may share features with other genres.
the first question is what are we reading/seeing/listening to?
the second question is how do we know that?
if we can get there, next week we'll get into what are the values built into those features?
P: what kind of values are there in a genre like fiction or fanfic? I'm not used to thinking about values embodied in forms.
me: what is a genre you use?
P: I use legal persuasion... I guess that's a genre.
me: what on earth is legal persuasion?
P: I write a thing that talks about facts, and statutes, and old court cases, and what seems fair/commonsensical, all to try to persuade the judge to rule for my clients.
me: no, what is the thing you write?
P: legal brief. that's the title of the thing.
me: drawing on old court cases is a logos/ethos move. what seems fair is a pathos move. legal brief is a genre.
what are the features of that genre? how do you know you're reading a legal brief and not a rental contract?
P: hm. a number of features.
there's a pretty set format.
there's a stated audience.
there's a case caption at the top.
the lawyer asks for something from the court, and signs it at the bottom.
and of course the content is particular to that genre.
there's a statement of what's being asked for, then a statement of issues, then a statement of facts and procedural history, and then the legal argument/analysis.
me: those features saying something about what the genre privileges, and what the community that uses it values. that formality is important here, that it's better to be redundant and overstate than risk something going unsaid, that the history of a thing must be part of the current decision, that similar decisions should be a factor in making this one.
i will wager there's more ethos and logos than pathos in this, so emotion is not valued as much. or only certain kinds of emotions.
P: pathos is very devalued, except in certain kinds of legal claims that are specifically about "what's fair."
me: and fair is supposedly a rational thing, not a compassionate thing.
P: I don't know. that's an area where the appeal is really to an innate sense of right and wrong. I'm not sure logic really penetrates that far. I'm also not sure it's simply emotion.
me: i know it's not simply emotion because it's a male-dominated field.
take a legal brief in comparison to a commercial asking people to donate for children who need medical care, or victims of a world disaster. they both urge people to make a just decision, but one is laden with compassion, and the other is not. there are obviously other differences. but still.
P: oh yeah. no pictures of crying children in (most) legal briefs.
you'd better believe that a jury trial has that though.
me: a jury trial is lawyers speaking to average people. maybe there's a sense that the average person is duped and swayed by emotion. and sensationalism.but lawyers don't use that with one another.
P: duped =/= swayed
me: okay.
P: but yes, emotion gets used less when it's just the judge on the bench.
me: it says something about how the speaker views his audience.
and the point isn't specifically how the legal community views emotional appeals. it's that genres are value-laden.
P: common=emotional. legally educated=rational.
me: well and that legal briefs are matter of fact things, and jury trials are performances.
if you understand these things about a genre, you don't accidentally misuse it.
P: I'm starting to see how the different genres there could incorporate value preference.
me: which is the point for a writing class. good writing is not a static, all-purpose thing.
P: so that you don't start a monologue in the middle of a business letter. or something.
me: or write a biology article as if it's a anthropology article.
or invite people to your traditional muslim wedding through facebook.
P: that last one might be fun/tense.
No comments:
Post a Comment