CMST 450/550
•Genre
began as an absolute classification system in
ancient Greece. Poetry, prose and performance had
a specific and calculated style that related to the
theme of the story.
•During the Enlightenment period in 18th century
Europe, the system of patronage began to change.
•
Genre became a dynamic tool to help the public
make sense out of unpredictable art.
•Because
art is often a response to a social state, in
that people write/paint/sing/dance about what they
know about, the use of genre as a tool must be able
to adapt to changing meanings.
“Although this particular method
had been around for decades prior,
genre criticism first gained modern
attention in 1978 thanks to
Campbell and Jamieson’s article
Form and Genre in Rhetorical
Criticism: An Introduction.
Campbell and Jamieson explain
that genre criticism can be called
an ‘orderly means of close
textual analysis’ (p. 414). They go
on to say that those who perform
generic criticism are held to a
certain set of constraints (p.
415).”
Classification is justified only by the critical
illumination it produces, not by the neatness of
a classificatory schema.
 Generic criticism is taken as a means toward
systematic, close textual analysis.
 A genre is a complex, an amalgam, a
constellation of substantive, situational, and
stylistic elements.
 Generic analysis reveals both the conventions
and affinities that a work shares with others; it
uncovers the unique elements in the rhetorical
act, the particular means by which a genre is
individuated in a given case.

CRITICISM OF THE CRITICICAL APPROACH:
John H. Patton and Thomas M. Conley have argued that genre
criticism requires too much critical distance between the text
and the reader and thus leads to assessments that are not fully
responsible. Genre criticism, they contend, invites reductionism,
rules, formalism. Patton believes that such analysis results in
"critical determinism of the worst sort,” and Conley that it leads to
“tiresome and useless taxonomies.”
AND YET….
The urge to classify is fundamental, and although it involves the
difficulties that Patton and Conley point out, classification is
necessary to language and learning.
There are many ways one might classify discourse, but if the term
"genre" is to mean anything theoretically or critically useful, it
cannot refer to just any category or kind of discourse. One concern
in rhetorical theory, then, is to make of rhetorical genre a stable
classifying concept; another is to ensure that the concept is
rhetorically sound.
Abstract:
Genre analysis is a form of rhetorical
criticism that determines criterion on which
to evaluate similar forms of oratory. This
method was used to analyze six presidential
nomination acceptance speeches given from
1960 to 2008. Six criteria were found to be
unique to nomination acceptance
speeches. In addition, several rhetorical
strategies commonly used by the orators
were identified. Background literature is
provided in the areas of campaign rhetoric,
rhetorical criticism and genre analysis, and
political spectacle and presidential
discourse. Special attention is paid to the
relationship between Barack Obama’s
nomination acceptance speech in
comparison with the other examples.
Implications for further research are also
discussed.
Six critieria for (presidential candidate)
party nomination acceptance speeches:
1.The presence of forensic, epideictic,
and deliberative segments;
2.Acknowledgement of belief in a higher
power;
3.Reference to political icons;
4.Acclaiming and attacking the opponent;
5.Demonstrating allegiance to the party;
and
6.Uniting the American people through
the communal “we.”
Excerpt:
2012 furthers the formula that we have come to
expect from disaster films. Jackson struggles,
almost dies, but in the end is reunited with his
family to go on to live in a changed (but still
inhabitable) world. He is also grateful to Charlie
for giving him and his family a chance to escape
annihilation. Adrian, the geologist, persuades the
[governing powers] to let more innocent civilians
aboard the arks…perhaps also winning the
affections of the president’s daughter. And
finally, Carl is humiliated when his efforts to
keep the world ignorant of the [impending]
disaster are revealed. Many of the characters we
have become acquainted with throughout the
film still live on. The filmmakers assume that this
formula works for the viewer: (1) the will to
survive is strong, and (2) there is always a way
when people fight for their chance at survival.
The films analyzed in this essay include Independence
Day (1996), Dante’s Peak (1997), and 2012 (2009).
All three films share the following generic criteria:
1. One or more (unlikely?) “heroes” trying to survive the
disaster;
2. A recurring theme that the government will step in and
find a solution to the problem;
3. The plot features a conspiracy theorist or the one who
believes something others don’t but is eventually proven
to be right all along;
4. The plot features a saboteur, someone who attempts to
thwart the hero’s efforts for self-interested gain; and
5. The overarching premise that disaster will unite us (at
least the good guys) together.