So when is a genre not a genre? a pseudo-genre? The scientific neutralism
of formalist descriptive discourse analysis tends to accept at face value
every genre as fulfilling some normal social function (like every species
being adapted to its niche -- but a lot of species are NOT well-adapted to
their niches, they may have moved in recently, they may be about to go
extinct, they may be living on borrowed time till a superior competitor
arrives, etc.).
But the function of many social practices is to occupy a niche and so to
exclude other practices from being developed (think about ideology,
pseudo-science, and many things too controversial to name). Power and
interests outside the niche can shelter a genre or practice or discourse
from competition.
Note the parallel peculiarity of textbooks to textoids: they purport to
address an audience of students, but in fact they survive and flourish
because of selections made by teachers, faculty, school boards, departments
-- not students. Something like 'children's literature', which purports to
address children's needs and interests, but in fact survives by curring
favor with the parents who buy the books. Contrast such works with what the
kids buy as soon as they have their own money.
There may be many genres which ought not be analyzed by functionalist
methods, i.e. on the assumption that their form follows their _avowed_ or
apparent function, because of conflicts with or the dominance of covert
functions, or because they are sheltered from the selection pressures of
the nominal functional context by more remote social forces and interests.
I think one could get a whole new dimension to genre theory by following up
on such an idea. (Note that this is not the same as simply looking for
ideology within a genre, but closer to looking at ideological functions of
the genre's form.)
JAY.
---------------------------
JAY L. LEMKE
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
---------------------------