Let’s dive into some more threshold concepts, starting with Neal Lerner’s Writing is a Way of Enacting Disciplinarity. This threshold concept states that “…Disciplines shape—and in turn are shaped by—the writing that members of those disciplines do” (Lerner 40). This is something we all do organically, so I’ve never thought much about it, but it makes perfect sense. I loved the citation examples he used. For instance, citations that include the date reflect the discipline’s value of timeliness. That’s such a subtle, yet telling, detail in writing. As a participant in the discipline, these things come naturally, but from an outsider’s perspective, they might feel differently. So yes, the discipline absolutely shapes the writing within it.
Similarly to Dylan Dreyer’s Words Get Their Meanings from Other Words, Kevin Roozen’s Texts Get Their Meaning from Other Texts also explores the concept of things gaining meaning from other things. Unlike words, this reading focused on texts. I couldn’t agree more with this concept. In multiple aspects of life, we are standing on the shoulders of those who came before us, and the same is true within disciplines and discourse. Sure, there are standalone pieces that blow our minds and bring forth amazing revelations. However, the majority of texts build off of what already exists and refer to those texts. Even the texts that bring new ways of thinking are inspired by other texts that got them thinking about that particular thing. A perfect example of this is Roozen’s reference to the Declaration of Independence. Other texts give us a better understanding of what we’re reading and allow the reader to make more connections to the material. I feel that in certain areas of society, there has been pushback on the idea of taking what one person did and building off of it. Of course, there are valid concerns with plagiarism and copyrights, but the reality is everyone got something from someone. It’s rare to be completely original, without any outside influence. We can learn a lot if we continue to look into the texts within a text.
Bill Hart-Davidson’s Genes are Enacted by Writers & Readers was definitely something that got me thinking. As he mentioned, the general understanding of genre is that it’s a type of category. However, this spins that idea on its head. Davidson informs us that “…genres are habitual responses to recurring socially bounded situations.” (Davidson 39) Writing studies’ interpretation of genre is anchored in “the visible effects of human action, routinized to the point of habit in specific cultural conditions.” (Davidson 39) Though I understand this concept, I was looking forward to learning more about it, as I’d like to see more examples of what this looks like in action. This was the perfect segue into our last text.
Amy Devitt’s Generalizing about Genre: New Conceptions of an Old Concept was exactly what I needed to understand this concept. As I was craving examples to aid in my understanding, the examples with the letters were perfect representations of the genre. I loved how she addressed our typical understanding of genre and acknowledged that the writing studies perspective turns it on its head. Genre has become second nature to me at this point, but I appreciated how the reading emphasized the flexibility of genre and the reality that genre shapes writing. This is something I don’t often consider. “…genre is a dynamic response to and construction of recurring situation, one that changes historically and in different social groups, that adapts and grows as the social context changes.” (Devitt 580) I think my biggest takeaway from this reading is that genre is adaptable and not a one-size-fits-all concept, as we often formalize it to be.
Leave a Reply