Historical Development of Genre

Old English Period and Genre Studies

The concept of genre originated from the classification systems created by Plato. Plato
divided literature into the three classic genres accepted in Ancient Greece: poetry, drama,
and prose. Poetry is further subdivided into epic, lyric, and drama. The divisions are
recognized as being set by Aristotle and Plato; however, they were not the only ones. Many
genre theorists added to these accepted forms of poetry.

Genre theory or genre studies got underway with the Ancient Greeks, who felt that particular
types of people would produce only certain types of poetry. The Greeks also believed that
certain metrical forms were suited only to certain genres. Aristotle said,

“We have, then, a natural instinct for representation and for tune and rhythm—and
starting with these instincts men very gradually developed them until they produced
poetry out of their inventions. Poetry then split into two kinds according to the poet's
nature. For the more serious poets represented the noble deeds of noble men, while
those of a less exalted nature represented the actions of inferior men, at first writing
satire just as the others wrote hymns and eulogies”.

This is all based on Plato's mimetic principle. Exalted people will, in imitation of exaltation,
write about exalted people doing exalted things, and vice versa with the "lower" types
(Farrell, 383). Genre was not a black-and-white issue even for Aristotle, who recognized that
though the "Iliad" is an epic it can be considered a tragedy as well, both because of its tone as
well as the nobility of its characters. However, most of the Greek critics were less acutely
aware—if aware at all—of the inconsistencies in this system. For these critics, there was no
room for ambiguity in their literary taxonomy because these categories were thought to have
innate qualities that could not be disregarded.

The Romans carried on the Greek tradition of literary criticism. The Roman critics were quite
happy to continue on in the assumption that there were essential differences between the
types of poetry and drama. There is much evidence in their works that Roman writers
themselves saw through these ideas and understood genres and how they function on a more
advanced level.
After the fall of Rome, when the scholastic system took over literary criticism, genre theory
was still based on the essential nature of genres. This is most likely because of Christianity's
attraction for Platonic concepts. This state of affairs continued until the 18th century.

Genre and 18th Century

At the end of the 18th century, the theory of genre based on classical thought began to
unravel under the intellectual resistance of the Enlightenment. The introduction of
the printing press brought texts to a larger audience. Then pamphlets and broadsides began to
diffuse information even farther, and a greater number of less privileged members of society
became literate and began to express their views. Suddenly authors of both "high" and "low"
culture were now competing for the same audience. This worked to destabilize the classical
notions of genre, while still drawing attention to genre because new genres like
the novel were being generated (Prince, 455).

Locke, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), had reduced data to its
smallest part: the simple idea derived from sense. However, as the science of cognition
became more precise it was shown that even this simple idea derived from sense was itself
divisible. This new information prompted David Hartley to write in his Observation on
Man (1749),

The possibility of an infinite number of types alarmed theologians of the time because their
assumption was that rigorously applied empiricism would uncover the underlying divine
nature of creation, and now it appeared that rigorously applied empiricism would only
uncover an ever-growing number of types and subsequent sub-types.

In order to re-establish the divine in categorization, the new taxonomical system

of aesthetics arose. This system offered first beauty, and then the sublime as the taxonomical
device. The problem with Aesthetics was that it assumed the divine and thus the sublime
must underlie all these categories, and thus, the ugly would become beautiful at some point.
The paradox is glaring.

Modern Period and Genre Studies

Ever since the late 18th century literary critics have been trying to find a theory of genre that
would be more appropriate with the realities of individual texts within genres. The evolution
of genre took many twists and turns through the 19th and 20th centuries. It was heavily
influenced by the deconstructionist thought and the concept of relativity. In 1980, the
instability engendered by these two new modes of thought came to a head in a paper written
by Jacques Derrida titled, "The Law of Genre." In the article Derrida articulates the idea that
individual texts participate in rather than belong to certain genres.

Then, in 1986, Ralph Cohen published a paper in response to Derrida's thoughts titled
"History and Genre." In this article Cohen argued that genre concepts in theory and in
practice arise, change, and decline for historical reasons. And since each genre is composed
of texts that follow, the grouping is a process, not a determinate category. Genres are open
categories. Each member changes the genre by adding, contradicting, or changing
constituents, especially those of members most closely related to it. The process by which
genres are established always involves the human need for distinction and interrelation. Since
the purposes of critics who establish genres vary, it is self-evident that the same texts can
belong to different groupings of genres and serve different generic purposes. (Cohen, 204)

Rhetorical Genre Studies (RGS)

RGS scholars largely agree that while genres are indeed dynamic and constantly evolving
entities, they are difficult to change. Amy Devitt describes this bind, as she considers a genre
to be "both the product and the process that creates it" (580). To Devitt, genres not only
respond to recurrent situations, but they construct them as well. This phenomenon makes
theorizing genre evolution challenging. Carolyn R. Miller even cautions against describing
genre change as "evolution," as evolution implies progress. Still, many RGS scholars have
theorized how genres change.