After reading Bazerman I see more emphasis on interpretation and not so much on intent. Meaning that while a project may be intended for a specific audience it can be interpreted multiple ways, therefore, having multiple meanings. However, I am not sure I agree with that. If a project is intended for a specific audience, but someone from outside that realm decides to interpret it as “speaking to them” that is entirely subjective. I do believe genre is objective. An example of poor interpretation would be the bible. Multiple religions or individual people claim to have the proper idea of what the bible is trying to say, but wouldn’t you think a book as important as “the word of god” at one point did in fact have an objective point and an intended audience. However, I could argue my counter point myself with my own specific example. If Trap music was created as a way to simply have a “hot beat” and talk about drugs, I as a person who has no experience there, will interpret it as such. However someone who had to do that to survive may see it as “the voice of their past” I could go back and forth with myself on this but I do believe our ideas of Genres far diverge at the core premise. I believe Bazerman see’s it as “Subjective” where as I see at as “Objective”.
Bitzer defines rhetorical situation as “thoughts on a circumstance”.
*Persuasion – although he sees it as more than such, discourse requires persuasion.
*Fleshed – discourse requires fleshing out your points to make sense
*Discipline – you must be able to remain calm, and to the point
A Rhetorical situation in my own definition is a situation that causes thought. A situation that causes inner discourse and “rhetoric” between yourself (or and yourself) and another party. Rhetoric allows room for questioning and bring forth discourse the option for dialogue.
Combining these two thought together to create one definition, I would say Genre is a tool that defines a conversation. It is everything from the material to the actual discussion it creates.
Beason's Blog 