Materiality and Genre in the Study of Discourse Communities

TLDR

The discourse‑community concept has been criticized as utopian, hegemonic, stable, and abstract, limiting its pedagogical usefulness by obscuring real social practices. The study aims to render discourse communities tangible for students by encouraging teachers to employ ethnographic methods, despite classroom implementation challenges. Ethnographers must invest substantial time as outsiders to observe and document community practices, a requirement that complicates classroom use.

Abstract

ver the past two decades the concept of discourse community has been one of the most hotly contested notions in the field, subject to the range of by now well-known critiques that claim it is too utopian, hegemonic, stable, and abstract.1 Abstracted from real social situations, discourse communities may appear stable to advocates and critics assuming an imaginary consensus and a shared purpose that do not reflect real experience within communities. The concept of discourse community as stable and utopian has been, to some, so seductive that it both conceals the language and the social practices that take place within it and distracts researchers from examining how its internal workings may be recognized and studied. As a result, the concept of discourse community remains of limited pedagogical value. To make communities tangible and their discourse actions palpable to students, writing teachers have begun to use ethnographic research, which, while valuable in locating the study of discourse within the behaviors of real communities, can be difficult to implement in the classroom. According to Beverly Moss, When ethnographers study a community as outsiders, they must spend a significant amount of