I do not believe it is overarching to say this text is very much a form of discourse-a form of deliberative discourse to be specific. There is a "situated action," by Miller's standards and it is presented to the reader (the audience) in several ways. There is a situation that the readers of the piece may or not have been aware of and the creators provide that reader with many both textual and observational evidence to this situation. Is there a common response to this situation that is prompted by this text? Well, yes and no. There have been, especially in this digital age, many digital arguments that bring an audience to a situation that no one may have previously known about beforehand, particularly the situation at hand, but the audience members have been presented social issue and have been called to action to address those issues before. I believe this provides justification for Miller's claims that "new experiences are made familiar through he recognition of relevant similarities; those similarities became constituted as a type" (156-157). This particular type is very much common in this digital age.
There is a rhetorical situation being presented to the readers of this text. To the creators, there is immense social injustice and situation in which the readers and public not only need to be informed on, but called to join the fight against such injustices. Daniel isn't as explicit in her introduction as Loyer is, but her message, her distaste for the prison system of California, and her desire to do something and advocate for these female prisoners is more than evident. To me, this constitutes a discourse. I believe this text is far from the genre caste that Miller so rigidly and explicitly constructs, however.
Perhaps a list would suffice:
- This text meets the first feature of genre in that it refers to a conventional category of discourse, there being a rhetorical action being prompted by a rhetorical situation.
- This text follows many of the rules set by genre and follow these rules for symbolic interaction.
- The text provides a rhetorical mean for medicating private intentions and social exigence-it even explicitly calls them out!
- I am not sure that this text fuses all forms at the lower level of the hierarchy partially because (a.) I can not clearly define those forms and (b.) there is no clear distinction for this text as a genre other than what it is lacking compared to these objectives for genre and from form.
- I do not believe that this text is under a recurrent situation so far as to constitute substance for out cultural life.
This text functions greatly for he authors' intentions; the text brings attention to a social issue and looks to invoke a strong reaction and a powerful response that will ultimately prompt an action. So for me, this text works as a form of discourse but falls very much short of the genre label that Miller so rigidly defines.