n the history of the play's criticism, the problem of its genre produced the most controversy. I submit here that this
critical conflict is based on confusion: the discourse meaning (textual) and the interpretative meaning (contextual)
have been mistakenly separated. I regard the monologic understanding of genre, as a readymade form containing the
content, to be restrictive and prefer to use Bakhtinian definition of genre as 'a form shaping ideology.' The problem
of identifying the genre of the play thus ceases to be an either/or choice between morality and tragedy, allowing an
interpretative space for more holistic readings. Realizing that the generic dichotomy does not have to be resolved
negatively, gives room to a fuller understanding of the work. According to Mikhail Bakhtin, genre is a cultural
position from which perspective one views the world not merely a set of conventions. Genre as a particular tradition
of vision evolves throughout centuries of representational practice forming a certain path for our present
interpretative journey. In a way genre is no more nor less than a specifically patterned form of consciousness. Since
Bakhtin sees thinking itself as a dialogic process, genres too engage in a dialogue of heteroglot voices be it within
one text or the whole of cultural context. Genres embody, or as Bakhtin puts it, "congeal" different visions of cultural
context and personal responses to it. Thus, in the Medieval drama, the context is viewed as universal, and an
individual self is understood to be developing in a predetermined pattern (a way of salvation) and finally fixed
permanently (either in salvation or damnation). In the classical tragedy, on the other hand, the context is communal
and selfhood is essential, defined and determined at all points on its journey of self-discovery - in the climactic
moment, an individual realizes the true (unfree) nature of the self. Significantly, in D...