Influenced by the new literary movement and postmodernism, in the 1990s sociologists began to reflexively examine their writings as texts, looking critically at the way they shape reality and articulate their descriptions and conceptualizations. Advancing this thread, in our presidential address we offer an overarching analysis of ethnographic writing, identifying four current genres and deconstructing their rhetoric: classical, mainstream, postmodern, and public ethnography. We focus on the differences in their epistemological, organizational, locational, and stylistic self-presentations with an eye toward better understanding how these speak to their intended audiences, both within and outside of the discipline.As an outgrowth of the merging of the humanities and the social sciences, the practice of identifying tropes within sociological genres grew in the 1980s. Influenced by literary criticism, ethnographers, in particular, became involved in a reflexive movement, directing their gaze at the process of how they construct and analyze their texts. This has been called the "linguistic turn" in ethnography. Denzin andLincoln (1994, 2000) have articulated several "moments" in this reflexive process, of which the three most influential were the "blurred genres" period (Geertz 1973(Geertz , 1983 in which the social sciences turned to the humanities for models, theories, and methods of analysis; the "crisis of representation" (Clifford and Marcus 1986;Marcus and Fischer 1986;Geertz 1988;Van Maanen 1995) that deepened the reflexive thrust in research and writing and challenged the conventions of ethnographic realism; and the "crisis of legitimacy" (Atkinson 1990;Lincoln and Guba 1990;Hammersley 1992;Smith 1992) in which ethnographers called into question the link between experience and text. These movements questioned the authority and accuracy of sociological texts, challenging researchers and writers to examine their politics and rhetoric. Issues of representation sensitized ethnographers to multiple, possibly conflicting interpretations of reality and the problems of voice (Hertz 1997), especially as some people and the interpretations they offered might be privileged over others.We focus in this Address on the linguistic turn in ethnography both because of our biographies and because these ideas have received their greatest foment in the ethnographic realm of our discipline. Vidich and Lyman (1994:25) have noted that ethnography means "the science devoted to describing ways of life of humankind." One of the