Genovese's work is no doubt influential. Many historian do disagree, but it was Genovese who first raised many of these questions. He's a historiographical touchstone that most historians of slavery have to deal with in some fashion or another.

There is no doubt that slave had some mobility. It's well-evidenced that some slave were allowed to travel on the weekends, given gifts, etc. Genovese argues that this "paternalism" essentially bolstered the system of slavery as a whole. These concessions effectively undermined "solidarity among the oppressed by linking them as individuals to their oppressors.”

For Genovese, resistance for individual slaves, whether it be slowing work or gaining some sort of concession from their owner was fundamentally apolitical. Many historians dispute this claim. Steve Hahn, for instance, argues that these small cases of resistance effectively carved out the ground for later free black institutions. For Hahn, these actions were not only fundamentally political, but necessary to understanding how blacks were so prepared to enter into politics after the Civil War.

This is just one example of the many issue Genovese brings up. The notions of "paternalism" and "agency" are key debates that still rage on in the historiography of slavery. Many scholars likely do not agree with Genovese anymore, but his importance to the overall field is incredible.