Thursday, March 25, 2010
Responding to “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love”
Before class on Monday, I would like to you reflect on Jim Corder’s essay, “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love.” First, in your own words summarize the main point of this article. What is Corder’s main claim? How does he define the term “argument”? How does he explain his definition? What makes his definition unique or interesting? Second, identify a quotation from the essay that you think is significant. Why do you think it is significant? How it relates to main point of this essay?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I will be honest, it took me quite awhile to make it though this article and I am not sure I totally understood it. From what I understood, Jim Corder's main claim is that every person's life is an argument in and of itself. As we go about our day to day lives, each action and thought that we make and have is an argument. He defines an arguments as being people themselves, and not something that a person makes. This is unique because all other definitions or explanations I have heard for arguments are things that a person comes up with and then puts out into the world. Instead, Corder believes that people automatically represent their arguments.
ReplyDeleteOne quote that I believe is significant and represents the entire essay is, "All the choices we've made, accidentally or on purpose...also have made us arguments...sets of congruent arguements, or in some cases, sets of conflicting arguments." I believe that this quote adaquately explains the essay because it not only explains his major claim, but also because it represents the fact that every person must choose to go with or against other decisions they have made and that people are continuously changing.
This text portrayed the idea that people’s beliefs, convictions and experiences not only comprise personal narratives but that they also shape a person as arguments. Also, that argumentation is not just about dissenting or eliminating opposing views off, rather acknowledging where the “opposing views” come from—often shaped by people’s experiences. Basically it portrayed argumentation as means of bringing people and their experiences together not as a means of battling who is right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis rationale comes from the author’s perception that every person’s narratives (life’s experiences) become a person’s argument. A person’s conceptions shapes the arguments that person might agree or disagree with. Basically the author claims that arguments are not entirely persuasive that rather arguments rely on acceptance and a sense of common understanding among the different parties. The author defines argument as all the choices we’ve made, accidentally or on purpose which draft our personal narratives that ultimately affect our own personal arguments and what we will be persuaded by.
“Argument is emergence toward the other. That requires a readiness to testify to an identity that is always emerging, a willingness to dramatize one’s narrative in progress before the other.” This quote is significant in a sense that it exemplifies how the author perceives argument as narratives being analyzed and broken down in depth before making any assumptions or discarding it as plain wrong. This is a major concept stressed throughout the essay which also relate to the title of it.
To put it simply, because most of the time this article never put it simply, “each of us is a narrative”. Corder states that through our narratives (life experiences), we become arguments ourselves. He believes that as narratives of two people come together they might clash because of their differences, creating arguments. I found this to be an interesting definition of argument, because I have always thought of it as a discussion for or against an issue or topic.
ReplyDeleteCorder first tried to define argument in his own opinion. He then goes on to discuss the importance of civility, respect, and love that need to be present within an argument. Although it sounds like a great idea to have respect and love in an argument, most of the time (which he does address), these two aspects are lacking in the conversation.
A statement that stood out to me in the article read, “I am suggesting that the arguments most significant to us are just where threat occurs and continues, just where emotions and differences do not get calmly talked away, just where we are plunged into that flushed, feverish, quaky, shaky, angry, scared, hurt, shocked, disappointed, alarmed, outraged, even terrified condition I spoke of a little earlier.” I thought this quote was significant because before this statement, I was reading the part about Rogers and his simple ideas on how to keep an argument calm and collected. While reading his ideas, I became a little frustrated. His opinions on how an argument should take place sounded great on paper, but arguments are never dealt that way. Then, finally Corder wrote this quote, and could not agree more.
In all honesty, upon initial review of Mr. Corder’s Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love, the convoluted language utilized was immensely frustrating. I felt as though I was being deliberately bombarded with whimsical concepts and puzzling notions that produced no concrete conclusion or result. However upon delving further into the body of the passage I realized that this introduction immaculately aligned itself with one of the piece’s underlying messages; sometimes there simply is no concrete conclusion or result.
ReplyDeleteThe article goes on to depict what is known as our individual narratives. In essence, our narratives encapsulate all the knowledge, experience, relationships, beliefs and basic understandings that we have managed to retain up until our current point of existence. Corder explains that these narratives range widely between being concrete or malleable in nature. In other words, the content of our narratives are wholly dependant upon both the environment in which we live, as well as our various perceptions of that same environment. As the authors of our individual narratives, we solely determine what facets are to be included and overlooked. We invest our most sacred beliefs and values into our narrative in hopes that it will ultimately reflect a well-rounded and comprehensive history of our existence. However with so many variables involved, a universally applicable narrative is simply unattainable. Therein lies the potential for conflict, anger, disappointment and outrage. Variations in our stories have the potential to uproot the very nucleus of opposing narratives, and inevitably, cultivate an atmosphere of impending conflict. Because our narratives are largely comprised of our most valued convictions, we are remarkably tentative to any variance in narratives. We view these varying beliefs as mere threats, as they represent the possibility of eroding the very foundation upon which our own existences are constructed. This devastating fear of disparity is the basis of many issues including religion, politics and gender roles and epitomizes an ongoing struggle for compromise and understanding that sadly seems unfeasible.
Lastly a quote from the passage that I found to be significant is as follows, “the major barrier to mutual interpersonal communication is our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the other person” This quote speaks to the aforementioned inherent difficulty we have in accepting opposing narratives. It effectively pinpoints why it is that we experience such conflict with unconditionally accepting the viewpoints of others. It suggests that it is latent within our very nature to deconstruct and scrutinize differing opinions, and to immediately compare their validity in accordance to our own. In summation, this article cunningly disguises its central purpose as explaining our narratives and how we construct our own lives. However what it is truly concerned with, are the ways in which we adopt and accept the wide range of narratives in lieu of a “concrete” or universally correct existence
In his essay “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love”, Jim Corder creates a unique definition of what an argument is. He claims that everyone is an author and a narrator, and the narration that each person makes is based on their own insights, evidence, and experiences. Through the information that we pick up and the opinions that we form, we ourselves become arguments that are constantly changing. So Corder’s main claim is that just by living every person is an argument. Most would think of an argument as something that a person gives to make a point. Corder’s definition is unique because he says that an argument is not something that is displayed; it is simply what we are. Corder also states that people will come across others with different narratives. When this occurs, they will avoid the other narrative, change their own, or maintain and push their own: this idea is most like the traditional idea of an argument.
ReplyDeleteTo defend the claims he makes in his essay, Corder states that “each of us is an argument, evidenced by our narrative”, so “argument, then, is not something we make outside ourselves; argument is what we are” (18). This relates to the main point of his essay because he states that people themselves are arguments based on their narratives, which are created through life experiences.
In his article “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love,” Jim Corder explores the true existence of arguments and discusses the ways in which arguments should be made. From my reading, I have come to understand that according to Corder, an argument is in essence a conversation. It emerges through dialogue, growing as the discussion progresses, each influenced by the other. Rhetoric, he claims, is an act of love because conversation requires both respect and appreciation, “creating a world full of space and time that will hold our diversities.” I find his views to be quite interesting because it is simply a different way to see argument and rhetoric. For example, in classical usage, a rhetor benefits from fostering good will with an audience, creating ethos through objectivity and trustworthiness. The same is true in Corder’s perspective on rhetoric. The only difference is that in rhetoric, ethos can be falsely created, whereas if an argument is made in love, it will be objective, and trustworthy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the ideas that “invention always occurs,” and “any statement carries its history with it,” are the most significant pieces of Corder’s article because they lay the foundation for his later claims regarding argument emerging through conversation. Both directly suggest that dialogue directly stimulates growth and development in argument, building upon each other. Without continuous invention, discussion would be unnecessary. It is also true that arguments would be petty debates between steadfast parties if statements didn’t carry history, or develop throughout the exchange. Together, both ideas prove the existence of conversation, directly supporting Corder’s main claim.
In layman’s terms, Corder’s main point of the essay is that everyone is an argument and that in order to live effectively, we must learn to love one another and, in doing such, we will listen to one another and learn to accept one another. In terms that I would understand, I would summarize Corder’s essay to say that all of our thoughts and beliefs collide at one point or another. We can consolidate others’ beliefs, exchange others’ beliefs, or ignore other’s beliefs. He defines argument as emergence. He explains his definition by stating that each person’s narrative encounters a “steadfast” narrative that is entirely contradicting to their own and argument exists because there are conflicting narratives. Corder explains that the way to overcome this conflicting narrative or argument is to listen to and embrace the other person’s narrative. His explanation is abstract in that his definition of argument is the concept of emergence and not a tangible example as in two people having an argument. His idea is unique because I have never heard of humans being arguments. I understood the concept of humans being narratives, but humans as arguments is a bit more abrasive. Maybe I am living proof of the point he is trying to make. His concept is unique because I never realized that every choice I make about what I choose to believe and think is contradictory and controversial to what someone else chooses to believe. This aspect takes the focus off of just one person and embraces the fact that there are more people in the world than I.
ReplyDeleteA significant quotation from the essay is, “…sometimes a narrative impinges upon ours, or thunders down and around into other narratives” (Corder, 4). It is significant because it was an abrupt, or better yet, abrasive change of pace to the essay. It introduced a new concept and led into the main concept of argument. It relates to the main point of the essay because it describes the narrative as an argument and expresses it as a concept of conflict with another narrative when, previously, it had simply affected one person.
Jim Corder believes that everyone’s personal narrative shapes his or her arguments. His main claim is that although arguments are a personal decision based on one’s narrative, they are not permanent and can be easily changed according the surrounding audience. A narrative is based of life experiences, background, and overall beliefs and morals. Although narratives are unique to every individual, each person’s narratives have a strong influence on the narrative of others. In fact, some people change their arguments according to the beliefs of the people around them. Corder talks about different methods of changing another person’s argument or to sway their beliefs and decisions. He defines argument as “we are always standing somewhere in our narratives when we speak to others or to ourselves.” Each of us forms a personal opinion of what is right and what is wrong based of the knowledge we have gained.
ReplyDeleteA quote I find significant to this essay is “Each of us forms conceptions of the world, its institutions, its public, private, wide, or local histories, and each of us is the narrative that shows our living in and through the conceptions that are always being formed as the tales of our lives take their shape.” I feel this is significant because it gives the overall basis of what shapes our arguments in the first place. We are always learning new things having new experiences that shape how we view the world. Once we have formed a strong narrative we begin to project our argument onto other in efforts to gain their support. This at times causes conflict and must be executed in the correct manner in order not to offend your audience.
Corder's main argument in "Rhetoric as Love" that we are all the main characters in our own narrative and that we attempt to become the character that we see ourselves as in our retelling of our own narrative. When Corder defines an argument as what we believe to be the key in our own personal narratives. He explains this definition by pointing out how we handle other people's arguments/narratives, which he describes as being potentially problematic for our own narrative if there is that much of a clash between the two, but can also be beneficial if the aforementioned other argument is something we didn't know we agreed with. This definition is unique because most people don't tend to take into account one's role in their own narrative when they discuss an argument. Instead, arguments and the people that support them are two completely separate and unrelated entities in the eyes of most people. The key quote for me was when Corder writes, "The catch is, though we are all fiction-makers/historians, we are seldom all that good at the work." This quote is significant because it acknowledges that although we think we know every detail of major events in our narrative, we tend to twist them or get them mixed up due to how our brain perceives those events and our role in them. This relates to the main point of the essay because even though we may attempt to be accurate in the retelling of our narrative, we fail in because we don't remember things as completely as we would like and because we tend to be the "star" of our own story.
ReplyDeleteJim Corder's "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love" is an interesting reflection on the way we, as humans, relate to one another. He calls attention to the fact every statement we make and all of our actions are reflections on our own personal beliefs. Even simple wording is chosen, consciously or subconsciously, to demonstrate our beliefs and values. When we are presented with another opposing set of ideas and beliefs, this is an argument. It is not necessarily a blatant debate, it is just the idea that our opinions do not completely align with someone else's and we have to decide how we will respond to this. He cites many different possible responses to arguments including one party modifying or changing their stance or neither party changing their stance at all but states that the best way to handle the situation is to listen and try to understand an individuals view point how they see it. By looking at the situation through someone else's eyes, you can understand why they have the opinion they do and this can make you think about their opinion as well as your own. This definition of argument is unique because typically argument implies anger and fighting whereas Corder is encouraging understanding and open mindedness.
ReplyDeleteA quote that really stood out to me was when Corder quotes E.L. Doctorow saying, "there is no fiction of non-fiction as we commonly understand the distinction." Corder goes on to explain, "there is only making, sometimes by design, and sometimes not." I found this quote extremely interesting because I liked to think that I saw truth in the world. After considering what he meant, I realized that everyone's truth is going to be different based on their life experiences and this furthers the point of the article because it is calling us to recognize that we see things differently then everyone around us. By making this recognition, we can understand others' arguments and opinions much better.
Here's Andrea's comment:
ReplyDeleteHaving read Corder's "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love," I was utterly intrigued by the various points he makes. He takes the less traditional approach when describing the importance of the narrative by claiming that "none of us lives without history; each of us is a narrative." Through this Corder explains that we are walking stories, we create pieces of fiction and only with the help of certain tools are we able to achieve this. "Each of us forms conceptions of the world, its institutions, its public...each of us is the narrative that shows our living in and through these conceptions." Corder attempts and only begins to explain the significance narrative and how we ought to be careful how we form certain conceptions because they will be revealed in our life narrative.
Also, Corder is eager to explain the importance of the argument in relation to the narrative. He argues that "language comes out of us a word at a time; we cannot get all said at once" which can be problematic. With this language, we are able to create our narratives which are the evidence of ourselves and our convictions. However, Corder is extremely adamant when descibing the argument which is "not something we make outside ourselves; argument is what we are." In order for us to create narratives, we have to be accepting of arguments which are essentially a part of us and are used as a rhetoric tool, the art of using language efficiently and persuasively. It makes me think how argument and love can be terms juxtaposed to each other and are so contradictory. However, reading more of the essay I've discovered that do have a connection because every argument "must begin, proceed, and end out of love."
I was intigued to read most of Corder's essay, but his argument regarding the argument fascinated me the most. When he said that "argument is not something to present or display, it is something to be, it is what we are," I was definitely aware of his message. We live in, through, around, and against arguments, it is only right to accept it as a part of us in order to create a credible narrative.
It is mindboggling as to how many components are involved in our narratives, but it just goes to prove that we as people are everything but simple.