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)
In his article, "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love", Corder explains how life is a narrative and we are the authors. He goes on to say that our individual narrative may sometimes create conflict with the narratives of others. He makes many claims about human interaction, especially in regards to how we handle differences in opinion. Corder defines argument as emergence. He explains this as a willingness to work towards understanding the narrative of another. His definition is unique because argument generally comes with a negative connotation that implies anger, however Corder portrays argument as a situation that simply requires openness and compassion. This goes back to his multiple mentions of the therapist-client relationship, which encourages people to work to understand the perspective of whomever they may have conflict with. This is important because Corder describes individuals during arguments as being very vulnerable. He says, "In argument, the arguer must, with no assurance, go out, inviting the other to enter a world that the arguer tries to make commodious, inviting the other to emerge as well, but with no assurance of kind or even thoughtful response.” This quote is very telling of Corder’s overall message, which is that argument is about empathizing with another’s perspective and creating a situation in which people can come together.
ReplyDeleteIn his article, “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love,” Jim Corder puts forth the claim that “argument is what we are.” Certainly an interesting concept, but one that he defines further throughout his article. His main thesis is that every person is unique, due to his or her experiences, perceptions, and history, and that uniqueness means that each of us is a narrative, an ongoing living part of history. Because we are always somewhere in the continuum of our lives, there is always a story behind how we are where we are. Yet it is precisely that uniqueness that also brings us into conflict with others for several reasons. A primary reason is that in order to interact we must use language. Yet the use of language demands that choices be made as to what is said (or left unsaid) and in what order. Any statement carries a history along with it. Thus, until we begin to understand another’s history and narrative of life, we cannot understand what they are really saying. These misunderstandings are the basis for argument.
ReplyDeleteA second reason for conflict is that a different “narrative” confronts an individual with a contending view that forces the individual to react. Though he draws on the work of Carl Rogers to illustrate how this happens and how it can be resolved, Corder believes that Rogers doesn’t go far enough. Since Rogers is describing what occurs in a therapist-client relationship, much of what can and does produce stress and conflict is missing due to the relationship that exists. In fact, Corder suggests that the arguments, that is, the intersection of one’s life and narrative with another’s, are most significant where there is threat and fear and emotion and outrage. He sees as rather simplistic the idea that in such situations the way we ought to argue is that each person accepts the other, understands him and then seeks to help. Again, if the most significant arguments involve threat and fear and emotion, then it is unlikely that both will be so kindly disposed.
It is at this point that his definition of “argument” being “what we are” takes on significance. He says that people have to change how we think and talk and understand argument. Right now, argument is about “display and presentation.” In other words, we present a proposition, along with supporting evidence, in order to refute opposing views and reach a conclusion. However, that sets up situations which cannot be resolved. Thus it is better to understand “argument” as “what we are” – that argument is a reflection of one’s narrative and that the way to approach “argument” is with a willingness to reach toward the other as you reveal who you are and how you came to be where you are. In order for that to happen, then people must learn to love before we disagree. To accomplish that, how people argue must change. He suggests several key steps to accomplish that, some of which are: 1) recognition that the arguer has to go alone; 2) he must hold his identity and yet give it to the other; 3) the abandonment of authoritative positions; 4) application of the cycling that rhetoric offers; 5) time for argumentative discourse.
I believe that a significant quotation from this essay is as follows: “Evidence and reason are evidence and reason only if one lives in the narrative that creates and regards them.” I think this is an important statement because it summarizes what he is trying to get across. It reinforces his main point that our lives are a narrative and that it is impossible for someone else to fully understand that narrative because they haven’t lived it. It also sets the stage for his later discussion of the need to change how we view argument and how arguments are handled. If evidence and reason are tied so closely to a personal narrative, then the whole approach of argument as display and presentation is invalid. No matter what “evidence” is provided out of one’s own personal narrative, it is limited in its scope and ability to persuade since the other person hasn’t lived in the narrative that created such evidence.
In Jim Corder’s essay, “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love”, he states that we all have our own narrative. We all make our own stories and with help and discussion with others we can make our narratives stronger. Even though in discussions of life in general, or topics that our minds are already made up about we can change our opinions or we can grow in strength for that certain topic. Overall, Corder talks about how if we allow ourselves to have an open mind about everything then we can love and express love because there will be minimal differences. I think that Corder defines “argument” as having opinions and discussing those opinions with others who might not have the same opinion as yourself. I believe that argument is acceptance or denial of opinions. Corder says that when people can learn to listen, learn to put aside their own ideas and listen to others opinions that they can love. I think that this is unique and interesting. I agree completely with Corder because I believe that to love it is necessary to let your own biases go and allow others to speak. I think that one must be able to understand other people’s opinions and ideas to love. Jim Corder said, “It can happen if we learn to love before we disagree. Usually, it's the other way around: if we learn to love, it is only after silence or conflict or both”. I think that this quotation from the essay is significant because it describes how in order to understand and to get along with one another we must listen. When conflict arises we must get through it by trying to find an answer. I think it relates to the main point because if disagreement comes then we need to work it out to build our narratives and to add in our lives and the lives of the people around us.
ReplyDeleteJim Corder states the obvious-each of us is a narrative. A narrative is a spoken or written account of connected events. Our narratives are not spoken nor written like a story or tale but are formed through human interaction, memories, behavior, and thoughts. "Argument as Emergence Rhetoric as Love" written by Jim Corder symbolizes each human individual as an argument. We are each fighting for something, proving ourselves. I liked how Corder incorporated the interference of other narratives- the impact of other narratives in our own lives and how we deal with it. He uses the example of the client and the therapist and how the therapist has a nonjudgmental mind when paying close attention to the client. Carl Rogers explains, “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." Corder is emphasizing the idea of acceptance through talking and discussing different perspectives. The more a person is exposed to and becomes familiar with another’s beliefs, the more they accept and understand it. Love emerges once former judgments and opinions are ignored. I found it unique that Corder found similarities between two different aspects in human existence, narratives and arguments. We each are our own narrative, and as we develop we form personal thoughts and opinions. Our thoughts and opinions are the basis for our arguments. When we come across someone who obtains different beliefs we must use the therapist client approach in truly seeing past our own perspectives. Cordon proposes that “we have to see each other, know each other, to be present to each other, and to embrace each other” in order to change the way we talk about and conceive argument.
ReplyDeleteThe main point of this article is Corder’s exploration on how to most effectively reconcile differences between parties. He cites other works, notes how they don’t work in every circumstance, and goes on to explain his thoughts on how to resolve what he calls ‘arguments’ between people, groups, or any type of similar party. He defines argument as the sum of our experiences and choices that make up our values, belief systems and personal narratives. It’s a unique take on the term, because it’s not a conventional use of the word, yet when eventually put into context, it makes sense to call it that. One of the quotes from the article that really jumped out at me was, “When I say that we make the fictions that are our lives, I mean to identify a human activity, not a foolish of evil one.” This was placed relatively near the beginning, right after the first incomplete description of Corder’s definition of argument. I was struggling with the concepts up until this point, but this quote seemed to tie it together a little bit for me. I felt like it was appropriate in this article, because if people had been feeling as all accused or alienated by the previous paragraph, where the author was talking about people being closed-minded and borderline hostile about their personal dogmas, this brought it down a little bit and reassured the readers that even if this was the case, it was normal. It was a good mental stopping point to think back and reflect on what the author was trying to reconcile. There are several other quotes like this one situated in other places throughout the article; I feel like it adds a lot to the pacing, and in stepping backwards and asking the audience to review and think about the author’s meaning, makes the work easier to read.
ReplyDeleteJim Corder’s essay “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love,” explains the way people create their lives based on their narratives. Based on the decisions people make, and how they come to define the world around them are reliant on each other. People define what history, and reality is based on what suits their needs for understanding. In this way people are arguments. Everyone has beliefs in their minds that are backed up by evidence that makes sense to them. Upon encountering a person who has a conception of reality, or an argument, that challenges or shocks the other person, tension will arise. He describes argument as emergence. He talks about Rogerian argument, which was based on counseling psychology. This type of argument recognizes the other sides view points, and provides for an open, optimal style of conversing with people, and learning new kinds of narratives. What is interesting about his definition, is the way it views an individual as an argument in themselves. Usually argument is described by an isolated conflict, but this definition goes beyond that to take note of the biases and preconceived notions everyone carries consciously and subconsciously. A quote which describes this comes from page three of the essay. “Our narratives, which include our pasts, accompany us and exist in out statements and exercises their influence whether or not we are aware of the influence.” This highlights the point that every action we are doing in the present is effected by the choices we have made in our past, and how we view that past. It also describes how our narratives effect the arguments we make, even if we are unaware of its effect.
ReplyDeleteCorder explains to the audience that, we as people, are naturally narrators. Our lives are our own narrations and experiences and ideas. He identifies that we engage in arguments only because this is who we are. When our narratives conflict with others’ narratives, we attempt to justify our point of view. Often, Corder states, we lose track of the differing ideas and experiences because we feel that our narrative is the correct one. This can be dangerous. This has been dangerous. He forces the audience to grasp the fact that “argument is who we are.” I completely understand this statement because this is essentially our identity. The reason people get so upset and involved in arguments is because they are ultimately defending who they are. When we disgree with someone, we may become uncomfortable because (I feel) we are searching for acceptance. Corder continues by suggesting that emotions will never leave the atmosphere of an argument. He claims 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.” Think to yourself about a few of the most heated arguments you have ever had with someone. The chances are that plenty of emotion was involved. This is because we will always have passion for what we believe-again, this is who we are.
ReplyDeleteCorder also describes the importance of understanding others. If we don’t consider others, an argument will ultimately become “a matter of my poster against yours, with the price to the slickest performance.” This statement reflects an essential case Corder is making. The “my poster against your poster” is obviously an ineffective approach. He says that we must (at least try to) understand the differing narratives to make headway.
I thought it was interesting how Corder exposed the audience to the idea that we can invent and adjust our narratives. He explains that “the process of invention may occur in a conscious, deliberate way, but it will occur, even if at some subterranean level.” Because our narratives are essentially who we are and are composed of our experiences and ideas, we can learn from others and therefore alter these narratives. Through changing or adjusting our narratives, we can broaden our horizons (for lack of better words) and therefore become more understanding of other narratives and arguments.
Jim Croder basically makes the statement that every person makes or is their own narrative and argument and within the world shapes and forms their narratives to make points to other people and to understand other narratives. He defines the argument as what we are, in his own words "It is something to be. It is what we are..."(Croder 12). He goes on to explain that as arguments and narratives we learn to shape and explain ourselves and at the same time be open to other arguments and narratives. It's interesting how he explains these notions in terms of rhetoric although our personal lives apply to these situations. It is not many times that someone can drop their own "history" to become open and understanding of another. In writing it is absolutely the same way. Many times we read something that isn't familiar to us and instead of trying to see their point of view we simply write a response explaining our considerations of the topic and being very close-minded. Croder instead suggests that we research the different history and try to understand their points of view through it. Croder also supports that arguments will emerge. He states "If we are to hope for ourselves and to value all others, we must learn that argument is emergence". This quote is absolutely significant to the topic of his article. I like it because I feel that many kinds of writings and personalities emerge from a difference or argument of something. Debates, persuasion, research, etc. Each of these are kinds of writing that involve the use of an argument to present a topic and even an argument to support one thing over another. Because we as arguments and narratives as arguments are so abundant I think it's necessary to take the steps Croder points out to be able to embrace it and use it effectively. If we are to support a certain idea, we should most definitely take the time to research it and be able to teach it and in the end be open to the idea that maybe there is another way to view such an idea. This advice is prominent both as writers and as people.
ReplyDeleteThe main idea of Jim Corder’s article, “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love” is that we are all our own narrative and argument. He argues that we are always adding to our narrative and therefore, without knowing it, creating our argument. Our argument is how we want to be portrayed. We give examples of how we decide to be viewed. Corder states numerous times that argument must be taken alone; that the arguer is on their own in attempting to portray themselves. They must take the risk and acknowledge that their argument may not be welcomed. In the end, the author decides that “rhetoric is love”. He notes that to accept each other and the arguments that we present to each other, love must exist, and we must speak a common language. This is a unique way to describe an argument, because generally, when people think of arguing, they are doing in consciously, to argue for a specific idea or thought of their own. I have never thought of myself as a narrative; a story for everyone to read, or an argument. I have never thought that people are continuously trying to convey something about themselves, yet Corder’s essay brings this idea into light and it makes sense.
ReplyDelete“It is a risky revelation of the self, for the arguer is asking for an acknowledgment of his or her identity, is asking for witness from the other”. This quote really shows the author’s idea that we are our own arguments. Everything we put forth is in some way an argument about who we are. We are constantly adding to our narrative, and thus increasing the backing for our argument. He also notes that we are not particularly good at this, as we are human, and thus our argument is not always as strong as it could be, thus making it a risk to reveal anything about oneself.
In his article "Argument as Emergence Rhetoric as Love, Jim Corder explains how in his opinion each individual has their own personal narrative and with that narratve comes the ability to "speak a language" with other people. This leads to communication and creating relationships but can also prove to be the foundation from which arguements stem from. As a result of this statement, I believe Corder's main claim is that everyone creates an argument for themselves that is based on their own individuality and is unique to them. Each person has their own opinion on what is right and their own personal beliefs is what makes up their "argument" If someone challenges or criticizes these beliefs it causes the individual to stand up for themselves which is where the tension may come from. What Corder is trying to say is that if people took the time to learn and be more open minded to other beliefs, there would be less of a need for argueing and a lot more to be learned.
ReplyDeleteThe main point of Jim Corder's article is that every single person has their own argument and that we are all our own authors. He also says that we are much more than authors, we are historians who are, "Going through experience, hooking some version of it to ourselves, accumulating what we know as evidence and insight...each of us creates the narrative that he or she is." Corder reaches a deeper thought that has never been fully explained, how as humans we are story tellers always referencing stories that have happened to us and how they have affected us from our point of view. Corder later mentions how Psychology plays an important role in using argument effectively with the citing of "Unconditional Positive Regard." He also cites two different syles of the Rogerian argument. These are also the forms of which Corder explains argument which can be interpreted as something positive and constuctive if done correctly as Corder shows. He defines argument as us the people who make argument everyday through living which is significant to his article, "Each of us is an argument, evidenced by our narrative. What happens, then, if the narrative of another crushes up against our own...Do we hold our narratives? We react of course in many different ways." This is important because argument is clearly Corder's main point in the article and how we react to conflicting points of view is crucial to the understanding between two or more people in an argument.
ReplyDeleteThe principle that "The world looks rosy through rose-colored glasses" may be a poke at optimism, but it has a lot to do with Cordier's perspective on Rhetoric. We should constantly be reminding ourselves that our filters shade what see in our personal narrations and as well as others'. Being unaware of this can be the greatest setback when trying to create a successful argument. (Our personal way of objectifying reality). A way around this is to "listen with understanding," or to "try and see things from the other's point of view (initially)." Choosing empathy instead of judgement greatly strengthens our rhetorical compass.
ReplyDeleteIn situations where one aims to persuade, it is sometimes thought that one should start the process from a defensive stance, (i.e., proving their thesis to the reader.) It's quite refreshing to instead think of writing as a way to "build bridges" and "win over the reader." The most thoughtful way to begin building these bridges is to validate the sides of an argument that are not your own. Not to keep using a cliche phrase, but if if "through your own rose colored glasses the world is always rosy," starting from the perspective that "the world is green through green-colored glasses" displays that you are willing to listen to the views of others. This flexibility entrusts that you are willing to challenge your own ideas although you may not eventually agree with them. In return, others' are now more willing to listen to your argument and more likely to consider your perspectives' as being valid.
In the article Jim Corder’s main claim is that each of us has a personal narrative that we are living and acting out on a daily basis. He believes that we are all our own author to our personal narrative. He defines argument by stating, “Each one of us is an argument, evidenced by our narrative.” I interpreted this to meaning that each one of us have our own story or argument and when two conflicting stories or arguments meet a discussion occurs in order to try and change the opposing argument to be like our own. This is a very unique and interesting way to define an argument because I believe that this definition looks deeper into the two subjects involved in an argument stating that their narratives have intersected instead of just saying that a confrontation has occurred. A quotation that I really liked from the article was, “But argument is not something to present or to display. It is something to be. It is what we are…” I believe that this is the most important quotation in the entire article because it pretty much summarizes what Jim Corder believes an argument is. I always use to think that an argument was when two opposing parties display their emotions in a confrontation of some sort. Therefore, Jim Corder’s philosophy on how one’s argument is who they are in their own entirety instead of what they choose to display makes a lot more sense to me. This has taught me that everyone’s personal story is his or her argument.
ReplyDeleteJim Corder's argument that each person is a narrative is intriguing, and allows the reader to evaluate themselves and other individuals on person-to-person basis. This article hit home for me in that I am constantly wondering to myself "why is he like that?" when reviewing my adopted little brother's behavior, because he is so different from me. Having someone like that in my family definitely makes me agree with Corder's analysis of arguments being a very crucial part of our relationships and everyday lives, because we all must learn to communicate. That being said, through arguments, we are all unique while feeding off of each other and the entirety of our surroundings, all of which are unique to each individual person. Everyone has a different perspective, and as Corder puts it, "the world looks rosy through rose-colored glasses", and I believe that everyone's "colored glasses" are a different color, specific to who they are and what their story is. someone's "rose", would look different to anyone else, and there is a reason behind every element of everyone's personality that has to do with personal experiences and the way they choose to argue and write their own narratives.
ReplyDelete