Summary
In “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love” Corder begins by addressing the people as historians, narratives and story-tellers. He states that our life experiences form the way we speak and places us where we stand. It’s the position that speaks our notions and our manner of thinking. Corder notes that other historians, or people, hold different narratives of which we sometimes accept, disregard or most likely have a conflict with. He states that we will attempt at all costs to defend these narratives that make us who we are. When we speak, we speak the decisions that we have made or the positions that we take in an argument. Corder notes that when we cross paths with a narrative that is incomprehensible to the story that we have been telling we tend to feel threatened and thus we go into mad discussion. Corder recalls to Carl Roger’s method were each side must take the ‘therapist-client relationship’ by listening and understanding the experiences of the client, or the arguer. Both sides must listen to each other and communicate their values and their opinions that explain their way of reasoning. Then, each side must come to a conclusion based on their common notions that suit both parties. For this, there must exist the fluency and the time for both sides to exchange opinions. Unfortunately, this method does not apply to all arguments. There are arguments that are explosive and wont take the time for a discussion. Corder states that we must “learn to love before we disagree.” (Corder) Corder notes that we must invite others to explore our narratives and our experiences and thus become familiar with us before engaging in disagreement. We need to show others why we think what we think; to invite the other to explore our space and make it commodious. Corder asserts that by understanding the other and by loving the other we will engage in each others’ narratives.
Synthesis
Corder commences with a confusing characterization of which I wasn’t able to cast at first. I then understand that we are the historians of our lives and the narratives makes our reasoning and understanding of our surroundings. He states that our narratives make us who we are and are in fact, the subject to our arguments. I think that this is true because our narratives represent our identity, even when what we hold truthful tends to differentiate from those who belong to different cultural communities. There will always exist arguments between individuals. Therefore, Corder demonstrates significant ways in which we can over come them, whether it be through mutual communication transactions (the therapist-client relationship), or by loving the other’s narratives. Instead of judging them at first glance.
We must open ourselves to hear and then close to speak. Keeping both directions open; we listen to other party as well as speaking our opinions. In all means, we are to carry a commodious language. A soft one that is not authoritarian and that is welcoming to the unknown. “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.” (Corder) This is a different perspective towards argumentation that I hadn’t explored before. A view that focuses in comprehension more than persuasion. A view that I would prefer to adopt.
In “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love” Corder begins by addressing the people as historians, narratives and story-tellers. He states that our life experiences form the way we speak and places us where we stand. It’s the position that speaks our notions and our manner of thinking. Corder notes that other historians, or people, hold different narratives of which we sometimes accept, disregard or most likely have a conflict with. He states that we will attempt at all costs to defend these narratives that make us who we are. When we speak, we speak the decisions that we have made or the positions that we take in an argument. Corder notes that when we cross paths with a narrative that is incomprehensible to the story that we have been telling we tend to feel threatened and thus we go into mad discussion. Corder recalls to Carl Roger’s method were each side must take the ‘therapist-client relationship’ by listening and understanding the experiences of the client, or the arguer. Both sides must listen to each other and communicate their values and their opinions that explain their way of reasoning. Then, each side must come to a conclusion based on their common notions that suit both parties. For this, there must exist the fluency and the time for both sides to exchange opinions. Unfortunately, this method does not apply to all arguments. There are arguments that are explosive and wont take the time for a discussion. Corder states that we must “learn to love before we disagree.” (Corder) Corder notes that we must invite others to explore our narratives and our experiences and thus become familiar with us before engaging in disagreement. We need to show others why we think what we think; to invite the other to explore our space and make it commodious. Corder asserts that by understanding the other and by loving the other we will engage in each others’ narratives.
Synthesis
Corder commences with a confusing characterization of which I wasn’t able to cast at first. I then understand that we are the historians of our lives and the narratives makes our reasoning and understanding of our surroundings. He states that our narratives make us who we are and are in fact, the subject to our arguments. I think that this is true because our narratives represent our identity, even when what we hold truthful tends to differentiate from those who belong to different cultural communities. There will always exist arguments between individuals. Therefore, Corder demonstrates significant ways in which we can over come them, whether it be through mutual communication transactions (the therapist-client relationship), or by loving the other’s narratives. Instead of judging them at first glance.
We must open ourselves to hear and then close to speak. Keeping both directions open; we listen to other party as well as speaking our opinions. In all means, we are to carry a commodious language. A soft one that is not authoritarian and that is welcoming to the unknown. “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.” (Corder) This is a different perspective towards argumentation that I hadn’t explored before. A view that focuses in comprehension more than persuasion. A view that I would prefer to adopt.