“Bodies matter to knowing, meaning-making and interaction. So rhetoric must be about bodies as much as minds, and about the material as much as the conceptual.”

Doug Downs, from “Rhetoric: Making Sense of Human Interaction and Meaning-Making,” p. 463

Downs’s quotation above connects bodies to meaning to our interactions with others. This might be a new way for us to understand how we communicate in the world.

To help us think through this complex set of connections, we’re going to use Corder’s and Downs’s texts to think about how our counterstory drafts are making arguments and, more generally, how public arguments are made. You’ll get into groups to think about the assigned texts and your own writing.

In Corder, go to page 26 and read the paragraphs on the top of the page (just before section 8 begins). Corder is making a claim about how argument is popularly understood, and he is also proposing a new understanding. Work in your groups to put Corder’s claim into your own words. How does this claim relate to your counterstory?

In Downs, go to page 462 and read paragraphs numbered 12-13 (the two complete paragraphs on that page). Downs is making a claim that connects the way we make meaning to our bodies. Work in your groups to put Downs’s claim into your own words. How does this claim relate to your counterstory?

After your group work, you will report out to the class.

If we have time, we’ll take a look at Dr. Jamila Lyiscott’s “3 Ways to Speak English” as an example of argument as emergence and embodied rhetoric.

HOMEWORK

Reread Downs’ article Rhetoric: “Making Sense of Human Interaction and Meaning-Making,” as we will be using it next class to look at different examples of advocacy writing.

NOTE: Since I need another weekend to comment on your counterstory drafts, I will be extending the due date for the final counterstory. More next class!