{"id":2178,"date":"2019-11-29T16:27:01","date_gmt":"2019-11-29T16:27:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.dwrl.utexas.edu\/davis\/?page_id=2178"},"modified":"2020-03-26T15:29:02","modified_gmt":"2020-03-26T15:29:02","slug":"restorative-counterargument-proposal","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.dwrl.utexas.edu\/davis\/courses\/rhe-330e-pathos\/rhe-330e-pathos-assignments\/restorative-counterargument-proposal\/","title":{"rendered":"UPDATED Restorative Counterargument"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Overview<\/p>\n

You\u2019ll craft the equivalent of a 3-page, double-spaced counterargument in which you\u2019ll counter one of the pathological effects of the artifact you analyzed in the previous assignment. The goal of this assignment is restorative: your aim is to redress some aspect of your artifact\u2019s wounding effects in rhetoric\u2019s sensorium. You’ll also complete and include a description of your rhetorical goals for the assignment.\u00a0<\/p>\n

We typically understand \u201ccounterargument\u201d to mean an argument explicitly crafted to oppose another argument: its claims, its evidence, or both. That is not what we\u2019ll mean by it here. Your goal will be\u00a0neither<\/em>\u00a0to explicitly refute the claims and evidence offered in the original artifact\u00a0nor<\/em>\u00a0to persuade its author of your own position. The artifact will be your\u00a0inspiration, but your response will not be constrained by the artifact\u2019s context or frame. Consider this a moment of invention and intervention. You may opt to not mention the original artifact at all; your audience will not be the author of the original artifact, either, but a broader community who may be moved to take up a different way of thinking and responding that might also be restorative.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Counterargument<\/p>\n

You have already analyzed your artifact\u2019s pathological effects and how it produces them. Your aim in this assignment is to find a way to begin to creatively\u00a0undo\u00a0them. So again: what you\u2019ll be\u00a0countering\u00a0is one of the pathological effects of your original artifact. If your artifact reinforced the stickiness of negative emotions with certain bodies, for example, you may produce a response that aims to \u201cunstick\u201d them. If your artifact erased certain histories or ignored perspectives that would, if they were given voice, undermine the artifact\u2019s injurious claims from the inside, you might give voice to those histories or perspectives.<\/p>\n

You may, if necessary, artfully correct any factual inaccuracies in the original artifact, but your goal is not simply to hammer home \u201cthe facts,\u201d as if\u00a0logos\u00a0and\u00a0pathos\u00a0were discrete rhetorical appeals. Your goal is to offer a restorative response that undoes some aspect of the us\/them border inscribed in the original artifact so that \u201crhetoric\u2019s sensorium\u201d is again affirmed. Your appeals should be\u00a0thoughtful\u00a0and\u00a0moving, designed to undo violent appropriations without neglecting to address the affective network in which they take place.<\/p>\n

Description of rhetorical goals<\/p>\n

Before you begin crafting your counterargument, respond to the following prompts, in order, to describe what it will aim to do, how it will do it, and for whom. You\u2019ll attach this description to the end of your counterargument when you upload it to Canvas:\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n