Participants: Meghan and Adam

The Battle Within: Understanding the Persuasive Affect of Internal Rhetorics in the Ethical Vegetarian/Vegan Movement

*Find the thesis. What is the author's main claim? What are the supporting claims (on what assumptions is the claim predicated? what are the implications?) How long is the thesis? How many claims comprise the author's general purpose for writing?

Main claim: The rhetorical self is a location for the practice of rhetoric. This study makes over the rhetorical dimensions of cognition and embodiment.

Supporting claims:"EVVs can and should be understood as part of a sociocultural movement that challenges and attempts to dismantle the cultural ritual of meat-eating."(53)

"Rhetoric, often found in narrative form, offers insights into the relationship among identity formations, socio-cultural norms, and resistance"

EVVs blur distinction between personal and collective identity

Narratives as epistemological constructs to justify decisions (internal rhetoric)

Internal rhetorics allow EVVs to speak truth to power and, in the process, restructure dominant social logic by embodying an alternative to it. (Maybe this is the thesis?)

How many claims:

Page 55, paragraph long thesis. Lays out structure and what the argument is.

*What tactic(s), phenomenon(s), community(ies) is the author studying? What theoretical lens(es) is s/he using to unpack his/her case study?

Studying rhetoric of EVVs

Internal rhetoric (Nienkamp)


*How does the author negotiate rhetoric as embodied praxis? How does s/he make the case for a body rhetoric? In what sort of relationship does the author place this sort of rhetoric with language? (and/both, in place of, before/after)?

Specifically writing about internal rhetoric, self-persuasion

EVVs by existing and being open about their diet prompt a response, even if they do not explicitly argue against meat eating in their oral rhetoric. And also framing comm/rhetoric within the self, the invisibility of certain bodies like the bodies of the animals created and bred for food

Situates traditional function of language as uniquely human, an instrument of thought. EVVs give voice/language to animals. Though they do this, it is still the human giving voice and framing the non-human as a rhetor rather than the non-human actually BEING a rhetor. They superimpose language onto the body of the animal.

Internal Parrhesia is a necessary precursor to outward parrhesisa

*How is the article organized? What "sections" can you (or has the author already) broken the article into? Describe the "content" of each section. (Lit. review of XXX. Example that shows YYY)

Intro narrative

Framing of the narrative in cultural lens

Situates cultural into the theoretical framework

Case studies
  1. Narrative
  2. Testimonial
  3. Conversations
  4. TV Clips
  5. Web clips


Theory and then lit review, map it on to evidence

*Examine the introduction and the conclusion. What happens in each, both in terms of content and form.
Intro: Example/Narrative

Conclusion: Implications (why does this matter)
  • Review what happened in article
  • Broaden appeal
  • Other questions (further study)

*What concepts/key terms does the author overtly define? How does s/he do it? Does s/he insert another theorist's definition and let it stand on its own? Does s/he use, but then qualify/adjust an excepted definition? Does s/he offer an original definition?

*Clip a good example of the author's rhetorical analysis of his/her chosen site, tactic, phenomenon. Detail how the author describes the site, tactic, phenomenon. Does this happen in a prior section in detail and then in brief alongside the analysis? The opposite? Does the author introduce us to the site, tactic, phenomenon as s/he analyzes it? What does s/he draw on to make her/his analysis? What does "rhetorical analysis" look like?