Participants: Hillary and Laurel



*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?



Through embodied rhetorics, the physical body can be a resource for argumentation and advocacy. Three reasons that contemporary activist groups are notable (and representative of the thesis) (p.9). Important to look beyond texts when addressing movements in contemporary contexts



*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?



Earth First!

Act Up

Queer Nation



Embodied rhetoric, visual rhetoric theoretical lense



*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)?



Real world, tangible examples from a variety of embodied rhetorics

Denies the traditional hierarchy of language over the visual and demonstrates a need for visual rhetoric.

Demonstrates how Condit contradicts her argument of “pictures do not argue propositions”



*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)



Critiques Condit to show visuals can make arguments, then lays out the examples.

Uses clear headings to orient the reader.

Each example shows the same thing, just in a different light.



*Examine the introduction and the conclusion. What happens in each, both in terms of content and form.



Introduction, briefly discusses each organization and constitutive rhetoric. Clear enumeration of points.



Conclusion as a call to rhetoricians to take notice of the visual (the need for visual rhetoric, power of the body).



*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?



Definitions less through explicit definition and more through example/illustration

Constitutive rhetoric (p.10)

Bodies (p.12)

Stand alone definitions? No



*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?



Good example last two paragraphs of p.14 : “In short, these images of bodies…”



Spends more time on the Earth First! Example than the others



Uses accessible terms to lay down the foundation