Our selfish nature, loathing change, is what Corder feels partly contributes to arguments.
Next, Corder presents to us the shortcomings of the Rogerian arguments that is essentially based upon an ideal therapist-client like relationship. These arguments falter because it is firstly, held in a controlled setting and secondly, that it calls for a clear, but rigid procedure. In the real world, Corder notes that the nature of arguments is largely influenced by our stubborn emotions. Hence we need to get rid of our "steadfast" identities in order to shift that argument into a place of possibility.
How do we rise to that standard? Corder offers an insight to us that all we need to do is "forgo one identity for a startling new one," (pg. 358). This is to say that we should learn to embrace each other while being true to ourselves. We need to change. Change the way we communicate and the way we think. Only then, are we able to see that "argument is emergence," (pg. 359) and that love prevails when flexibility is enforced while destructive arguments appear when ego rules. The importance of "learning"- learn about ourselves and each other - is stressed upon throughout the seven lists of possibilities that illustrates his conception of argument as love. This whole process of communication is done via the use of language, the double-edged sword, which may fail us but when used in a "commodious" perspective, creates that reality for "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love." .
As mentioned earlier, Corder's essay might come across as long, monotonous and even boring to some. His usage of theories and Rogerian arguments, seemed to create a disjointed linkage to what he is trying to say. Yes, the connection is there, but the therapist-client relationship in use seemed to be more of a distraction, rather than making all that Corder is saying more comprehensible.
Rather than using a direct approach, Corder prefers to beat around the bush, plays with language and dangles his main point in front of the audience.
