I found that the style and tone of this essay greatly contributes to the cogency of the argument. Through his humble account of his experience with Josh, his six-year-old patient, Corbett embodies the sensitivity and ubiquity of the subject – the distorted conception of ‘masculinity.’ He explains that after being called a faggot, he experienced feelings of confusion, anxiety, and panic, despite his knowledge and understanding of the male psyche. He proceeds to explain how his best effort to reflect on the meaning of Josh’s attribution was obstructed by his personal discomfort. Corbett’s reaction attests to the “determining force of faggot,” and how it affects those to whom it is referred. Thus, by expressing his own vulnerability, Corbett humanizes his claim.
Unlike Bersani’s Against Monogamy, Corbett’s essay is organized into titled chapters, which draw the reader’s interest, builds the argument, and establishes charity. Such structure further strengthens the effectiveness of the claim. By gradually unveiling the complexity of phallic narcissism, Corbett establishes its significance in a larger context. Thus, each chapter serves as a piece to the puzzle, and reinforces the purpose of the essay. Ultimately, Corbett’s use of form enhances the cogency of the content.
In psychoanalysis we call this the analyst's awareness of his "counter-transferance". It is also a concept that any theorist or author should keep in mind: How am I implicated in my analysis, in that which I critique, or create? For as we know, we always already are. There is no such thing as "objectivity."
ReplyDelete