| OCR Text |
Show 330 limited to, legal decisions that affirm corporations as constitutional subjects, communities that affirm corporations as citizen-subjects, and images that affirm corporations as visual subjects. 2) What can the corporate subject teach us about rhetoric and argumentation? The corporate subject has taught us that rhetoric and argumentation are forces that do something in the world. This is important because it avoids reducing either fields to smaller categoricals that hold a thin logic of representation together. To study the corporate subject, it was necessary to understand rhetoric as a force, the text as a fragment requiring assemblage, and the audience as an actant within a subjective network. I am glad we mentioned argumentation, too, because corporate arguments have emerged from various argumentative frays, especially in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5. Looking back, we can say that we have learned argumentation is purely a matter of force. As such, argumentation is not about good reasons - it is about affects, alliances, and networks. The most important lesson to be drawn from the corporate subject is that both rhetoric and argumentation have moved beyond humanism, which is why it is more important than ever to continue to rethink how these fields have changed in our posthuman age of communication. 3) What kind of subject is the corporation? The corporate subject is not any ordinary subject, at least from humanistic orientations. It is obviously not human, definitely not rational, and certainly not singular. By now, after all of our encounters, our polemics, and close analyses, it should be clear that corporations are networked assemblages that constantly shift, transform, and move to propagate relations with new objects and increase their force. Networks are not arborescent; they are flat. This means |
