Rogerian Rhetoric: Ethical Growth through Alternative Forms of Argumentation

Rogerian Rhetoric: Ethical Growth through Alternative Forms of Argumentation

 

by Doug Brent. An excerpt from Teaching Argument in the Composition Course, p297- The ideal rhetorical situation as described by Plato involves an audience that, like his hero Socrates, is "not less happy to be refuted than to refute" (Gorgias 17). Alas, this attitude is rare among real, vulnerable human beings who are not characters in a Platonic dialogue. -298 The therapist, in Rogers' view, is not a healer, but rather a facilitator of healing. -298 Rogerian rhetoric as recreated by Young, Becker and Pike is aimed at those situation in which more confrontational techniques are most apt to fail: that is, in highly emotional situations in which opposing sides fail to establish even provisional grounds for discussion. -299 As a form of arrangement, Rogerian rhetoric may not always be appropriate; if communicative bridges are already in place, it may not be necessary to build them, and in some forms of triadic communication it may be desirable to udnerline only one's own point of view. -307 [Discussing feminist objections to this] The problem, as lamb puts it, is that Rogerian rhetoric feels "feminine rather than feminist" (17). -308 [This rhetoric doesn't seem tied to the concept of female empowerment. Perhaps it is addressed at helping males with a typical male shortcoming.] [The next objection is to a presumption about language under Rogerian rhetoric] As developed by Young, Becker, and Pike under the influence of General Semantics (by way of Anatol Rappaport's studies in conflict resolution). Rogerian rhetoric insists on a nonevaluative, neutral language of pure description that modern language theory, even without reference to feminist insights, rejects as impossible (Brent "Reassessment"). -309 To deal with the second problem, "neutral" language must be valued not as a pure good in itself, but in a dialectical relationship with emotional language and the connection with self that emotion entails. -310

Rogerian Argument

Rogerian Argument- Writing Theory

From Rhetoric: Discovery and Change with Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, Kenneth L. Pike, Carl R. Rogers This article is an excerpt from Teaching Argument in the Composition Course, 97-111. Abstract: In fact, Roger's theories, which are taken from small-group therapy, reverse the traditional order of things in argumentation; instead of the writer or speaker being the primary focus, the listener or reader is given first priority. It is up to rhetors to fully understand their interlocutor's point of view, no matter how foreign or complex, and, more importantly, to state this point of view to the audience's satisfaction before explaining their own. Rogerian argument rests on the assumption that out of a need to preserve the stability of his image, a person will refuse to consider alternatives that he feels are threatening, and hence that changing a person's image depends on eliminating this sense of threat. Much of men's resistance to economic argument seems explainable by this assumption. -97 Many people engaged in arguments ignore the effect that different context can have on a statement; they often say flatly, "It's true, and I can't imagine how any reasonable man could disagree with it." They might get further in an argument if they said, "If we consider it in such-and-such a context, or if we assume certain conditions, then it is true." -99 The statement is also true in a psychological context: Literature can help people become more perceptive about human problems and human conflict, and as a result more willing and able to deal with them intelligently. Opponents in an argument often, perhaps usually, disagree not because of fallacious reasoning or ignorance of the facts but because of the different contexts in which they see the problem. They may think that they are talking about the same subject when actually they aren't. -100 The threat-reducing acts we have already discussed can help to create trust; a more explicit and direct method, however it to show that writer and reader are similar in relevant ways. The writer can either build or discover bridges (e.g., shared attitudes, experiences, and values [. . .]) that will encourage trust and lead to further interaction. -102 ----------------------------------------