Rogerian Argument English 1020 Erin Breaux Carl Rogers

Rogerian Argument English 1020 Erin Breaux

Carl Rogers • Evolved from techniques used by psychotherapist Carl Rogers • Point was to reduce conflict or standoff between people who had different opinions or hostility toward each other • Well known for empathic listening techniques to improve communication in difficult situations; defined “empathic listening” as the ability to see an issue sympathetically from another person’s perspective • Reduces the reader’s sense of threat and conflict with the writer so that alternatives can be considered • Rogers said that with value-laden topics, you should truthfully listen then “say back” what you understand the other person to be saying

Goals of Rogerian • Increase empathy (listening before evaluating) and respect • Demonstrate understanding of other side (letting reader know they’ve been heard) • Recognize both positions may have merits (i. e. show reader’s position is valid in certain contexts and conditions) • Analyze other side’s values and experiences to find similarities, common ground, and cooperation • Propose mutually beneficial solutions or reach consensus • Keep a dialogue going rather than shut down conversation

Problems? • Some people may think that Rogerian argument is inherently manipulative toward the other person. That’s only if you use a condescending attitude or fake sincerity. • Avoid doing what would be unethical in traditional argument, too: hiding the real purpose of argument or misrepresenting the issue, using extreme emotional language, manufacturing or misrepresenting evidence, etc. Genuinely assume the best of the other person, and have a mindset of understanding rather than judging. • In real life, this method does not always work. Sometimes, there is no good solution or people can’t come to a compromise. It depends on the situation and the attitudes of the people involved—it also depends on how important maintaining the relationship is to the two people.

Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel • Cal Thomas, conservative columnist, and Bob Beckel, liberal political analyst, came together to write a column “Common Ground” in USA Today. They then published a book based on it. • Thomas: “We’re a good example of how common ground can work. Before we knew each other, we only knew ‘about’ each other [thinking each other had ‘evil’ ideas]. When we got to know each other and talked about politics, as well as personal and family challenges, we stopped seeing each other in stereotype and came first to respect and then (shock, shock) even to admire each other. The politics became less important than the relationship. And, most surprising of all, we found ourselves in agreement about quite a number of things, though we occasionally still differ on the best ways to achieve our common goals. ”

Strategies • Let reader know they have been understood • Use dispassionate language to cool emotions on both sides and describe other position • Proceed in explanatory fashion to analyze conditions of other side’s validity • Throw out conventional structures that may be threatening (so think about how organization could help reader be more receptive) • Focus on shared motives or values, common ground, and mutually beneficial outcomes • Help reader understand that both of you share values, attitudes, types of experience, perception, motives, or goals, and are thus similar in certain ways • Show other position could benefit from elements of your position; look for ways positions complement each other or provide what other lacks • Propose compromises or solutions made up of elements from both sides

Strategies (cont. ) • Don’t ask the reader to capitulate completely to your side, just to shift somewhat toward it • Show that you’ve shifted somewhat toward the reader’s view because this increases chance of accepting point of view and compromise • Never make the other side feel as if they are completely wrong • Use language that brings together (we, our, etc) rather than accusatory language • Challenge your own beliefs; be honest and real; show your motives

Student Excerpt • “Everyone would probably agree that technological advances have changed our lives in positive ways, and cloning research is not likely to be an exception. The fear held by cloning supporters, that the sensationalism created by this issue has clouded the judgment of the public and lawmakers who support the ban on cloning, is certainly a valid concern. Although it is not clear that human cloning will offer any great benefits to humanity, no one has yet made a persuasive case that it would do any real harm either. It would be an injustice to completely abandon the possibilities that could enhance the lives of so many people based solely on hypothetical applications of a technology that may never be realized. Each disease we are able to eradicate is another huge step for humankind. ” • [Ends on the common value of wanting to eradicate diseases]

Concession • Agree with the validity of some of the readers’ objections or concerns • Acknowledge that your position does have possible weaknesses or disadvantages (i. e admit some) • Modify your position to accept readers’ concerns, incorporating some into your argument, but showing they are still not enough to make your position fail

Remember this? • Claim: “We shouldn’t elect Joe as committee chair because he is too bossy. ” • The unstated assumption there is that Bossy people make bad committee chairs or that bossy is not a good quality. • Another response would be to concede that Joe is bossy but then rebut the assumption that bossiness is a bad trait for committee chairs: “I agree that Joe is bossy, but in this circumstance bossiness is just the trait we need. The committee hasn’t gotten anything done for six months and time is running out. We need a decisive person who can come in, get the committee organized, assign tasks, and get the job done. Joe can do that and we will be finished with the committee soon. ” • Or you could concede that Joe is bossy and not the perfect committee chair, admitting that you would prefer someone else, but then show the only other candidate running is worse.

Example • “To be sure, egalitarianism has its limits. The ease and economy of sending email, especially to multiple recipients, makes us all vulnerable to any bore, loony, or commercial or political salesman who can get our email address. It’s still a lot less intrusive than the telephone, since you can read answer or ignore email at your own convenience. But as normal people’s email starts mounting in the hundreds daily, filtering mechanisms and conventions of etiquette that are still in their primitive stage will be desperately needed. • Another supposed disadvantage of email is that is discourages face-to-face communication. At Microsoft, where people routinely send email back and forth all day to the person in the next office, this is certainly true…” • Michael Kinsley, “Email Culture”

Qualifying Language • The language of certainty (always, never, all, none, the best, the worst, absolutely, etc) often promises too much in claims or other parts of argument. • Therefore, it’s better to qualify your claims by including limitations, being precise (most, few, some, possibly/probably, may be), and avoiding the extreme language. • It’s good to avoid emotionally charged language throughout the essay if possible. Watch how you describe and refer to things (terrorist vs. freedom fighter, pro-life vs. anti-choice). Be precise and intentional. Language matters and can affect your audience. Consider if the way you describe something

Example • Claim: “All immigrants should be allowed to come into the United States because immigration has always benefited the U. S. economy in the past. ” • Qualified claim: “Immigrants should be allowed to enter the United States only if they can prove that they already have jobs yielding sufficient income to offset social services and that no American citizens are currently available to perform these jobs. Immigration has, in most circumstances throughout U. S. history, enhanced the economy and culture rather than burdened it. ”

Other Strategies To Increase Receptivity of Hostile Audience • Describe the other person in positive and complementary terms • Give a delayed thesis (at end rather than up front) if your audience is very resistant. This can create more sympathy rather than distance between writer and other side, give greater complexity and surprised, and prompts interest and open mind in other side. • Transition positively from their position or objections to yours (try not to set it up as a movement from wrong to right)

Example • While censorship is dangerous to a free society, some of the concerned citizens who are in favor of censorship may have valid points when they object that children should not be exposed to television violence. [Here I have made a concession and anticipated an objection in one sentence. ] Indeed, often there is too much violence on television [Again, a concession, a point of agreement. ] Perhaps the answer is for all networks to establish the same guidelines of self-censorship. [Here I offer a partial solution most can agree on. ] If the networks were more responsible and tried to avoid material that is in poor taste, governmental officials, religious groups, and concerned parents might not feel the need to be involved in their decisions at all. • Notice that in the above paragraph I did not call the opposition "ridiculous" or "absurd, " which would automatically antagonize them. I called them "concerned citizens" because from their point of view, that's exactly what they are. I validated what they value.

Common Ground • To find possible common ground (something both of you agree on), try looking for and the comparing the following things: 1. Your and their motives, goals and priorities (why is this position important to them? What has led them to believe it? What do they hope comes out of such an issue? What is more important or urgent to them? ) 2. Your and their assumptions (the unspoken truths linking claim and reason) 3. Your and their ideas and ideals (like ideas about democracy, that every adult has the write to vote) 4. Your and their values (moral, ethical, religious principles, things that are thought to be important; examples are justice, fairness, etc) 5. Your and their fears and concerns (like safety, abuse of power, consequences of action not taken, etc) 6. Your and their needs, interests, desires (like respect or privacy)

Principles • Here are some principles/values that, if you believe, would certainly influence your position on various issues: – Criminals should be punished. (This may be the reason why you support harsher penalties. ) – Hard work is virtuous. (This may be why you think standards should be raised in schools. ) – Teachers are one of the most important professions in society. (This may be why you want to the states to increase teacher pay. )

Value Conflicts • Loyalty vs. Honesty: Should you tell your parents about your sister’s drug habits? • Freedom of Press/Transparency vs. Natl Security/Order: Is it wise to hold weekly presidential press conferences? • Equality vs. Individualism: Are racial quotas for employment fair? • Security vs. Excitement: Should you choose a dangerous profession? • Generosity vs. Material Success: Is it desirable to give financial help to a beggar? • Rationality vs. Spontaneity: Should you check the odds before placing a bet?

Example • Kate and Phillip disagree about how to stop random shooters. • Kate advocates that private citizens should arm themselves with handguns as deterrents to shooters. • Phillip believes that the availability of handguns is the problem and advocates that private gun ownership be abolished. • Common ground exists between the two people because of their common concern for personal safety. They both value safety, and they also share the goal of trying to reduce unnecessary violence and innocent deaths. • One could emphasize this common ground before proposing a solution that takes both of their original positions into account. Perhaps there is a compromise. If not, there has still been conversation rather than fighting.

Example • Environmentalists, who typically want to protect the environment at all costs, often find themselves in opposition to individuals who make their living by exploiting the environment (loggers, ranchers, mill owners, etc). • Individuals from both groups, stereotyped as “nature haters” and “eco freaks” by the press, met in Idaho to discuss efforts for protecting endangered wildlife in the area. • One of the environmentalists said, “We found out that we didn’t hate each other. Turns out, we all like to do a lot of the same things. We love the outdoors. ” • They discovered common ground over their love for the environment and outdoor activity and were able to better dialogue about how to use its resources while also protecting it.

Example “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” by Andrew Sullivan (2003) • How does his language reflect Rogerian techniques?

• How does Sullivan build respect? Draw the opposition in? Seek common ground?

Practice • http: //thedailyshow. cc. com/videos/ek 24 hi/ji m-demint • In this clip from The Daily Show, John Stewart debates South Carolina Sen. Jim De. Mint (R). • Identify the places where Stewart tries to bring their opposing viewpoints together. • Identify some of the strategies he uses to deemphasize difference and find common ground.

Practice Rogerian • You and your partner disagree with Nicholas Kristoff’s position on sweatshop labor. • Practice finding common ground between his and your position. • If you were to respond to him in a Rogerian way, lay out some specific ways (referencing his article and position, and yours).

Sweatshop Labor Issue http: //www. nytimes. com/video/world/asia/100000002231544/madein-bangladesh. html 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. What specifically are Kristoff and Dewan disagreeing on? What aspects of sweatshop labor? With what kinds of claims or stasis questions do they differ? What methods of rebuttal does Dewan use? Does she use any concession? Does she fairly summarize Kristoff’s argument? Whose argument do you find more compelling, and why? How does Singh’s video factor into the debate and conversation? What perspective does his video offer? What did you previously know about this issue? Did you consider it a problem before? What is your personal opinion on this issue? Why?

Interesting Examples • Letters that show both rebuttal and rogerian techniques: • http: //www. utilitarian. net/singer/interviewsdebates/200106 --. htm • Thomas and Beckel’s columns: • http: //usatoday 30. usatoday. com/news/opinio n/Common-Ground-columns. htm

Sources • Writing Arguments by Ramage, Bean, and Johnson • Perspectives on Argument by Wood • St. Martin’s Guide to Writing by Axelrod and Cooper