Name 1 Name; Professor; Course; Date; Rogerian Argument. Introduction. In order to build common ground and achieve an agreement, Rogerians use a negotiation technique in which common objectives are established and opposing viewpoints are represented as critically as possible. Rogerian rhetoric, Rogerian argumentation, Rogerian persuasion, and empathic listening are all terms used to describe Oct 01, · Rogerian argument is a negotiating strategy in which common goals are identified and opposing views are described as objectively as possible in an effort to establish common ground and reach an agreement. It is also known as Rogerian rhetoric, Rogerian argumentation, Rogerian persuasion, and empathic blogger.com by: Another approach our authors don't describe is called Rogerian argument. Based on Carl Rogers' work in psychology, Rogerian argument begins by assuming that a willing writer can find middle or common ground with a willing reader
What is Rogerian Argument? (Kiefer)
Rogerian argument or Rogerian rhetoric is a rhetorical and conflict resolution technique based on empathizing with others, a rogerian argument, seeking common a rogerian argument and mutual understanding and learninga rogerian argument, while avoiding the negative effects of extreme attitude polarization.
Sincerhetoricians have applied the a rogerian argument of Rogers—with contributions by Anatol Rapoport —to rhetoric and argumentationproducing Rogerian argument. A key principle of Rogerian argument is that, instead of advocating one's own position and trying to refute the other's position, one tries to state the other's position with as much care as one would have stated one's own position, emphasizing what is strong or valid in the other's argument.
Several scholars have criticized how Rogerian argument is taught. Already in the s Rapoport had noted some of the limitations of Rogerian argument, and other scholars identified other limitations in the following decades. In the study and teaching of rhetoric and argumentation, the term Rogerian argument was popularized in the s and s [6] [7] by the textbook Rhetoric: Discovery and Change [8] by the University of Michigan professors Richard E.
Young, a rogerian argument, Alton L. Beckerand Kenneth L. Pikewho borrowed the term Rogerianand related ideas, from another professor who was working, and doing peace activism, at the same university: [9] the game theorist and polymath Anatol Rapoport. Young, Becker, and Pike's textbook Rhetoric: Discovery and Change followed Rapoport's book Fights, Games, and Debates [11] in describing three ways of changing people that could be applied in debates: the Pavlovian strategy, the Freudian strategy, a rogerian argument, and the Rogerian strategy.
The Pavlovian strategy represents people "as a bundle of habits that can be shaped and controlled" by punishments and rewards. The Freudian strategy represents people as consciously espousing beliefs that are produced by unconscious or hidden motives that are unknown to them; changing people's beliefs—and changing any behaviors that are caused by those beliefs—requires revealing the hidden motives.
The Rogerian strategy represents people as usually trying to protect themselves from what they perceive to be threatening. Rapoport noted that Freudian psychoanalysts often diagnose people's defenses against what is perceived to be threateningsince such defenses can be among the hidden motives that the Freudian strategy tries to uncover.
A work by Carl Rogers that was especially influential in the formulation of Rogerian argument a rogerian argument his paper "Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation", [28] published in the same year as his book Client-Centered Therapy. One idea that Rogers emphasized several times in his paper that is not mentioned in textbook treatments of Rogerian argument is third-party intervention.
Rogerian argument is an application of Rogers' ideas about communication, taught by rhetoric teachers who were inspired by Rapoport, [6] [7] but Rogers' ideas about communication have also been applied somewhat differently by many others: for example, Marshall Rosenberg created nonviolent a rogerian argumenta process of conflict resolution and nonviolent living, after studying and working with Rogers, [37] and other writing teachers used some of Rogers' ideas in developing expressivist theories of writing, a rogerian argument.
There are different opinions about whether Rogerian rhetoric is like or unlike classical rhetoric from ancient Greece and Rome. Young, Becker, and Pike said that classical rhetoric and Rapoport's Pavlovian strategy and Freudian strategy all share the common goal of controlling or persuading someone else, but the Rogerian strategy has different assumptions about humanity and a different goal. English professor Andrea Lunsfordresponding to Young, Becker, a rogerian argument, and Pike in a article, argued that the three principles of Rogerian strategy that they borrowed from Rapoport could be found in various parts of Aristotle 's writings, and so were already in the classical tradition.
English professor Paul G. Bator argued in that Rogerian argument is more different from Aristotle's rhetoric than Lunsford had concluded. Professor of communication Douglas Brent said that Rogerian rhetoric is not the captatio benevolentiae securing of good will taught by Cicero and later by medieval rhetoricians.
By the end of the s, a rogerian argument, the term Rapoport debate [51] [52] was used to refer to what Anatol Rapoport called ethical debate[53] which is debate guided by Rapoport's Rogerian strategy.
Philosopher Daniel Dennettin his a rogerian argument Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinkingcalled these principles Rapoport's rules of debate, [54] a term that other authors have since adopted. Rapoport proposed three main principles of ethical debate: [27] [57] [58] [59]. Daniel Dennett 's version of Rapoport's rules, which Dennett considered to be "somewhat more portable and versatile", is:.
Dennett's other advice, in his presentation of Rapoport's rules, had more of an adversarial outlook than a Rogerian one: he said that some people "don't deserve such respectful attention" and that he found it to "be sheer joy to skewer and roast" such people. If there are somewhat hidden contradictions, a rogerian argument, you should carefully expose them to view—and then dump on them.
In a summary of Dennett's version of Rapoport's rules, Peter Boghossian and James A. Lindsay pointed out that an important part of how Rapoport's rules work is by modeling prosocial behavior : one party demonstrates respect and intellectual openness so that the other party can emulate those characteristics, which would be less likely to occur in intensely adversarial conditions.
English professor Michael Austin, in his book We Must Not Be Enemiespointed out the connection between Rapoport's three principles of ethical debate, published inand Rapoport's tit-for-tat algorithm that won political scientist Robert Axelrod 's repeated prisoner's dilemma computer tournaments around In the s, R.
Duncan Luce had introduced Rapoport to the prisoner's dilemma game, a rogerian argument, [76] a kind of non-zero-sum game. Rapoport proceeded to publish a landmark book of empirical psychological research using the game, followed by another book in on empirical research about seventy-eight 2 a rogerian argument 2 two-person non-zero-sum games.
Rapoport himself, in his discussion of the Rogerian strategy in Fights, Games, and Debatesconnected the ethics of debate to non-zero-sum games, a rogerian argument. Rapoport pointed out "that a rigorous examination of game-like conflict leads inevitably" to the examination of debates, because "strictly rigorous game theory when extrapolated to cover other than two-person zero-sum games" requires consideration of issues such as "communication theory, psychology, even ethics" that are beyond simple game-like rules.
Austin said that the characteristics that Rapoport programmed into the tit-for-tat algorithm are similar to Rapoport's three principles of ethical debate: both tit-for-tat and Rapoport's rules of debate are guidelines for producing a beneficial outcome in certain "non-zero-sum" situations, a rogerian argument. In oral communicationRogerian argument must be flexible because others can interject and show that one has failed to state their position and situation adequately, a rogerian argument, and then one must modify one's previous statements before continuing, resulting in an unpredictable sequence of conversation that is guided by the general principles of Rogerian strategy.
In written communication that addresses the reader, the use of Rogerian argument requires sufficient knowledge of the audience, through prior acquaintance or audience analysisa rogerian argument, to be able to present the reader's perspective accurately and respond to it appropriately.
The first two of Young, Becker, and Pike's four phases of written Rogerian argument are based on the first two of Rapoport's three principles of ethical debate, a rogerian argument. Maxine Hairston, in a section on "Rogerian or nonthreatening argument" in her textbook A Contemporary Rhetoricadvised that one "shouldn't start writing with a detailed plan in mind" but might start by making four lists: the other's concerns, one's own key points, anticipated problems, and points of agreement or common ground.
InRebecca Stephens built on Hairston's five "elements of the nonthreatening argument" to create a set of 23 questions that she called a Rogerian-based heuristic for rhetorical inventionintended to help students think in a Rogerian way while discovering ideas and arguments.
Lisa Edea a rogerian argument professor at Oregon State Universityargued in a article—referring especially to some of the ideas of Young, a rogerian argument, Becker, and Pike—that "Rogerian rhetoric is not Rogerian" but is instead a a rogerian argument of Carl Rogers' ideas.
Ede argued in that Young, Becker, and Pike's Rogerian rhetoric is weak compared to what she considered to be the "much more sophisticated" 20th-century rhetorics found in Kenneth Burke 's A Grammar of Motives and Chaïm Perelman 's The Realm of Rhetoric.
Young responded to Ede that he didn't know of any previous treatment in rhetorical theory of the kind of situation that Rogerian argument tries to address, where the techniques of the classical rhetorical tradition are likely to create or intensify extreme opposition, and where a deeper communication—of the kind that Rogers taught—is needed between and within people. We did not pay enough attention to the considerable variation in actual dyadic situations; and we a rogerian argument not see that both the use and the usefulness of Rogerian argument seem to vary as the situation varies.
The peculiarities of the particular situation affect, or should affect, the choices one makes in addressing it; not understanding this leads to inappropriate and ineffective a rogerian argument. In a paper that Anatol Rapoport wrote during, and in response to, the Vietnam Warhe noted that the Rogerian approach was mostly irrelevant to the task of opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War.
Young, Becker, and Pike pointed out in that Rogerian argument would be out of place in the typical mandated adversarial criminal procedures of the court system in the United States. Ede noted in that the rhetoric textbooks that discussed Rogerian argument dedicated only a few pages to it out of a total of hundreds of pages, so the Rogerian approach is only a small part of theories of rhetoric and argumentation, a rogerian argument.
In a article that combined ideas from feminist theorists and testimonies from women college students in the s, women's studies professor Phyllis Lassner identified some limitations of Rogerian argument from women's perspectives. Young noted in that one potential problem with Rogerian argument is that people need it most when they may be least inclined to use it: when mutual antagonistic feelings between two people are most intense. Conflict researchers such as Morton Deutsch and David W.
Johnsonciting the same publications by Rapoport and Rogers that inspired Rogerian rhetoric, used the term role reversal to refer to the presentation by one person to another person of the other person's position and vice versa. Negotiation expert William Ury said in his book The Third Side that role reversal as a formal rule of argumentation has been used at least since the Middle Ages in the Western world : "Another rule dates back at least as far as the Middle Ages, when theologians at the University of Paris used it to facilitate mutual understanding: One can speak only after one has repeated what the other side has said to that person's satisfaction.
Some rhetoric and composition textbooks that have a section about Rogerian argument, listed by date of first edition:. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For the ecogeographical principle, see Rapoport's rule. Argumentation theory § Types of dialogue Bohm Dialogue Cognitive bias modification Conflict continuum Conflict transformation Dialectical thinking Dialogue Dialogue mapping Epistemic humility Epistemic virtue Group dynamics Immunity to change Interpersonal communication Intergroup dialogue Peace psychology Philosophy of dialogue Reciprocal altruism Theories of rhetoric and composition pedagogy Thesis, a rogerian argument, antithesis, synthesis.
For in this state of sympathetic understanding, we recognize both the multiplicity of world-views and our freedom to choose among them—either to retain our old or take a new, a rogerian argument. More recently, certain strands of feminist rhetoric have created new interest in cooperative approaches, a rogerian argument.
In 'Beyond Argument in Feminist Composition,' for example, Catherine Lamb draws attention to negotiation theory a rogerian argument an important source of alternatives to competitive and confrontational rhetoric.
As Lamb explains: 'in both negotiation and mediation the goal has changed: it is no longer to win but to arrive at a solution in a just way that a rogerian argument acceptable to both sides' And Michael Gilbert has developed a related approach that he calls 'coalescent argumentation,' an approach that involves a 'joining a rogerian argument of divergent claims through 'recognition and exploration of opposing positions forming the basis for a mutual investigation of non-conflictual options' This view is similar to the key idea in negotiation theory especially the version presented in Roger Fisher and William A rogerian argument 's Getting to Yes that lying beneath people's 'positions' on issues are concerns and interests that represent what they care about most deeply.
Positions are often intractable. But by shifting the conversation to underlying interests, it's often possible to find common concerns and shared values, on the basis of which there may be grounds for discussion and, ultimately, a rogerian argument, agreement. Instead of promoting the adversarial relationship that traditional or classical argument typically sets up between reader and writer, Rogerian argument assumes that if reader and writer can both find common ground about a problem, they are more likely to find a solution to that problem.
Rogerian argument is especially dependent on audience analysis because the writer must present the reader's perspective clearly, accurately, and fairly. Young, Becker, and Pike were not the first a rogerian argument respond to this challenge.
In fact, they rely heavily in their discussion of Rogerian rhetoric on the work of Anatol Rapoport, who in Fights, a rogerian argument, Games, and Debateswhich they also quote in their text, attempts to apply Rogers' theories. It is Rapoport, for instance, who establishes the 'three methods of modifying images,' the Pavlovian, Freudian, and Rogerian, which appear a rogerian argument in Rhetoric: Discovery and Change as 'Rhetorical strategies and images of man. They came to Rogers through Anatol Rapoport's work in the area of conflict resolution.
According to RapoportRogerian principles provided a means 'to convey to the opponent the assurance that he has been understood, so as to reduce his anxiety on that account and to induce him to listen' From this, Young et al. developed a 'Rogerian strategy' of argument to apply especially 'in those dyadic situations that involve strong values and beliefs,' in which traditional argument 'tends to be ineffective, a rogerian argument.
inwhere he was one of the first three faculty members of the Mental Health Research Institute MHRI in the Department of Psychiatry. At the University of Michigan, Rapoport shifted the focus of his research to war and peace, conflict, and conflict resolution.
He a rogerian argument himself to what he called a rogerian argument three arms of the peace movement : peace researchpeace educationand peace activism.
Rapoport made seminal contributions to game theory and published multiple books, including Fights, Games, and Debates Rapoport engaged not only in teaching and research, but also in peace activism Associated with the first trend are terms such as behaviorismobjectiveexperimentala rogerian argument, impersonallogical-positivisticoperationallaboratory, a rogerian argument.
Associated with the second current are terms such as FreudianNeo-Freudianpsychoanalytica rogerian argument, psychology of the unconsciousinstinctualego-psychologyid-psychologydynamic psychology. Associated with the third are terms such as phenomenologicalexistentialself-theoryself-actualizationhealth-and-growth psychologybeing and becomingscience of inner experience.
xiii, We have found this very effective in small groups in which contradictory or antagonistic attitudes exist. This procedure has important characteristics. It can be initiated by one party, without waiting for the other to be ready.
It can even be initiated by a neutral third person, providing he can gain a minimum of cooperation from one of the parties. Baumlin and Tita French Baumlin, "Rogerian and Platonic dialogue in—and beyond—the writing classroom", in Teichpp.
please recall again the Hovland experiments, and also the rather large number of other experiments that bring out, in one way or another, the desirability of discovering common ground if conflict is to be resolved. For instance, there are the experiments of Blake and Mouton on a rogerian argument each side in a controversy ordinarily underestimates the amount of common ground that actually exists between its own position and that of its adversary. There is all the a rogerian argument on the non-zero-sum game, and the need to keep the players on both sides from treating a non -zero-sum game, in which the adversaries actually share some common interests, as if it were a zero-sum game in which loss for one side always means gain for the other.
There is the so-called Rapoport Debate actually originated by Carl Rogers, apparentlyin which neither side is permitted to argue for its position until it has stated, to the other side's satisfaction, what the other side is trying to establish. One conceivable test of this ability, and yet a difficult test, applies 'the Rapoport debate' after its inventor, Anatol Rapoport, This procedure requires disputants to repeat accurately their opponents' arguments before they present their own counter-arguments.
Traditional Vs Rogerian Argumentation Style
, time: 3:04Rogerian Argument: Historical Perspective, Definition, & Examples
Rogerian arguments form argumentative reasoning that aims to focus on a compromise and base common ground between parties with opposing goals. Psychotherapist Carl Rogers established the aforementioned arguments which are named Rogerian rhetoric. The Rogerian argument was adjusted to rhetoric by Alton L. Becker, Richard E. Young, and Kenneth L. Pike's writing scholars Oct 01, · Rogerian argument is a negotiating strategy in which common goals are identified and opposing views are described as objectively as possible in an effort to establish common ground and reach an agreement. It is also known as Rogerian rhetoric, Rogerian argumentation, Rogerian persuasion, and empathic blogger.com by: Another approach our authors don't describe is called Rogerian argument. Based on Carl Rogers' work in psychology, Rogerian argument begins by assuming that a willing writer can find middle or common ground with a willing reader
No comments:
Post a Comment