User:LeoParrott/Rogerian argument

Origin: Response on talk: Hello, your point that I’m just restating the same information is valid. However, my goal is not to change the information, but to format it in a way that flows better for the reader. When I first read the origin as a reader (before being assigned this topic) I felt like the first sentence was lengthy. It was a lot of information that was being presented in one sentence, which may cause the reader to become overwhelmed. I thought that seperating it into more than one sentence. I believe that what the original author wrote is factual and is important; that is why I am keeping the same information but presenting it differently.

In the study and teaching of rhetoric and argumentation, the term Rogerian argument was popularized in the 1970s and 1980s Scholars began to notice how effective Rogers’ method was and implemented it in their various fields. Anatol Rapoport used Roger's ideas in his peace activism movement. Professors Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike used the foundational theory of Rogers and adapted it to be used for rhetorical use. Young, Becker, and Pike explained this newly adapted theory in a book they wrote in the 1970s. The book was titled, Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. After this book was published, the term Rogerian Argument became popular and other rhetoric scholars such as Maxine Hairston began to write articles and books about this emerging topic.

In-Practice section:

When using such techniques, it’s important for audiences to understand them empathetically. In other words, to stand in the shoes of another and see the world from their vantage point.
 * 1) One should start a Rogerian Argument explaining how the issue affects both their own and the opponent's position without any criticism or bias.
 * 2) Then, describe the opposing view with context. The goal of a Rogerian Argument is to reduce threats, which paves the way for reasonable discussion. To do this, one must show that the opponent's position is understood.
 * 3) The arguer should simply explain what reasons they have for choosing their side by using common ideas and beliefs to persuade their reader or opponent to step in the opposite viewpoint.
 * 4) Finally, they should find common ground on what they and their opponent can negotiate on.

Andrew, I took a closer look at what the Wikipedian said on the Talk Page, and I am afraid that I agree with them. The list of "In Practice" steps is a series of direct quotations from Young, Becker, and Pike's textbook. I'm sorry I did not catch this earlier, but I cannot support you paraphrasing direct quotes here because the words they used are a really important part of the history of this term. The other editor's suggestion is that you add to the section by summarizing how the textbook The Informed Argument differs from the other textbooks summarized in the "In Practice" section. I'm not sure how you can get your hands on this textbook during Covid, but when we meet, let's talk about what you can do. For now, I think it is best to go onto the Talk Page and agree not to change the list of 4 items from Young, Becker, and Pike. Cathygaborusf (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Limitations:

Scholars debating Rogerian argument often note limitations in regards to the validity of anger, as well as its usefulness in spaces, such as war or the Judiciary, where such emotions cannot be beneficially or fairly utilized. Spaces that advocate for marginalized communities, such as the Feminist movement, also acknowledge how neutralizing an argument is considered comparable to being silenced, stating that Rogerian rhetoric often denies the importance of feelings or morals inherent to certain arguments.

(Vietnam War)

Young, Becker, and also Pike pointed out in 1970 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 1984 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.

(In feminist theory)

Third party mediation / New approaches

Young noted in 1992 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. The way Rogerian argument had been taught in rhetoric textbooks may be effective for some situations, Young said, but is unlikely to work between two parties in the kind of situation when they need it most, when they are most intractably opposed. Young suggested that third-party mediation, suggested by Rogers himself in 1951, may be most promising in that kind of situation.

COMEBACK:

The Reliable Source Wikipedia page states "The Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Byron Hawk's paper was reviewed in a "double blind peer reviewed" process by the Conference on College Composition and Communication, a reputable organization that sponsors and conducts research, creates collaborative spaces, develops evidence and practice based resources, and advocates for educators, students and programs that support effective teaching and learning. Hawk's paper qualifies as a reliable source based on the application process and subsequent approval of his paper for presentation at the conference.

Hawk's work was also cited in a published book "Resources in Education, Volume 33, Issue 11" by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education in 1998. In this publication, Hawk's work was included as a resource for Reading, English, and Communication.

Maybe leave out:

Although Hawk's presentation at the Conference on College Composition and Communication is not accessible via the internet, an archived copy of the presentation may be in the possession of the organization.

https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc-about/

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education. (1998). Resources in Education, Volume 33, Issue 11 https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QafQS28pfTA8tm3p48GWLeaYyLzMz7QKP36aYV8eGJgLOYSWrJhnOH2WbVWebRLy2nlybYWomQ2u1r0L6VD35AZ5_7lIsvwLw_AWg_zcnlCG0Pr0pWXEUxhQQG2ItILqCgF2dB1KLmnJ605lMhASs7Sru2cczXv3-7-PgRDoEMFVUvNkehojIxImYE9UKCGVz_kAtHPTmenbUXqBlIfwN0ZXZ3-j0-X2AQo1nx0X3PCmut611ZlpkRXpBIueiXwmBxGIs_PD

REVISED PARAGRAPH:

In a paper published in 1998, author and professor Byron Hawk asserts that the Rogerian method of argumentation is limited by one's ability to seek “true” identification, and instead functions as an inventive way to construct ethos. Hawk makes the point that the goal of using empathy to seek genuine understanding is futile because he believes that one’s understanding is ultimately tied to a projection of ourselves. To demonstrate this point and remedy this limitation, Hawk constructed a group writing assignment for a class using a modified version of Young, Becker, and Pike's approach. The students are put into groups of three, where two of the students are assigned as opposing sides, and one designated as a mediator. They proceed to construct a collaborative text while following the four stages of Rogerian format. The project involves face to face discussions, electronic discussions and writing, and ends in a group revision of the text. The group project's main objective was not to negotiate an issue, but to work together and find common ground on the topic. Hawk's application serves as an example of the possibilities that exist within new approaches to Rogerian Argument.

Consider leaving out:

Hawk argues that when removing the "seduction" of proving the other wrong, winning a debate, or even the “will to produce,” for example, then the Rogerian method of argumentation can take on a new form of imaginative rhetoric.

Benefits:

Despite how scholars note that Rogerian argument can give power to oppressive viewpoints, and that it's uses are often irrelevant such as is seen with the Vietnam War, according to Renea Frey, individuals such as Booth, Ratcliffe, Ong, Casaregeola also claim that Rogerian rhetoric helps to build upon and support the "inherent human need to be heard, acknowledged, and understood."

It is also noted by Frey that Rogerian argument, when practiced through Mindfulness, gives individuals the tools needed for reaching wider and more diverse audiences, even providing arguers with conscious ways of connecting with the audiences who are insistent on rejecting outside perspectives, whether that be through "ethics and compassion," or "mutually beneficial solutions."

Frey's Regard:

In multiple studies done with her students, Frey suggests the importance of listening rhetoric, a concept based on Rogers' teachings of empathy that is meant to highlight the benefits of widening one's viewpoint to extend to the opponent. She discusses how common intellectual thinking creates a divide between the arguer and their audience, and how "connecting empathetically" allows for a broader sense of awareness, therefore also promoting stronger assertions.

She argues that through applying Rogerian tactics and mindful listening practices, when an individual has an understanding of what causes opponents to view ideas in different perspectives, they are better able to create arguments that not only benefit both sides, but reach wider and more diverse audiences. Enforcing arguments does little for mutually beneficial communication, whereas listening provides overwhelmingly positive results when compared to the "desire to master, outwit, or rebut," as well as fulfills our natural need for understanding.

In the activities done with her students, Frey suggests that conflict between arguers, especially when their opinions oppose, often stems from misunderstanding, lack of education, or apathy, and should be recognized as a way to provide greater insight into how one can reach these obstacles. It is with this understanding that arguers can then strengthen their ideas, as well as listen to the other side, recognizing Brown's concept of how "acknowledging" is different from both "approving" and "agreeing," and creating an environment intended for success.

The #Rhetoric of Waleed Aly’s “Send Forgiveness Viral”: Is Rogerian argumentation an appropriate response to racism?

Background for the below:

The Rogerian method flaws when used to argue racism. In 2016, Waleed Aly(a muslim, Australian Academic and media personality, white-washed) attempts to use Rogerian Argument to argue against muslim ban in Australia. However Aly argued on Social media which isn’t a proper discussion. The technique requires in person, not the use of twitter. You can’t assume people will be empathic on social media since being anonymous and detached makes it easier to not care. Aly also tells the victims(muslims) to forgive the others(racist people) by looking at their point of view. The others(racist people) are scared of muslims because of the their destruction in the past. Basically saying it’s okay for them to be racist. When in reality there had policies that alienate immigrants that remove them out sight out of mind. In this case his use of argumentation provided an excuse of those of racist viewpoints in owning the problem of racism. ANDREW, while you have some sense of the article here, this summary has some problems at the sentence level (some grammar and syntax errors) but more important, it has some comprehension problems. Paquet first introduces the limitations of Rogerian rhetoric (this is not an absolute -- she does not say it is always flawed, just limited) on page 153 where she mentions "power relations." Then, on page 155, she further spells out her claim about how Rogerian argument assumes both parties will have social power before empathizing with an opponent. I'm not sure you need to talk about this specific case, but you should certainly bring up her point that racial and religious minorities lack social power and therefore can be made to feel like they have to empathize with racists and Islamophobes. Work with Caitlin to integrate this into the other parts of the limitations section that already talk about gender. To be fair, Paquet does cite an example of of a social media campaign that did work in favor of Australian Muslims, but that was not based on Rogerian rhetoric. Cathygaborusf (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The Rogerian method flaws when used to argue racism. In 2016, Waleed Aly(a muslim, Australian Academic and media personality, white-washed) attempts to use Rogerian Argument to argue against muslim ban in Australia. However Aly argued on Social media which isn’t a proper discussion. The technique requires in person, not the use of twitter. You can’t assume people will be empathic on social media since being anonymous and detached makes it easier to not care. Aly also tells the victims(muslims) to forgive the others(racist people) by looking at their point of view. The others(racist people) are scared of muslims because of the their destruction in the past. Basically saying it’s okay for them to be racist. When in reality there had policies that alienate immigrants that remove them out sight out of mind. In this case his use of argumentation provided an excuse of those of racist viewpoints in owning the problem of racism.

Summary:

The component of empathy and rogerian argument was not effectively achieved given the social media platform chosen for discourse and often polarizing views of social media participants. The approach was not effective given the medium, power influencers, Aly’s position of power, and the power dynamics of Austria's historical policies, in addition to relinquishing ownership of the issue from the perpetrators, especially without instructions of its application. Australian scholar of rhetoric Lili Paquet claims that social media is not the most effective platform for Rogerian Augmentation because it divorces the speaker from the audience when empathy is a needed component of the approach.(insert citation and page number) (tranition and connection to Paquet)Social media often leads to polarized and impersonal discussions and also limits the amount of information that can be conveyed,(insert citation and page number) as with twitter. Further his approach places the ownership of change on victims ignoring Australia's history of anti-immigrant policies.