Rogerian Argument: A New Approach to Persuasion

When it comes to an argument, we tend to think in the context of winners and losers. Two opposing sides battle for victory and bragging rights, and in the end, someone inevitably comes out on top. Most people think that the point of an argument or debate is to convince the other side of your own perspective, thereby bringing your audience to your way of thinking.

This is not true of Rogerian Argument, which did not come about until the early 1970's but was influenced primarily by the philosophies of Carl Rogers. In this type of argument, the goal is to validate your own point of view by making concessions to the opposing side. In other words, you will mention the logical factors in the opposing viewpoint in addition to stating your own opinions.

In theory, this might seem like a radical contradiction of terms; after all, the basis for an argument is the disagreement between two people or parties. Why give the opponent ammunition when it is your turn to take the floor? If you think about it, you'll realize that you use this form of argument everyday without even realizing it.

For example, let's say that your boss wants to change a particular work policy, but you think that it will be detrimental to you and the other staff. You certainly can't just tell him that he's wrong - he is your superior - but you can work it by coming in through the back door. You tell him that you understand why he wants to make this policy change, and as an opener to your defense, you state the reasons why it would be a positive modification. Then, to refute what you have just said, you give points about the inevitable negative effects to the staff.

Voi La! Rogerian Argument!

Typically, however, Rogerian Argument is a written form of debate. Persuasive papers are often written using this formula in order to gain sympathy from the opposing side. It is less confrontational and usually will result in a more productive outcome. In the above situation, you warmed your boss to your opinions by making certain concessions to his point of view. Then, when you were ready to make your counter attack, he was less inclined to dismiss your thoughts.

Traditional argument is based on the use of Aristotle's three artistic proofs: lagos, ethos, and pathos. Lagos appeals to the reason and logic of the reader; ethos appeals to the audience's sense of character; and pathos appeals to the emotional capacity of the audience. These three proofs are used in varying capacity depending on the goals of the writer.

Rogerian Argument uses pathos and ethos in large amounts, but typically abandons the use of logos. Your goal is to appeal to the morals, values, and emotions of your audience, not to convince them using logical deductions.

For the convenience of novices, there are formulas for writing in Rogerian form, though the specific order of your paper is only of mild importance. I feel that Rogerian argument is much more effective if tailored to the subject on which you are writing. Formulaic writing is boring and relieves you of any creative license. However, I will write out the formula here to give you an idea of how it is done.

Introduction

This is where you introduce the subject. You can mention both sides of the argument here, but don't state your opinions just yet. Merely illustrate the debate using colorful language and vivid phrases that will involve your reader from the very beginning. This will probably be two - four paragraphs, but I will write a very short example to give you an idea:

For years, politicians have been avidly debating the subject of the death penalty, which has only served to create more divisions within our society. It is an extremely sensitive subject, and one that inspires strong emotions in both directions. Like abortion, gun laws, and the war on terrorism, capital punishment is an issue upon which everyone is never likely to agree.

If you'll notice, you can't tell how I feel about the death penalty by reading the above paragraph. I let my audience know the subject: capital punishment; the sides: for and against; and the subject matter: sensitive. Other than that, the audience has no idea what will follow in subsequent paragraphs.

Concession

Without actually saying that you are conceding to the opposition, begin laying out the valid points of the side with which you do not agree. Sarcasm and pointed remarks have no place here; you are making a respectful and sensitive acknowledgement to the sound logic of the competition. I've illustrated an example below, in continuance of the capital punishment model.

The friends and families of those victimized by murderers and rapists deserve to see justice served. They should rest easy in the comfort that their loved one's suffering was not in vain, and that their untimely end resulted in the capturing of an evil human being. The prisons in this country spend millions of dollars each year in the housing of violent inmates, criminals who do not deserve to go on breathing when so many of their victims are not.

It is not difficult to understand the pain that these people are going through, and the revenge that they hope to seek on the criminal. It is equally as comprehensible that FBI agents, police officers, and military personnel would want to see violent criminals put to death following the harrowing investigations that lead to their capture. Often, law enforcement officers are as invested in their cases as the families who have been affected by them

In the above paragraphs, I led into a consensus of the reasons why capital punishment is acceptable in society. I didn't poke fun at that point of view, and I didn't demean it in any way. No matter how strongly you feel about the subject at hand, you must realize and comment upon the logical reasoning of the opposition. Believe me, it exists.

Transition

This is the most difficult portion of the entire portion, and must be handled with care. You will probably write it over and over again, making sure that it is exactly right, because this is the point at which your reader will either decide to continue with the paper or put it down. If you offend, alienate, or otherwise upset your reader, then you will lose them for good.

Consider your audience. Your reader will fall into one of three categories: Hostile, Sympathetic, and Fence-Straddlers. The Hostile audience is the most likely to reject your opinions and toss your paper in the garbage can; the Sympathetic audience will be in agreement with you, and your paper is serving to justify their beliefs; and the Fence-Straddlers will be inclined to go in either direction, not having made up their minds.

A Hostile audience will be the most difficult for whom to write, because you have to be careful in how you present your ideas. I will use a Hostile audience as my target for the following example:

Pain, anger, and extreme sadness are three viable and intense emotions. They sway our judgement and render us incapable of making reasonable decisions. No matter how badly we want to exact justice upon those who kill and rape, we have to take into context the consequences of our decisions. I, too, am horrified by the pain inflicted by serial criminals who have no regard for morality or kindness.

Is it possible that the criminal is suffering from psychological illness? Is there even the slimmest possibility that he has been falsely convicted? And will judicial homicide make the victims, the families, and the law enforcement officers less devastated by the tragedy?

I have taken the concession and turned it around on the opposition without offending them. In the beginning, I revalidated their emotions and their concerns (using pathos) and established myself as a concerned party (using ethos). In this case, logos plays a role as well, because I ask questions geared toward the possibility of mistakes.

Questions are excellent insertions into the transition period of a Rogerian piece. It inspires thoughts that the reader might not have originally considered, and implores your audience to consider alternative possibilities. This is especially effective when speaking to a Hostile audience because you are counting on their consideration of your plight.

Contention

This is where you begin to build your own case. You have taken your reader through a consideration of the opposing perspective, and then begun to transition them into a plea from your perspective. This doesn't mean that you should become forceful about your opinions; the purpose of Rogerian Argument is to remain objective and sensitive throughout. Just because you held your reader's attention through the first three phases doesn't mean that they won't stop reading once you change to the contention. Never offend of demoralize your audience; it will defeat the entire purpose.

The trick here is to state your opinion while still remaining empathetic to the opposition. Stake your claims boldly, and with conviction, but not at the expense of your concession. Write as though you were imploring a friend to understand why you hurt or betrayed them; don't grovel, but don't get angry either. Here is an example of the contention for the capital punishment argument.

Every year, more and more inmates are released from prison when forensic evidence proves their innocence. Approximately ten percent of these inmates were sitting on death row when the evidence was discovered. Imagine if they had been administered the final needle just a few months earlier; they would have died for no reason, at the hands of a world who unjustly sentenced them. This isn't to say that there aren't guilty prisoners, but the possibility does exist that some inmates are innocent.

There is also the case for the executioner. For someone to be put to death, another must administer the final injection. Do we really want to maintain a society where someone - anyone - is capable of murdering another human being? It is true, the criminal who murders or rapes gives up his rights as soon as another life has ended, but do we want doctors and law enforcement officers to be comfortable with ending another's life?

Notice that I continued to make concessions throughout the contention segment. I completely committed to my views on the subject, but I let my reader know that I understood their feelings. I also continued to employ the use of questions in my writing. This helps to make my opinions known without stating them directly; rather, I am asking the audience to ponder the possibility.

Conclusion

At the end of your piece, once all of your arguments are laid out just so, return to the beginning in a final word. Succinctly sum up the points you have made - without repeating yourself - and give the reader a few parting thoughts. For example...

The pros and cons for capital punishment are diverse and many-faceted. It is no wonder that debates abound as to the morality, decency, and necessity of the death penalty. Such tactics are firmly rooted in human history, dating back to Biblical times when stonings and hangings were commonplace for even the smallest infringements. To break that cycle might be beyond human capacity, and might serve as an invitation for criminals to continue their evil work. However, I believe that the negative aspects far outweigh the positive ones, and I hope that eventually, we are able to strip our need for capital punishment.

The conclusion doesn't have to be long or drawn out; in fact, the shorter, the better because you want to leave the meat of your argument in your readers' minds.

Rogerian Argument is extremely effective if used correctly. It can be a tool for persuasion, or just for presenting all sides of an argument. In fact, I often use it myself when trying to work out my feelings on a particular subject. Often, if you write out all of the possibilities on a topic, you can gain a more acute understanding of how you think and feel.