Many people think of argumentation and debate as a win or lose scenario. You either persuade someone to adopt your views, or you fail. But this view overlooks the reality of discourse. Often, it’s impossible to persuade someone completely. Instead, effective communicators look for common ground between people who disagree and try to work out compromises.
The term “Rogerian” argument refers to a set of principles developed by the psychologist Carl Rogers in the 1950s. According to Rogers, people make a big mistake when they form assumptions and judgments about someone or their beliefs even before they begin a dialogue.
The goal of argument and debate doesn’t always involve a clear winner or loser. More often, all sides should seek a clearer understanding of their opponents’ views.Furthermore, complicated issues involve more than two sides. Multiple groups with different perspectives can evolve over time, some of them more opposed than others.
Think about any problem you’ve faced in your own life. You might have sought out advice from three or four different people. Each of them probably offered a set of unique outlooks and solutions.
The Rogerian strategy doesn’t mean you simply listen to someone’s point of view in order to pick apart their weaknesses or flaws. Rogerian argument requires an earnest effort to find points of agreement between yourself and others you disagree with. Your argument then becomes a matter of articulating and explaining those areas of common understanding and shared insight.
Entire articles can be written using the Rogerian style of argument. Even more overtly persuasive papers can show elements of it, when they seek to articulate commonalities among prior studies on a problem. Researchers usually identify a number of disputes in their field on a specific issue, and then they work through them to offer a new perspective that reconciles them.
These kinds of articles often contribute a great deal to the conversations and help research move forward. The authors of these kinds of articles don’t critique their opponents so much as they emphasizes the value in many different stances and try to synthesize them for everyone’s benefit.
We see lots of issues today that would benefit from a Rogerian approach such as abortion, gun violence, immigration. In all these cases, the various sides have focused a great deal of attention on their disagreements. They present stereotypes of each other while dismissing valid points and engaging in only the most hostile and acidic kinds of arguments.
Take any of these issues, and you can find places where the various sides agree. For example, both “pro life” and “pro choice” advocates acknowledge a need to reduce unwanted pregnancies through improvements in education and contraceptives. This point used to serve as an area where people worked together despite their differences, though less so now.
Rogerian argument calls for a less aggressive tone, both in speech and in writing. When you take a Rogerian stance, it’s important to avoid negative language and insults–either direct or implied. You should take time to summarize and paraphrase opposing information in a way that shows respect and courtesy towards alternative views. Doing so puts your readers or dialogue partners into a healthier and more open frame of mind.
When explaining your own views, you would concentrate on claims and evidence that most closely align with opponents. You may downplay or minimize claims and views you hold that seem irreconcilable. The goal becomes explaining your ideas in a way that aligns with someone who may not share the same background, ethics, religion, or overall worldview as you do. Here are some strategies that can help:
- When reading articles that make arguments counter to your own, read once without annotating at all. Write a loose paragraph explaining your reaction.
- Add a paragraph about what irritates you about this person’s worldview. What biases or stereotypes might you be holding against this person?
- Read the article again. This time, look for signs that this person may not fit those stereotypes.
- Highlight or annotate passages where the author makes claims you find reasonable. Write what you still find troubling about their stance.
- Make a list of 5-8 views on this subject that you think conflict with what you just read. Rank them from most to least opposed.
- Brainstorm on how you could explain some of your views that appear less opposed to what the author asserts.
Rogerian argument can open up new paths for your research and writing that you didn’t know existed beforehand. We often think we know our own values and beliefs, but it’s important to continually examine and reflect on them. There’s nothing wrong with altering your own position based on new information. In fact, the best writers and researchers do exactly that. Likewise, you make your own arguments more productive and audience-friendly when you present them in an open way. You’ll find this method useful regardless of the career path you take. There are always plenty of people willing to disagree with your ideas, about almost everything. Knowing how to facilitate a debate will earn respect from your peers and coworkers.
You can read more about Rogerian argumentation in an article by Joe Moxley at the Writing Commons.