The Rogerian Proposal
Chapter 6: Using The Rogerian Method Of Argumentation
Introduction
This lesson introduces and explains the Rogerian strategy for writing essays, one
which attempts to persuade while stressing understanding and common ground. We often
think of debates in terms of pros and cons or like a court trial that emphasizes the
competition of two sides in the presentation of their arguments. The classical and Toulmin
argumentation strategies typically seek to win a debate through the presentation of a
persuasive argument.
However, many issues do not have a clear right or wrong side to them. Even if they
do, persuading an audience on the other side is difficult if not impossible if their side is
presented as the wrong one. Imagine, for instance, two spouses debating where to go for a
vacation. There is no right or wrong choice, and depicting one side or the other as such will
not be a very effective way to persuade the other spouse.
In 1951, Carl Rogers, a psychologist, put forth the theory that the primary reason
people had difficulty in resolving disputes is that the people were constantly evaluating each
other. The more deeply-held or emotional a belief, the more a person would be seeking to
judge and discredit another person’s opposing statements, the result being a failure to truly
hear or understand those statements. Roger proposed as the solution first to try to
understand the other side and then to negotiate together to reach a consensus.
The Rogerian strategy of argumentation does not seek to win a debate but instead
seeks to find a win-win outcome. The purpose of Rogerian argumentation is to use common
ground to reach a consensus. Essentially, the Rogerian strategy is not arguing in support of
one side of an issue but acting as a mediator between two sides, seeking to negotiate to
find a common ground acceptable to both.
The Rogerian strategy is most effective for those issues that are highly emotional,
including many social and political problems, such as capital punishment, abortion, torture,
and many more. Such issues have few simple solutions to them, and asserting or implying
that the solution or answer is clear or obvious will actually make the argument seem biased
and less persuasive. Generally, people do not want to be told that a value or belief they hold
dear is just plain wrong.
The Rogerian strategy seeks to lessen the threatening aspect of the argument by
emphasizing the value of the opposition’s side and motivations. People tend to respond
similarly to how they are treated, so if an argument doesn’t seem to be attacking the other
side, the readers on the other side are less likely to be as critical in their attack on the
argument they are reading. The Rogerian strategy encourages the audience to be more open
to the argument being made because the writer has already demonstrated openness and
respect for the arguments on the other side of the issue.
The very idea that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion demonstrates the
need for Rogerian strategies of argumentation. The Rogerian strategy forces the writer to
consider the possibility that his or her side may not be absolutely right. In other words,
knowing that the argument is only the writer’s opinion, the writer asserts that this opinion is
a right one to have on the matter, if not the only right one, and seeks to persuade the
audience also to accept the possibility that the writer’s opinion is a right one, if not the only
right one. The following sections will help you better understand the process of creating a
Rogerian argument.
Organization
The Rogerian strategy assumes that the audience will be highly critical if not outright
hostile to the argument being presented. Readers with differing opinions from what they are
reading tend to be contentious, immediately challenging each and every assertion that they
find objectionable. Of course, readers should be critical in this way, but they should also be
open to the possibility of changing their minds.
The Rogerian strategy seeks to lead the reader gently to the conclusion of the
argument. Thus, the thesis is typically not explicitly stated in the introduction paragraph
where the reader might see it and immediately become defensive while reading the
following paragraphs. Instead, the Rogerian strategy begins objectively by stating the
problem and then appeals to the audience further by showing the benefits of the opposing
side. Only then are the reasons in support of the argument described, but before the
audience can become defensive, the common ground and higher interest that benefit both
sides are emphasized.
The Rogerian strategy will typically follow this pattern:
1.? Describe the problem
2.? Show understanding and value of opposing views
3.? Assert position
4.? Demonstrate common ground or higher interest
For example, look at the table below. This illustrates a discussion between two spouses
deciding where to go on vacation. One spouse seeks to persuade the other that Galveston is
a better vacation destination than Denver. The Rogerian argument might be organized like
this:
165 Effectiveness in Writing
Table 6.1: Rogerian Structure of a Spousal Vacation Discussion.
Parts of Rogerian
Structure
Example of the Part Part Explained
Describe the
Problem
Both trips cost roughly the
same, but we have enough
money in our savings for one.
You want to go hiking in the
mountains, which will require a
plane trip to Denver. I want to
visit family in Galveston, which
would be a ten-hour drive.
The problem has
objectively been
stated, focusing
only on the facts of
both trips.
Show
Understanding
and Value of
Opposing Views
The mountains are beautiful
this time of year, and we
haven’t been hiking in a long
time, so it would be great to get
that kind of exercise. It would
also be nice to be alone
together for the vacation.
Appreciation is
demonstrated for
the value of a trip
to Denver for its
beauty, exercise,
and alone time.
Assert Position I haven’t seen my family in a
few years, and my father is
getting on in age, so I don’t
know how many more chances
we’ll have to see him. We
would have time to visit the
beaches too.
Reasons
supporting a trip to
Galveston are
presented.
Demonstrate
Common Ground
or Higher Interest
We could take some nice hikes
on the beach, so we could have
some great opportunities for
exercise. We could also do
some camping for a day or two
to get some alone time or take
a few day trips to Houston. I
don’t know if I’ll get another
chance to see my family either.
Common ground is
demonstrated by
mentioning the
beauty of the
beaches, exercise
possibilities, and
the option for alone
time (the same
reasons given for
the trip to Denver).
The higher interest
of valuing family is
noted as well.
Note, that the Rogerian strategy emphasizes “common ground”, which is distinct from
“middle ground” argumentation strategy, which emphasizes finding a compromise where
both sides have to give a little. For instance, a middle ground argument using this example
might be to suggest that the trip be split with one week in Denver and one week in
Galveston or to suggest that the trips be taken separately. (See the discussion of developing
a middle ground argument in Lesson 8.)
Describe the Problem
The introduction section of a Rogerian essay presents the problem in a fair and
objective way, often pointing out how everyone (the writer and reader) are affected by the
issue and should want to reach a resolution. Why is the issue significant? Why does it need
to be resolved? Such questions are answered in this section.
For issues that seem to be continually debated, like capital punishment or abortion,
this section is a good place to explain why the best we can hope for in such debates is to
reach some type of a consensus or agreement on one aspect of the matter if not the entire
matter. For example, if writing about the abortion debate, the first section might note that it
is impossible to know with any certainty exactly when life begins, but that we still can reach
agreement on the legal rights of parents in the decision making of a pregnant teenager.
It is advisable to present the issue as a problem to be solved together rather than as
a debate. Framing the issue as a question or as a problem to be solved invites the audience
to engage in the essay as an act of seeking a solution together rather than as a “debate”.
For example:
Weak:
People against torture insist it violates human rights, but people supporting torture
insists it’s a necessary tool to ensure people’s safety.
Strong:
When it comes to the issue of torture, can we protect people’s rights while also
ensuring their safety?
Both examples are objective and don’t yet reveal the writer’s side on the issue, but the
second example demonstrates that a shared larger goal between both sides is to protect
people’s rights and ensure their safety, if doing both is possible. Here, and throughout the
essay, the writer should demonstrate as much respect as possible for the other side’s goals
or values.
It’s acceptable to reserve an outright statement of the thesis until later in the paper
since the purpose of this first section is only to describe the problem. Stating the thesis
outright might make the audience too defensive and not open to change. Writers who are
new to the Rogerian approach, however, should put the thesis statement in the introduction
paragraph so that the writers, and readers, are clear about the main idea. When using the
Rogerian approach, it can easily become a report about the beliefs of both sides, so a writer
developing experience with the Rogerian strategy should put the thesis in the introduction to
clarify that the essay will take a position on the issue.
Show Understanding and Value of Opposing Views
Next, present as fairly and objectively as possible the views of the other side. Doing
so demonstrates that the issue has been fully considered without prejudice. It builds
goodwill with the audience. Readers are more likely to trust writers who show respect for
others’ views, even when disagreeing with those views.
Explain which parts of the opposing views are strong and why. What are the
underlying good values that support these views? For example:
Weak:
Many argue torture violates the rights of those terrorists who are tortured.
Strong:
Of course we must respect the rights of all people, including terrorists.
The weak example here objectively states the value embraced by the other side. However,
the strong example embraces that value. The audience will be more likely to believe this
writer’s argument because the writer has demonstrated a shared value, a shared respect for
the rights of all people.
Assert Position
After the audience sees that the writer understands and respects their opposing
views, they will be more willing to listen to the writer’s side and similarly attempt to
understand and respect the argument being presented. This section presents the writer’s
side of the issue.
Be careful not to “come out swinging” in this section though! Remember the goal is
not to “beat” the audience and win the debate; the goal is still to work with the audience to
negotiate to a consensus together. Show the validity of the argument but continue to use
respectful, neutral language. For example:
Weak:
Torture absolutely must be allowed as the only way to protect innocent lives.
Strong:
Torture can be justifiable in situations where innocent lives are directly at stake.
The weak version uses language that might make the audience defensive, such as
“absolutely” and “only”. The strong version continues the strategy of negotiating together to
reach a consensus by suggesting only that torture “can be” allowed when lives are “directly”
169 Effectiveness in Writing
threatened. Followed with good reasons showing situations when lives really have been
directly threatened and only suggesting that torture is one possible way to protect those
lives, the audience will be more likely to accept that torture just might be a good solution, if
not the only solution, to protect those lives.
This section might note limitations to the argument, further demonstrating that the
writer has considered the issue as fairly as possible. For example:
Weak:
We can trust our law enforcement to use torture only when it is necessary.
Strong:
There may be some members in law enforcement who might use torture
unnecessarily, but safeguards can be put in place to ensure that it is used only when
all other options have failed and only when lives are in immediate danger.
The weak example opens the door for an immediate objection not just to the idea of using
torture but to how torture would be used. The strong example acknowledges the possible
problem of using torture when it is not warranted and offers a solution. The audience may
still be convinced that torture can be a justified in some situations if these safeguards exist
to prevent its abuse.
Remember, the Rogerian strategy does not attempt to persuade the audience to
accept the argument absolutely but to accept that the argument is a valid one at least under
certain circumstances.
Demonstrate Common Ground or Higher Interest
Finally, close with a focus on finding a common ground or calling for a higher interest
or goal. Use this section not to ask the readers to give up their side, but to ask the readers to
come together on the common ground.
Identify the goals and values that the opposition has in support of their side and
show how those goals and values might be accomplished on your side as well. What shared
values are found on the common ground? How might those values be respected by both
sides in some way? For example:
Weak:
An innocent person’s life is much more important than the rights of a terrorist.
Strong:
If a choice must be made between an innocent person’s life and the rights of a
terrorist, then torture may be our only option.
The weak example asks the reader to give up the value of human rights for the terrorist,
while the strong example respects the value of those rights, but asserts that they may have
to be violated in some extreme circumstances to protect the lives of other people. The
strong example emphasizes the higher interest of protecting life and the common ground of
respect for human rights and people’s lives.
This section might also be used to describe situations where the solution would work
while acknowledging that there may be other situations when the solution might not be the
best. Thus, the audience is persuaded to accept that the solution is a good one, at least in
some contexts. For example:
Weak:
The terrorists’ choice to threaten others has caused them to give up their rights, so it
is perfectly justifiable to violate their rights to protect others.
Strong:
Very few situations exist when lives are directly threatened, and only in those
situations can torture be justified as a way to protect innocent lives.
The weak example asserts a belief that the audience might find objectionable and debate,
but the strong example asserts that the argument in support of torture exists primarily for
the extreme situations when lives are directly threatened, a proposition the audience may be
much more willing to accept as true.
Writing A Rogerian Argument
______________All writing requires careful audience analysis to be effective, but the nature of the
Rogerian strategy as negotiation between two sides makes such audience analysis even
more important. What do the readers likely already know about the topic? What are their
likely fears or objections? Why would they likely feel one side is right or wrong? What values
or goals are shared with the audience?
When preparing a Rogerian argument, it might help to write a paragraph, outline, or a
brief draft of an essay from the opposing side of the issue. Pretend, for a moment, that you
are your opponent. How would you write the essay in support of the other side? Then, review
what you’ve written from this opposing side. Where are there shared values or goals
expressed? What points do you agree with? Try using these points to show understanding
and appreciation of the other side while negotiating a common ground. (In fact, such
opposition papers are often written in government organizations for the same reason of
identifying mutual values and goals to later be used in policy papers or speeches that
support the other side.)
Remember, be respectful and compassionate with word choice throughout the essay.
Avoid absolutes like none, never, all, or always, leaving room for exceptions. Avoid words like
clearly or obviously if the idea might actually be debatable to those who disagree with you.
Be especially wary of rhetorical questions since they can sound sarcastic to others who do
not agree with your answer to the question. For example:
Weak:
How could we not use torture if a million lives were at stake?
Strong:
Could torture make a difference if a million lives were at stake?
The audience could answer the weak question with many possible options other than torture
that might be tried. The question sounds sarcastic to those who oppose the use of torture. In
contrast, the strong question is open-ended; both proponents and opponents of torture
might ask such a question. Seeking the answer together is the goal of the Rogerian strategy.
Conclusion
This completes lesson six. Hopefully, after reading this lesson, you have a better idea
of how to approach a Rogerian essay. When writing an essay using the Rogerian strategy,
ask yourself:
?? Has the introduction fairly and objectively presented the problem?
?? Are the opponents’ views accurately and considerately explained?
?? Are the values shared with my opponents identified?
?? Is my tone compassionate and respectful?
?? Is the common ground provided truly a win-win for both sides?
The checklist above should help you write an effective Rogerian argument.
Questions to consider
1.? How is the Rogerian argumentative style different than the Toulmin method?
2.? Why is the Rogerian method effective for those issues that are highly emotional?
3.? How important is explaining the counterargument in the Rogerian method of
argumentation?
Chapter 7: Using The Rogerian Method Continued
Introduction
In lesson six, you learned about the Rogerian argumentative style of writing. Lesson
seven will review this style of writing again through the examination of two famous examples
of this argumentative style: President Obama’s DNC speech given in 2008 and President
Reagan’s RNC speech given in 1980.
Rogerian Argument Review
Remember that the Rogerian strategy of argumentation does not seek to win a
debate but instead seeks to prove a claim through an understanding of the other side and a
discussion of shared values. In other words, with the Rogerian style of argumentation, a
writer must first make a claim about an issue. Then, in order to prove this claim, that writer
needs to demonstrate a clear understanding of the other side of this issue and find the
common ground between both sides. This common ground is used to prove the writer’s
claim. This strategy encourages the audience to be more open to the argument being made
because the writer has demonstrated respect for other arguments about an issue.
Rogerian Sample Argument – President Obama’s DNC Acceptance Speech, 2008
Our first stop in this week’s lesson is to review a Rogerian sample argument,
President Obama’s DNC Acceptance Speech in 2008. Please click on the following link to
listen to the Acceptance Speech: The American Promise. You may also read the acceptance
speech given by President Obama below at the end of this lesson. This discussion will not
focus on the topics that Obama presents in his speech, but the way in which Obama
organizes his speech. When you listen to or read this speech, note that there is an
argument that President Obama makes – he wants to prove to the audience that he is the
best candidate. However, to do this, he needs to ensure that the other side, made up of
Republican voters, is not alienated by his discussion. Therefore, his acceptance speech
cannot be confrontational. Instead, he must attempt to prove his side by considering the
views of Republicans and Independents and showing the common ground.
Let’s take a look at the speech in further detail. First, the purpose of Obama’s
speech is not only to accept the democratic nomination for president, but also to convince
voters to vote for him. However, President Obama not only wants to convince Democrats to
vote for him, he also seeks Republican votes. Therefore, when he opens his speech, he
does not ‘attack’ the views of the Republicans. Instead, he opens with a dream that holds
true for all Americans: “It is that promise that has always set this country apart – that
through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come
together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their
dreams as well.” Then, instead of insulting the Republican candidate, John McCain, he
praises him: “Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn
the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our
gratitude and respect.” In this way, Obama keeps the views of his audience in mind.
Remember from lesson six that the Rogerian strategy appeals to the audience by showing
the benefits of the opposing side. The audience would not be swayed to vote for Obama if
he insults their beliefs or their candidate.
In the body of the speech, Obama begins to give the meat to his side, the reasons in
support of his argument. He first lists some of the issues that American faced in 2008.
175 Effectiveness in Writing
Then, he explains how his policies differ from McCain’s. In this section, he carefully avoids
insulting McCain. Instead, Obama shows how McCain is mistaken. However, he does so in
a manner that unifies all Americans, no matter what their political affiliation is: “Tonight, I
say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this
great land – enough! This moment – this election – is our chance to keep, in the 21st century,
the American promise alive.” As illustrated in Obama’s speech, in a Rogerian essay, it is
important to keep the audience in mind throughout the argument, even when presenting
your particular argument.
Lesson six mentioned that at the end of a Rogerian essay, the common ground and
higher interest benefiting both sides should be emphasized. President Obama does this at
the closing of his speech:
[L]et us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you,
and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be
Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and
bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not
served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of
America. […]
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the
number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may
be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in
Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping
AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex
marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters
deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of
discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits
when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American
wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise – the promise of
a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in
common effort.
In this section, Obama attempts to bridge the gap and establish the common ground
between Republicans and Democrats. He shows that all Americans want the best for the
United States, and he also attempts to show the common ground between a number of
ethical issues. This section of the speech illustrates what is meant by common ground.
Rogerian Sample Argument – President Reagan’s RNC Acceptance Speech, 1980
Of course, Barrack Obama was not the only president who made use of the Rogerian
style of argumentation. Ronald Reagan did the same with his Republican National
Convention speech in 1980. Please click here to listen to this speech: President Reagan’s
RNC Acceptance Speech. You can also find his speech at the end of this lesson as well. Like
the section above that discussed Obama’s acceptance speech, this section emphasizes the
organization of Reagan’s speech, not the particular topics within his speech. In this speech,
Reagan’s goal is similar to Obama’s 2008 speech: he too wants to win the votes of
Americans. To do this, Reagan utilizes the Rogerian format.
First, Reagan begins his speech by removing the barriers between Republicans and
Democrats. He states this directly at the beginning of his speech:
I want my candidacy to unify our country, to renew the American spirit and sense of
purpose. I want to carry our message to every American, regardless of party
affiliation, who is a member of this community of shared values.
In this quotation, Reagan does not polarize his audience. He is keeping his audience in
mind, and he lets his audience know that his speech and candidacy is for all Americans, not
just for one political group. In the introduction, he also tells his audience that all Americans
share the same concerns:
Never before in our history have Americans been called upon to face three grave
threats to our very existence, any one of which could destroy us. We face a
disintegrating economy, a weakened defense and an energy policy based on the
sharing of scarcity.
This quotation from Reagan shows that all Americans, no matter what their political
affiliation is, share the same concerns. Rogerian arguments do not start by honing in on the
argument and antagonizing the other side. Instead, like the example above from Reagan’s
speech, Rogerian arguments should appeal to both sides of an issue.
In the body of his speech, Reagan continues his argument in a calm, rational
manner. Reagan shows the flaws with the other candidate; however, he avoids insulting the
other side, and instead, Reagan explains why his beliefs are stronger than the other
candidate. He does this through specific points that illustrate unity between Americans:
“Together, let us make this a new beginning. Let us make a commitment to care for the
needy; to teach our children the values and the virtues handed down to us by our families; to
have the courage to defend those values and the willingness to sacrifice for them.” Reagan
also unifies Americans in his speech with the following: “It’s time to put America back to
work, to make our cities and towns resound with the confident voices of men and women of
all races, nationalities and faiths bringing home to their families a paycheck they can cash
for honest money.” Reagan does this in his speech because he wants the other side to vote
for him, so he attempts to create a tone of unity, not division.
Finally, at the end of his argument, President Reagan shows the common ground
between all American voters:
It is impossible to capture in words the splendor of this vast continent which
God has granted as our portion of His creation. There are no words to express the
extraordinary strength and character of this breed of people we call Americans.
Everywhere we’ve met thousands of Democrats, Independents and
Republicans from all economic conditions, walks of life bound together in that
community of shared values of family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom. They
are concerned, yes, they’re not frightened. They’re disturbed, but not dismayed. They
are the kind of men and women Tom Paine had in mind when he wrote, during the
darkest days of the American Revolution, “We have it in our power to begin the world
over again.”
In Reagan’s final section of his speech, he establishes the common ground between all
Americans by showing that Americans share the same issues and the same values. Like
President Obama above, President Reagan shows that all Americans want the best for the
United States. In this final section, Reagan, like Obama, illustrates how finding the common
ground between political parties can help strengthen an argument and a politician to be
elected.
Conclusion
In this lesson you read two examples of successful Rogerian arguments. Often,
politicians use the Rogerian strategy in order to win over voters. Using Rogerian win-win
strategy appeals to audiences, and, at least in the case of Barrack Obama and Ronald
Reagan, helps to persuade an audience. Just like the Rogerian argument helps politicians
179 Effectiveness in Writing
win elections, the Rogerian argumentative method can help you successfully persuade an
audience as well.
Questions to Consider
1.? Why would politicians consider the Rogerian method useful?
2.? How can reading Rogerian arguments help strengthen your argumentative skills?
3.? Why is it important to consider the values of your audience when forming an
argument?
Works Cited
Obama, Barack. “The American Promise.” American Rhetoric. n.d. Web. Jan. 6, 2012.
Reagan, Ronald. “Acceptance of Republican Nomination for President at the 1980
Republican National Convention in Detroit, Michigan.” Ameircan Experience. PBS.
WGBH Educational Foundation. n.d. Web. Jan. 6, 2012.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
