Rogerian Argument

Typically, readers think of winners and losers of arguments. The western tradition of argument
goes back to classical Greece when speakers tried to sway fellow voters in the early democratic debates
over policy. Building on this tradition of pro and con, the modern judicial system goes even further to
emphasize the adversarial nature of many arguments. But arguments don't always have to assume that
readers make a yes/no, innocent/guilty, on/off decision. Many arguments build toward consensus.

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. Instead of promoting the adversarial
relationship that 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. Based on these assumptions, Rogerian argument develops along quite
different lines than a traditional argument often does.

In the introduction to a Rogerian argument, the writer presents the problem, typically pointing
out how both writer and reader are affected by the problem. Rather than presenting an issue that divides
reader and writer, or a thesis that demands agreement (and in effect can be seen as an attack on a reader
who holds an opposing view), the Rogerian argument does not begin with the writer's position at all.

Next, the writer describes as fairly as possible--typically in language as neutral as possible--the

reader's perceived point of view on the problem. Only if the writer can represent the reader's
perspective accurately will the reader begin to move toward compromise, and so this section of the
argument is crucial to the writer's credibility. (Even though writers might be tempted to use this section of
the Rogerian argument to manipulate readers, that strategy usually backfires when readers perceive the
writer's insincerity. Good will is crucial to the success of a Rogerian argument.) Moreover, as part of the
writer's commitment to expressing the reader's perspective on the problem, the writer acknowledges the
circumstances and contexts in which the reader's position or perspective is valid.

In the next main chunk of the Rogerian argument, the writer then presents fairly and accurately
his or her own perspective or position on the problem. This segment depends, again, on neutral but
clear language so that the reader perceives the fair-mindedness of the writer's description. The segment is,
however, a major factor in whether or not the writer is ultimately convincing, and so key evidence
supports and develops this section of the argument. Like the description of the reader's perspective, this
part of the argument also includes a description of the contexts or circumstances in which the writer's
position is valid.

The Rogerian essay closes not by asking readers to give up their own positions on the problem
but by showing how the reader would benefit from moving toward the writer's position. In other words,
the final section of the Rogerian argument lays out possible ways to compromise or alternative
solutions to the problem that would benefit both reader and writer under more circumstances than either
perspective alone accounts for.

Rogerian approaches are particularly useful for emotionally charged, highly divisive issues. The
Rogerian approach typically downplays the emotional in favor of the rational so that people of good will
can find solutions to common problems. But no argument, Rogerian or otherwise, will succeed unless the
writer understands the reader. Rogerian argument is especially dependent on audience analysis because
the writer must present the reader's perspective clearly, accurately, and fairly.
Rogers’ Principles of Communications
1. Threat hinders communication. When a person feels threatened by what another person is saying
(or writing), he or she is apt to stop listening (or reading) in order to protect the ego and reduce
anxiety.

2. Making strong statements of opinion stimulates an audience to respond with strong opinions.
Once people have expressed these opinions, they are more likely to be interested in defending
them than in discussing them.

3. Biased language increases threat; neutral language reduces it.

4. One reduces threat and increases the chance of communication with someone by demonstrating
that one understands that person’s point of view.

5. One improves communication by establishing an atmosphere of trust.

Maxine Hairston has identified five elements of a non-threatening Rogerian argument. These are not
meant to be the outline of a paper; Rogerian argument, in particular, does not lend itself to formulae. A
non-threatening argument should, however, contain these elements:

1. A brief and objectively phrased statement that defines the issue.

2. A complete and neutrally worded analysis of the other side’s position.

3. A complete and neutrally worded analysis of the position you hold. You should carefully avoid
any suggestion that you are more moral or sensitive than your audience.

4. An analysis of what your positions have in common and what goals and values you share.

5. A proposal for resolving the issue in a way that recognizes the interests of both parties.

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 (1) you understand
why he wants to make this policy change, and as an opener to your defense, (2) you state the reasons why
it would be a positive modification. Then, to refute what you have just said, (3) you give points about the
inevitable negative effects to the staff, (4) giving specific examples from the workplace of incidents and
situations that the boss will be familiar with and reiterating the common work and production goals that
the boss and the employees share. (5) You then propose a compromise resolution to the problem that
both the boss and the employees can live with. Voila! Rogerian Argument!