Rogerian argument

Rogerian argument is a conflict solving technique based on finding common ground instead of polarizing debate.^[1][2]

Origin

American psychologist Carl R. Rogers described his "principles of communications,"^[3][4] a form of discussion based on finding common ground. He proposed trying to understand our adversary's position, by listening to them, before adopting a point of view without considering those factors.^[1][2][4]

This form of reasoning is the opposite of Aristotelian argumentation, an adversarial form of debate relying upon logos, ethos, and pathos, because it attempts to find compromise between two sides.^[1][4]

In practice

This type of discussion is extremely useful in emotionally charged topics since it downplays emotional and highlights rational arguments.^[2]

Young, Becker and Pike identified four stages:^[4]

1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.
2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.
3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.
4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better.

External links

• Classical and Rogerian Arguments HTML
• Furthering Appropriation: Trust and the Rhetorical Rogers
• Rogerian Argumentation
• How to Write a Rogerian Argument

References