Rogerian argument - Knowledge

2360:, argued in a 1984 article—referring especially to some of the ideas of Young, Becker, and Pike—that "Rogerian rhetoric is not Rogerian" but is instead a distortion of Carl Rogers' ideas. First, she criticized Young, Becker, and Pike for the inconsistency of suggesting that "Rogerian argument has no conventional structure" while at the same time they proposed four phases of writing that "look suspiciously like" a conventional adversarial structure. She noted that Hairston's fifth phase of written Rogerian argument, a proposal for resolving the issue that shows how both sides may gain, "brings Rogerian rhetoric even closer to traditional argument". Second, she judged that Young, Becker, and Pike underemphasized Rogers' unconditional acceptance of the other person and that they overemphasized advocacy of the writer's position, which is not part of Rogers' recommended practice. Third, she found their description of the empathy required in Rogerian rhetoric to be no more than conventional audience analysis, which she considered to be much weaker than Rogers' more demanding description of empathy as standing in the other's shoes and seeing the world from the other's standpoint. She said that Rogers' principles of congruence, unconditional acceptance of the other, and empathic understanding must be "deeply internalized or they become mere techniques", and she doubted whether the teaching of these principles in writing education had ever been successfully accomplished. 3833:, pp. 215–218: "A human opponent in real life (as opposed to parlor games) is rarely all enemy. Usually, he is part friend, part foe. Mutual recognition of the common area of interest is a problem of communication, not of strategy. And so is the problem of modifying the outlook of the other. ... Hayakawa has proposed that we listen to the Russians in order to get them to listen: if we listen long enough and earnestly enough, they may begin to imitate us. It has also been proposed by Carl Rogers that in a rational debate each opponent, before he is allowed to state his own case, should be required to state the case of the other to the other's satisfaction, in order to convince the other that he has been understood. ... If the present conflict between the Communist and the non-Communist worlds is to be lifted above the level of a fight and above the level of a game of maneuver, to the level of debate where the issues can be squarely faced, we must first learn to listen; second we need to find out and to admit the extent to which the opponent's position has merit; third we need to probe deeply within ourselves to discover the profound similarities 481:. Rogers proposed that effective psychotherapy always helps establish good communication, and good communication is always therapeutic. Rogers said that the major barrier to good communication between people is one's tendency to evaluate what other people say from within one's own usual point of view and way of thinking and feeling, instead of trying to understand what they say from within their point of view and way of thinking and feeling; the result is that people talk past each other instead of think together. If one accurately and sympathetically understands how others think and feel from inside, and if one communicates this understanding to them, then it frees others from feeling a need to defend themselves, and it changes one's own thinking and feeling to some degree, said Rogers. And if two people or two groups of people can do this for each other, it allows them "to come closer and closer to the objective truth involved in the relationship" and creates mutual good communication so that "some type of agreement becomes much more possible". 4847:, p. 345: "The importance of the ability to take the role of the other for human communication and cooperation has also been stressed by theorists who have been concerned with ways of facilitating the resolution of intrapsychic, interpersonal, or international conflict. These theorists (Moreno, 1955; Cohen, 1950, 1951; Rogers, 1952; Rapoport, 1960; Deutsch, 1962) have advocated role-reversal as a means of reducing conflict. "Role-reversal" is a discussion procedure in which individual A presents individual B's viewpoint while individual B reciprocates by presenting A's viewpoint. They have postulated that such mutual taking of one another's role alleviates conflict by such processes as: reducing self-defensiveness, increasing one's understanding of the other's views, increasing the perceived similarity between self and other, increasing the awareness of the positive features in the other's viewpoint and the dubious elements in one's own position." 2317:, advised that one "shouldn't start writing with a detailed plan in mind" but might start by making four lists: the other's concerns, one's own key points, anticipated problems, and points of agreement or common ground. She gave a different version of Young, Becker, and Pike's four phases, which she expanded to five and called "elements of the nonthreatening argument": a brief and objective statement of the issue; a neutrally worded analysis of the other's position; a neutrally worded analysis of one's own position; a statement of the common aspects, goals, and values that the positions share; and a proposal for resolving the issue that shows how both sides may gain. She said that the Rogerian approach requires calm, patience, and effort, and will work if one is "more concerned about increasing understanding and communication" than "about scoring a triumph". In a related article, she noted the similarity between Rogerian argument and 4882:, also called 'role reversal,' 'active listening,' and 'restatement,' originated in Carl Rogers's psychotherapeutic approach and was first adopted in our literature by Rapoport (1960). To be distinguished from 'self-presentation,' bilateral focus involves restating a counterpart's views to his or her satisfaction. It may flush out the assumptions that Nierenberg and others fault for misunderstanding. It is intended to improve understanding, to increase trust, and (potentially) to promote the compatibility of negotiators' goals. ... But the results above argue against its use or, less emphatically, for cautious use of the procedure by a negotiator. It may be particularly effective for what Boulding (1978) has called 'illusory conflict'; then again, in that case it would eliminate the necessity for negotiation. Its efficacy may depend on the nature of the issue at hand and on the opponent's attitude toward its use." 4866:, therefore, can be defined as a procedure in which one or both of two persons in a discussion presents the viewpoint and feelings of the other in an accurate, warm, and authentic way. The several theorists who have discussed role reversal (Cohen, 1950, 1951; Rogers, 1952, 1965; Rapoport, 1960, 1962; Deutsch, 1962b) have hypothesized that role reversal will have effects upon both the sender and the receiver in a communication situation. The author's refinements and extensions of these hypotheses will be presented in the following sections of this article. Here it is sufficient to state that despite the speculation concerning role reversal as a procedure to increase the effectiveness of communication in conflict situations, and despite the promising results found by various practitioners who have used it, there has been no systematic research on its use until recently." 4832:, p. 135: "Cohen (1950, 1951) proposed that negotiators role-reverse with each other to gain a clearer understanding of the opponent's and one's own positions. Rogers (1952) stated that the use of role reversal will result in an understanding of the opponent's frame of reference and a reduction of threat and defensiveness in the situation. Rapoport (1960, 1962) suggested that role reversal be used to remove the threat of looking at other points of view and to convince the opponent that he has been clearly heard and understood. Finally, Deutsch (1962) stated that role reversal, by forcing one to place the other's action in a context which is acceptable to the other, creates conditions in which the current validity of the negotiators' assumptions can be examined, and reduces the need for defensive adherence to a challenged viewpoint or behavior." 2064:, such as more "stupid or rigid or dishonest or ruthless". Instead of emphasizing the uniqueness of the flaws of the other, "one seeks within oneself the clearly perceived shortcomings of the opponent", and instead of emphasizing the uniqueness of one's own strengths (such as intelligence, honesty, and conscientiousness), one asks how the other shares such qualities to some degree. Rapoport considered this "assumption of similarity" to be "the psychological set conducive to conflict resolution". An obstacle that prevents people from making the assumption of similarity is the notion "that such an assumption is evidence of professional incompetence". But that notion is counterproductive, Rapoport argued, because the assumption of similarity, together with the other two principles, is likely to remove obstacles to 279: 546: 31: 3483:, pp. 86–88: "A third party, who is able to lay aside his own feelings and evaluations, can assist greatly by listening with understanding to each person or group and clarifying the views and attitudes each holds. We have found this very effective in small groups in which contradictory or antagonistic attitudes exist. ... This procedure has important characteristics. It can be initiated by one party, without waiting for the other to be ready. It can even be initiated by a neutral third person, providing he can gain a minimum of cooperation from one of the parties." On the "third side" in conflict, see also 2799:: "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 traditional or 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. ... Rogerian argument is especially dependent on audience analysis because the writer must present the reader's perspective clearly, accurately, and fairly." 2428:. Earlier, Rapoport had suggested that an "ethical debate between liberalism and communism, to be conducted according to the rules of role reversal, along lines proposed earlier by Carl Rogers" could help resolve conflict between the United States and communist states. He had previously imagined that an earlier phase of the conflict was "largely a communication problem, one that could be attacked by 'men of good will' on both sides". But he concluded that the Rogerian approach does not apply to situations such as the Vietnam War when it is "impossible to communicate" in a Rogerian way with "the beast, 2405: 3699:, p. 29: "... please recall again the Hovland experiments, and also the rather large number of other experiments that bring out, in one way or another, the desirability of discovering common ground if conflict is to be resolved. For instance, there are the experiments of Blake and Mouton on how each side in a controversy ordinarily underestimates the amount of common ground that actually exists between its own position and that of its adversary. There is all the research on the non-zero-sum game, and the need to keep the players on both sides from treating a 2463: 413:" of people's beliefs and behaviors may work, Rapoport said, when there is "a complete trust placed by the target of persuasion in the persuader", as sometimes occurs in teaching and psychotherapy. But such complete trust is unlikely in most conflict situations, and the strategy can often be turned back against someone who is trying to use it: "It has been used by anti-Communists on the Communists (clothed in Freudian terminology) as well as by the Communists on the anti-Communists (clothed in Marxist terminology)." 2876:. They came to Rogers through Anatol Rapoport's work in the area of conflict resolution. According to Rapoport (1960), Rogerian principles provided a means 'to convey to the opponent the assurance that he has been understood, so as to reduce his anxiety on that account and to induce him to listen' (289). From this, Young et al. developed a 'Rogerian strategy' of argument to apply especially 'in those dyadic situations that involve strong values and beliefs,' in which traditional argument 'tends to be ineffective.'" 2146: 3805:, p. 411: "In addition to these proposals by Hayakawa and by Rogers, namely, to try to induce listening by example and by making listening advantageous, I submit two further principles of rational debate. One of them I call the delineation of the area of validity of the opponent's position; the other, the assumption of similarity. To delineate the validity of a position means to state the conditions under which the position is justified. Practically every opinion, even seemingly absurd ones, can be 159: 2345:, intended to help people think in a Rogerian way while discovering ideas and arguments. For example, the first two of her 23 questions are "What is the nature of the issue, in general terms?" (and she recommended that the answer should itself be stated as a question) and "Whose lives are affected by the issue?" The last two questions are "What would have to happen to eliminate the disagreement among the opposing groups?" and "What are the chances that this will occur?" 510: 355: 422: 2334:, first published in 1986, presented five phases adapted from an earlier textbook by Richard Coe. Miller's phases were: an introduction to the problem; a summary of views that oppose the writer's position; a statement of understanding of the region of validity of the opposing views; a statement of the writer's position; a statement of the situations in which the writer's position has merit; and a statement of the benefits of accepting the writer's position. 2274: 3715:, p. 30: "Whether particular individuals are deemed to be 'reason-able,' and how often under what circumstances, will depend on tests of ability 'to listen to reason.' And more than that, to appreciate others' reasons. One conceivable test of this ability, and yet a difficult test, applies 'the Rapoport debate' (after its inventor, Anatol Rapoport, 1974). This procedure requires disputants to repeat accurately their opponents' arguments 4909:, p. 213: "Another theory of idea generation may be described as 'cognitive role reversal,' in which a party may, by thinking about the conflict from the perspective of the other party, become aware of ideas that the other party may find attractive as part of a solution (Fisher and Ury 1981). Some describe this approach as aiming at 'cognitive empathy' or 'transactional empathy' between the parties (Della Noce 1999)." 3703:-zero-sum game, in which the adversaries actually share some common interests, as if it were a zero-sum game in which loss for one side always means gain for the other. There is the so-called Rapoport Debate (actually originated by Carl Rogers, apparently), in which neither side is permitted to argue for its position until it has stated, to the other side's satisfaction, what the other side is trying to establish." 451:. To remove the threat requires trying not to impose one's own explanation or argument on the other in any way. Instead, the Rogerian strategy starts by "providing deep understanding and acceptance of the attitudes consciously held at this moment" by the other, and this attitude is not a subtle trick used to try to control or persuade the other; in the words of Rogers, "To be effective, it must be genuine." 3745:, p. 21: "On several occasions I outlined the so-called ethical debate between liberalism and communism, to be conducted according to the rules of role reversal, along lines proposed earlier by Carl Rogers. The aim of ethical debate is to bring out the common ground of the two positions, to increase the effectiveness of communication between the opponents, and to induce a perception of similarity." 2196:. Rapoport proceeded to publish a landmark 1965 book of empirical psychological research using the game, followed by another book in 1976 on empirical research about seventy-eight 2 × 2 two-person non-zero-sum games. All this research had prepared Rapoport to understand, perhaps better than anyone else at the time, the best ways to win non-zero-sum games such as Axelrod's tournaments. 2289:, to be able to present the reader's perspective accurately and respond to it appropriately. Since formal written communication lacks the immediate feedback from the other and the unpredictable sequence found in oral communication, and can use a more predictable approach, Young, Becker, and Pike proposed four phases that a writer could use to construct a written Rogerian argument: 2387:

communication—of the kind that Rogers taught—is needed between and within people. Young later admitted that the first presentation of Rogerian argument in his 1970 textbook "may have been flawed", but he thought that Rogerian argument could still be valuable "if it were modified in light of what we know now". Young admitted, speaking for himself and his 1970 coauthors:

346:. The Pavlovian strategy can be benign or malign, but a "fundamental limitation" of the strategy is that the user of it must have complete control over the rewards and punishments used to change someone's mind and behavior, and someone in a conflict is unlikely to submit to such control by a perceived opponent, except under draconian conditions such as imprisonment. 2784:) that lying beneath people's 'positions' on issues are concerns and interests that represent what they care about most deeply. Positions are often intractable. But by shifting the conversation to underlying interests, it's often possible to find common concerns and shared values, on the basis of which there may be grounds for discussion and, ultimately, agreement." 1963: 1933:

to win over the opposition, whereas the Rogerian rhetor has an open-ended intention to facilitate change through mutual understanding and cooperation; the Aristotelian rhetor may or may not explicitly acknowledge the opponent's position, whereas for the Rogerian rhetor an accurate and sympathetic statement of the other's position is essential.

2257:, Rogerian argument must be flexible because others can interject and show that one has failed to state their position and situation adequately, and then one must modify one's previous statements before continuing, resulting in an unpredictable sequence of conversation that is guided by the general principles of 2529:

Young noted in 1992 that one potential problem with Rogerian argument is that people need it most when they may be least inclined to use it: when mutual antagonistic feelings between two people are most intense. The way Rogerian argument had been taught in rhetoric textbooks may be effective for some

2106:

contradictions in the opponent's case, then of course you should point them out, forcefully. If there are somewhat hidden contradictions, you should carefully expose them to view—and then dump on them." Although Dennett personally found Rapoport's rules to be "something of a struggle" to practice, he

3809:

justified. If someone maintains that black is white, we can always say, 'Yes, that is true, if you are interpreting a photographic negative.' ... The assumption of similarity is more difficult to define. It is not enough to say that you must ascribe to the opponent a psyche similar to your own.

2482:

professor Phyllis Lassner identified some limitations of Rogerian argument from women's perspectives. One of Lassner's students "hated" Rogerian argument because "women have a right to be angry" and "everyone needs to know how they feel". Lassner said that Rogers' psychology "is socially constructed

2230:

Rapoport pointed out "that a rigorous examination of game-like conflict leads inevitably" to the examination of debates, because "strictly rigorous game theory when extrapolated to cover other than two-person zero-sum games" requires consideration of issues such as "communication theory, psychology,

2391:

We did not pay enough attention to the considerable variation in actual dyadic situations; and we did not see that both the use and the usefulness of Rogerian argument seem to vary as the situation varies. The peculiarities of the particular situation affect, or should affect, the choices one makes

1946:

and later by medieval rhetoricians. Brent said that superficially confusing the Rogerian strategy with such ingratiation overlooks "the therapeutic roots of Rogers' philosophy", rhetoric's power to heal both speakers and listeners, and the importance of "genuine grounds of shared understanding, not

1932:

to try to persuade the audience to the rhetor's point of view, whereas the Rogerian rhetor listens not to "ingratiate herself" but to genuinely understand and accept the other's point of view and to communicate that understanding and acceptance; the Aristotelian rhetor has a predetermined intention

376:

represents people as consciously espousing beliefs that are produced by unconscious or hidden motives that are unknown to them; changing people's beliefs—and changing any behaviors that are caused by those beliefs—requires revealing the hidden motives. Rapoport considered this strategy to be at the

2560:

on this kind of role reversal (mostly in the late 1960s and 1970s), and the results suggested that the effectiveness of role reversal—in achieving desired outcomes such as better understanding of opponents' positions, change in opponents' positions, or negotiated agreement—depends on the issue and

2310:. The third of Rapoport's principles—increasing the perceived similarity between self and other—is a principle that Young, Becker, and Pike considered to be equally as important as the other two, but they said it should be an attitude assumed throughout the discourse and is not a phase of writing. 2044:

strong or valid in some other circumstances outside of the identified "region of validity". This second principle reinforces the first principle by communicating to the other in a new way that the other has been heard and understood. It also implies some agreement and common ground between the two

2264:

Carl Rogers himself was primarily interested in spontaneous oral communication, and Douglas Brent considered the "native" mode of Rogerian communication to be mutual exploration of an issue through face-to-face oral communication. Whenever Brent taught the Rogerian attitude, he recommended to his

2587:

one has repeated what the other side has said to that person's satisfaction." Ury listed such role reversal among a variety of other tools that are useful for conflict mediation, some of which may be more appropriate than role reversal in certain situations. A kind of role reversal also featured

2521:

three positions: two disputants in conflict and a third-party mediator. The disputants wrote memos to the mediator, the mediator wrote a memo to a supervisor, and then all three worked together to write a mediation agreement, which was discussed with the teacher. Subsequently, a somewhat similar

2184:

computer tournaments around 1980. Austin summarized Axelrod's conclusion that Rapoport's tit-for-tat algorithm won those tournaments because it was (in a technical sense) nice, forgiving, not envious, and absolutely predictable. With these characteristics, tit-for-tat elicited mutually rewarding

2239:

Austin said that the characteristics that Rapoport programmed into the tit-for-tat algorithm are similar to Rapoport's three principles of ethical debate: both tit-for-tat and Rapoport's rules of debate are guidelines for producing a beneficial outcome in certain "non-zero-sum" situations. Both

381:

but also to be present in any other kind of analysis that aims to change people's minds or behaviors by explaining how their beliefs or discourse are a product of hidden motives or mechanisms. Rapoport mentioned his own teaching as one example of this strategy, in situations where his students'

2769:

and mediation ... the goal has changed: it is no longer to win but to arrive at a solution in a just way that is acceptable to both sides' (18). And Michael Gilbert has developed a related approach that he calls 'coalescent argumentation,' an approach that involves a 'joining together' of

2101:

Dennett's other advice, in his presentation of Rapoport's rules, had more of an adversarial outlook than a Rogerian one: he said that some people "don't deserve such respectful attention" and that he found it to "be sheer joy to skewer and roast" such people. In contrast to Rogers' attitude of

484:

One idea that Rogers emphasized several times in his 1951 paper that is not mentioned in textbook treatments of Rogerian argument is third-party intervention. Rogers suggested that a neutral third party, instead of the parties to the conflict themselves, could in some cases present one party's

446:

to be threatening in some way, as is likely to happen when the explanation comes from a perceived opponent in a conflict. There are many ways that someone's statements could be perceived, consciously or unconsciously, as threatening: for example, the other may perceive some statement as being

2495:

advocate) could even recognize them or could conceal repugnance and rejection of them enough to make Rogerian empathy possible. Lassner and her students especially disapproved of Hairston's advice to use neutrally worded statements, and they said that Hairston's ideal of neutrality was too

2235:

experts of the time were facing situations analogous to the prisoner's dilemma, but the experts often appeared incapable of taking actions, such as those recommended by Rapoport's three principles of ethical debate, that would allow the opponents to reach a mutually advantageous outcome.

2386:

Young responded to Ede that he didn't know of any previous treatment in rhetorical theory of the kind of situation that Rogerian argument tries to address, where the techniques of the classical rhetorical tradition are likely to create or intensify extreme opposition, and where a deeper

437:

represents people as usually trying to protect themselves from what they perceive to be threatening. This strategy invites people to consider the possibility of changing by removing the threat that the change implies. Rapoport noted that Freudian psychoanalysts often diagnose people's

2847:, since it is both the clearest and certainly the most influential presentation of this approach. Young, Becker, and Pike were not the first to respond to this challenge. In fact, they rely heavily in their discussion of Rogerian rhetoric on the work of Anatol Rapoport, who in 382:

resistance to new knowledge was dissolved by the teacher pointing out how the students' opposing preconceptions were caused by the students' memories of prior experiences that were illusory or irrelevant to the new knowledge. Another of Rapoport's examples was a certain kind of

2021:

and empathetically enough to be able to state the other's position to the other's satisfaction, and vice versa. Rapoport called this principle "conveying to the opponent that he has been heard and understood", and he noted that it is the main component of Rogers's nondirective

2487:". For women who are marginalized and have been taught that they are not "worthy opponents", Lassner said, "Rogerian rhetoric can be just as inhibiting and constraining as any other form of argumentation." Some of Lassner's students doubted that their opponent (such as an 2770:

divergent claims through 'recognition and exploration of opposing positions ... forming the basis for a mutual investigation of non-conflictual options' (837). ... This view is similar to the key idea in negotiation theory (especially the version presented in

3837:. ... a shift in the other's outlook can occur only if he has re-examined it, and he will re-examine it only if he listens to some one else, and he will listen only if he is listened to. But if we really are ready to listen, then we are ready to re-examine our 2045:

positions, while contributing toward a better understanding of the area of disagreement. Furthermore, acknowledging that there is some merit in the other's position may make one more willing to re-examine one's own position and perhaps find some part of it that is

468:. Rogers began the paper by arguing that psychotherapy and communication are much more closely related than people might suspect, because psychotherapy is all about remedying failures in communication—where communication is defined as a process that happens both 2726:, p. 36: "The Rogerian strategy, in which participants in a discussion collaborate to find areas of shared experience, thus allows speaker and audience to open up their worlds to each other, and in this attempt at mutual understanding, there is the 2987:, p. 274; what Rapoport called the three outlooks in psychotherapy corresponded to categories of psychology that were well known enough that Rogers himself began a 1963 paper by referring to them, identifying himself as part of the third category: 300:

represents people "as a bundle of habits that can be shaped and controlled" by punishments and rewards. This strategy changes people by punishing undesired habits and rewarding desired habits. Some examples of Pavlovian techniques in the real world are

1862:

has different assumptions about humanity and a different goal. In Young, Becker, and Pike's view, the goal of Rogerian rhetoric is to remove the obstacles—especially the sense of threat—to cooperative communication, mutual understanding, and mutual

488:

Rogerian argument is an application of Rogers' ideas about communication, taught by rhetoric teachers who were inspired by Rapoport, but Rogers' ideas about communication have also been applied somewhat differently by many others: for example,

442:, since such defenses can be among the hidden motives that the Freudian strategy tries to uncover. But the Freudian strategy of changing someone's mind and behavior by explaining hidden motives will not work whenever a person perceives the 2302:"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." 2453:

Ede noted in 1984 that the rhetoric textbooks that discussed Rogerian argument dedicated only a few pages to it out of a total of hundreds of pages, so the Rogerian approach is only a small part of theories of rhetoric and argumentation.

2059:

is a deepening of the sense of common humanity between self and other, a sense of shared strengths and flaws. Like the second principle, this third principle is the opposite of what is usual in a debate, the usual perception being that

2904:(MHRI) in the Department of Psychiatry. At the University of Michigan, Rapoport shifted the focus of his research to war and peace, conflict, and conflict resolution. He devoted himself to what he called the three arms of the 2265:

students that before trying to write in a Rogerian way, they should first "practice on real, present people in a context more like the original therapeutic situations for which Rogerian principles were originally designed".

2851:, which they also quote in their text, attempts to apply Rogers' theories. It is Rapoport, for instance, who establishes the 'three methods of modifying images,' the Pavlovian, Freudian, and Rogerian, which appear early in 476:

people. For Rogers, the troubling conflict between a person's conscious and unconscious convictions that may require psychotherapy is similar to the troubling conflict between two people's convictions that may require

2240:

invite the other to reciprocate with cooperative behavior, creating an environment that makes cooperation and mutuality more profitable in the long run than antagonism and unilaterally trying to beat the opponent.

3719:

they present their own counter-arguments. It takes the heat out of quarrel, and works toward mutual comprehension—if that is sought—by forcing me to restate your thesis satisfactorily before I rebut it, and vice

1927:

English professor Paul G. Bator argued in 1980 that Rogerian argument is more different from Aristotle's rhetoric than Lunsford had concluded. Among the differences he noted: the Aristotelian rhetor (orator)

127:, and other scholars identified other limitations in the following decades. For example, they concluded that Rogerian argument is less likely to be appropriate or effective when communicating with violent or 1966:

Rapoport's three principles of ethical debate are: listening and making the other feel understood, finding merit in the other's position, and increasing the perception of similarity: "we are all in the same

4602:, pp. 273–274: "For example, it would be highly unusual, to say the least, if a defense attorney ... acknowledged in court that his client was guilty." This idea was repeated by Richard M. Coe in 463:

A work by Carl Rogers that was especially influential in the formulation of Rogerian argument was his 1951 paper "Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation", published in the same year as his book

2499:

In a 1991 article, English professor Catherine Lamb agreed with Lassner and added: "Rogerian argument has always felt too much like giving in." Lamb said that women (and men) need to have a theory of

2049:

strong or valid in some way, which ultimately may lead "away from the primitive level of verbal opposition to deeper levels where searching investigation is encouraged", perhaps leading to larger

2337:

In 1992, Rebecca Stephens built on the "vague and abstract" Rogerian principles of other rhetoricians to create a set of 23 "concrete and detailed" questions that she called a Rogerian-based

2040:, so the aim should be to identify what is conditionally justifiable in the other's position and to give examples that support it. It is implied, but not stated, that the other's position is 2530:

situations, Young said, but is unlikely to work between two parties in the kind of situation when they need it most, when they are most intractably opposed. Young suggested that third-party

2425: 455:

that characterize the Rogerian strategy: listening and making the other feel understood, finding merit in the other's position, and increasing the perception of similarity between people.

1894:, responding to Young, Becker, and Pike in a 1979 article, argued that the three principles of Rogerian strategy that they borrowed from Rapoport could be found in various parts of 2277:

Formal written communication requires a different approach to Rogerian argument due to differences from oral communication such as lack of immediate feedback from the other person.

2363:

Ede argued in 1987 that Young, Becker, and Pike's Rogerian rhetoric is weak compared to what she considered to be the "much more sophisticated" 20th-century rhetorics found in

2583:: "Another rule dates back at least as far as the Middle Ages, when theologians at the University of Paris used it to facilitate mutual understanding: One can speak only 497:, a process of conflict resolution and nonviolent living, after studying and working with Rogers, and other writing teachers used some of Rogers' ideas in developing 2088:"You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, 'Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way.'" 2032:, or what Rapoport called "delineating the region of validity of the opponent's stand", is the opposite of the usual intent in a debate, the usual intent being to 406: 2703: 1643: 5299: 2757:, p. 112: "For nearly three decades, Rogerian rhetoric has offered an important alternative to adversarial argument. More recently, certain strands of 2901: 1464: 171: 2900:, pp. 63–64: "Rapoport joined the faculty of the University of Michigan ... in 1955, where he was one of the first three faculty members of the 3741:

case as clearly and eloquently as possible ... I have tried to apply the principle of ethical debate outlined in the preceding chapters ..." /

2102:

consistently "providing deep understanding and acceptance of the attitudes consciously held at this moment" by the other, Dennett advised: "If there are

3565:, p. 66 concluded: "Rogers' principles have been treated most persuasively when applied to argumentation in dyadic rather than triadic situations." 4238:, p. 23: "He conceded that problems of transferring his principles from oral to written communication had 'never been a primary interest' of his." 2440:, Rapoport relocated permanently to Canada from the United States, leaving behind research connections with the military that he had since the 1940s.) 2401:

Scholars debating Rogerian argument often noted limitations of the scope within which the Rogerian strategy is likely to be appropriate or effective.

1554: 2556:

to refer to the presentation by one person to another person of the other person's position and vice versa. Deutsch, Johnson, and others have done

545: 3841:

outlook. The courage needed to become genuinely engaged in a genuine debate is the courage to be prepared to accept a change in one's own outlook.

2761:

have created new interest in cooperative approaches. In 'Beyond Argument in Feminist Composition,' for example, Catherine Lamb draws attention to

66: 5396: 3443:

Third-party intervention is not mentioned (except in reprints of Rogers' 1951 paper) in the discussion of Rogerian argument in the textbooks:

6757: 6626: 5542: 5479: 5211: 4957: 1757: 2872:, p. 65: "Rogerian principles were brought to the attention of writing teachers and rhetoricians in 1970 by Young, Becker, and Pike in 2995:

and others the view that there are three broad emphases in American psychology. ... Associated with the first trend are terms such as

2177: 2436:. Rapoport noted: "Just as every proposition has a circumscribed region of validity, so does every method." (Soon after, in opposition to 2416:

them with bullets from the sky. Rogerian argument is ineffective with someone who is only functioning as a cog in an impersonal machine.

278: 6730: 6186: 5969: 5072: 1830: 5837:'s Centennial Conference on Communications held on 11 October 1951. It was later reprinted as a book chapter with a different title: 2285:

that addresses the reader, the use of Rogerian argument requires sufficient knowledge of the audience, through prior acquaintance or

6821: 6597: 6566: 6485: 6386: 5938: 5191: 5120: 5037: 4937: 2137:

so that the other party can emulate those characteristics, which would be less likely to occur in intensely adversarial conditions.

1904:

where he said that one must be able to understand and argue both sides of an issue, and to his discussions of friendship and of the

1867:. They considered this goal to be a new alternative to classical rhetoric. They also said that classical rhetoric is used both in 5883: 3737:, pp. 289, 309: "The reciprocal task has been proposed as the foundation of ethical debate, namely, the task of stating the 1183: 1009: 3521:

One summary of the debates is: Richard M. Coe, "Classical and Rogerian persuasion: an archeological/ecological explication", in

30: 1673: 1638: 2517:), and she used negotiation theory in her writing classes. In one of her class exercises, students worked in groups of three, 6920: 6527: 6440: 6398: 6356: 6312: 6271: 6229: 6032: 6030:

Weiss-Wik, Stephen (December 1983). "Enhancing negotiators' successfulness: self-help books and related empirical research".

6007: 5646: 5577: 112:

the other's position, one tries to state the other's position with as much care as one would have stated one's own position,

2068:

and to successful debate outcomes. Rapoport said: "The outcome depends on the occurrence of one crucial insight: we are all

2843:, p. 42: "I will focus on the original formulation of Rogerian rhetoric, that developed by Young, Becker, and Pike in 2433: 1727: 219: 5726: 5676: 2500: 1717: 398: 238:

described three persuasive strategies that could be applied in debates. He noted that they correspond to three kinds of

136: 2598:, along with that book's Rogerian-like emphasis on identifying common concerns between opposing parties in a conflict. 2185:

outcomes more than any of the competing algorithms did over many automated repetitions of the prisoner's dilemma game.

93:

has also been called Rogerian therapy. Since 1970, rhetoricians have applied the ideas of Rogers—with contributions by

6979: 6936: 6805: 6722: 6147:

Some rhetoric and composition textbooks that have a section about Rogerian argument, listed by date of first edition:

5175: 2673: 2628: 2207:, connected the ethics of debate to non-zero-sum games. Rapoport distinguished three hierarchical levels of conflict: 2169:, pointed out the connection between Rapoport's three principles of ethical debate, published in 1960, and Rapoport's 1564: 316:, which Rapoport called "another name for training". Some fictional examples cited by Rapoport are the inquisitors in 270:

said that the strategies correspond to three big assumptions about humanity, which they called three "images of man".

123:

Several scholars have criticized how Rogerian argument is taught. Already in the 1960s Rapoport had noted some of the

6170: 5320: 5294: 4988: 3625:

James S. Baumlin and Tita French Baumlin, "Rogerian and Platonic dialogue in—and beyond—the writing classroom", in

3508:

Kay Halasek, "The fully functioning person, the fully functioning writer: Carl Rogers and expressive pedagogy", in

2547: 1864: 6749: 2306:

The first two of Young, Becker, and Pike's four phases of written Rogerian argument are based on the first two of

2091:"You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement)." 6939:, wrote: "Our work on listening and the power of authenticity was influenced by Carl Rogers ..." (p. x) 6344: 5392: 5108: 2916:, and peace activism. Rapoport made seminal contributions to game theory and published multiple books, including 2443:

Young, Becker, and Pike pointed out in 1970 that Rogerian argument would be out of place in the typical mandated

2408:

Rapoport pointed out that farmers couldn't practice a Rogerian approach with the military pilot who was spraying

2214:

are unthinking and persistent aggression against an opponent "motivated only by mutual animosity or mutual fear";

1474: 429:

of inviting people to consider the possibility of mutual learning and change by understanding and accepting them.

6961: 6661: 6099: 2765:

as an important source of alternatives to competitive and confrontational rhetoric. As Lamb explains: 'in both

1628: 876: 494: 5240:

Hairston, Maxine (September 1982b). "Using Carl Rogers' communication theories in the composition classroom".

2496:"self-effacing" and "replicates a history of suppression" of women's voices and of their "authentic feeling". 6684:

Davis II, James T. (July 2012). "What is the future of 'non-Rogerian' analogical Rogerian argument models?".

2513:

to be more complete than Rogers' earlier ideas about communication (although there was Rogerian influence on

120:". Rhetoricians have designed various methods for applying these Rogerian rhetorical principles in practice. 6886: 6558: 6473: 5834: 4929: 2771: 2595: 2357: 2023: 1414: 767: 596: 263: 90: 2084:'s version of Rapoport's rules, which Dennett considered to be "somewhat more portable and versatile", is: 1947:

just as a precursor to an 'effective' argument, but as a means of engaging in effective knowledge-making".

1875:

situations—when one party is responding to an opponent but is trying to influence a third party such as an

5892: 5626: 2693: 2226:

are verbal conflicts about the convictions of the opponents, each of whom aims "to convince the opponent".

2134: 1938: 1823: 1658: 1534: 1524: 1444: 881: 670: 199: 163: 5024:(2019). "Five advanced skills for contentious conversations: how to rethink your conversational habits". 2920:(1960). ... Rapoport engaged not only in teaching and research, but also in peace activism ..." 2220:

are attempts "to outwit the opponent" by achieving the best possible outcome within certain shared rules;

6847: 5448:

Kroll, Barry M. (Autumn 1997). "Arguing about public issues: what can we learn from practical ethics?".

2282: 2232: 2123: 1887:—but Rogerian rhetoric is specially intended for certain dyadic situations, not for triadic situations. 1702: 1613: 1544: 1404: 1163: 1026: 941: 838: 402: 179: 78: 6850:; Peppet, Scott R.; Tulumello, Andrew S. (July 1996). "The tension between empathy and assertiveness". 2181: 2158: 1898:'s writings, and so were already in the classical tradition. She pointed to Book I of Aristotle's 116:

in the other's argument. To this principle, Rapoport added other principles that are sometimes called "

6656: 6875: 6477: 6464: 2638: 2608: 2550:, citing the same publications by Rapoport and Rogers that inspired Rogerian rhetoric, used the term 2061: 2033: 1900: 1608: 1598: 1394: 1168: 1128: 871: 383: 342: 113: 109: 6779:

Kroll, Barry M. (Spring 2000). "Broadening the repertoire: alternatives to the argumentative edge".

5897: 5384: 2698: 2678: 1929: 1924:. Other scholars have also found resonances between Rogerian and Platonic "rhetorics of dialogue". 1920: 1707: 1663: 1653: 1648: 1504: 1384: 1178: 843: 711: 317: 58: 222:

professor Maxine Hairston then spread Rogerian argument through publications such as her textbook

6827: 6788: 6766: 6701: 6643: 6069: 6057: 6049: 5922: 5910: 5824: 5767: 5743: 5704: 5602: 5594: 5559: 5525: 5496: 5465: 5371: 5282: 5257: 5228: 5158: 5005: 4974: 4760: 2762: 2730:, at least, of persuasion. For in this state of sympathetic understanding, we recognize both the 2688: 2668: 2653: 2633: 2557: 2504: 2447: 2444: 2254: 2126: 1910: 1792: 1603: 1574: 1424: 1374: 1303: 1228: 1213: 1146: 1104: 815: 760: 641: 623: 490: 439: 6880: 6432: 6419: 6178: 6174: 2479: 2293:"An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood." 1956: 5630: 4637:, p. 230: "The writer can appear 'wimpy'—especially in issues that require a firm stance". 361:, the Russian revolutionary and political theorist: Rapoport called him a frequent user of the 285:, the Russian physiologist known for his experiments on dogs, inspired Rapoport's name for the 6984: 6926: 6916: 6835: 6817: 6736: 6726: 6603: 6593: 6572: 6562: 6533: 6523: 6519: 6506: 6491: 6481: 6446: 6436: 6404: 6394: 6362: 6352: 6348: 6335: 6318: 6308: 6277: 6267: 6263: 6259: 6235: 6225: 6221: 6217: 6192: 6182: 6013: 6003: 5975: 5965: 5944: 5934: 5861: 5857: 5844: 5800: 5777: 5680: 5652: 5642: 5354: 5336: 5197: 5187: 5126: 5116: 5078: 5068: 5064: 5043: 5033: 4943: 4933: 2758: 2372: 2286: 2193: 1816: 1623: 1514: 1353: 1348: 1298: 1173: 1136: 1097: 1004: 755: 700: 529: 322: 6624:

Bean, John C. (October 1986). "Summary writing, Rogerian listening, and dialectic thinking".

6390: 6377: 5183: 5112: 5100: 4816:

Richard E. Young, "Rogerian argument and the context of situation: taking a closer look", in

6879: 6859: 6809: 6693: 6670: 6635: 6255: 6213: 6158: 6129: 6108: 6097:

White, Ralph K. (Autumn 1969). "Three not-so-obvious contributions of psychology to peace".

6085: 6041: 5961: 5902: 5853: 5796: 5735: 5634: 5586: 5551: 5517: 5488: 5457: 5434: 5424: 5363: 5308: 5249: 5220: 5179: 5150: 5021: 5017: 4997: 4966: 2683: 2658: 2648: 2318: 2119: 2115: 2069: 2018: 1787: 1732: 1618: 1288: 1114: 833: 750: 743: 611: 606: 332: 305: 207: 132: 35: 6589: 6459: 6304: 6291: 6154: 5755: 5721: 5692: 5664: 5537: 2913: 2623: 2475: 2404: 1891: 1752: 1668: 1484: 1343: 1253: 1218: 1158: 1053: 999: 956: 649: 327: 203: 167: 94: 5061:

Argument revisited, argument redefined: negotiating meaning in the composition classroom

4986:

Baumlin, James S. (Winter 1987). "Persuasion, Rogerian rhetoric, and imaginative play".

2534:, suggested by Rogers himself in 1951, may be most promising in that kind of situation. 2392:

in addressing it; not understanding this leads to inappropriate and ineffective choices.

218:

Anatol Rapoport, who was working, and doing peace activism, at the same university. The

6863: 6163: 6112: 5992: 5789: 5669: 5619: 5614: 5572: 5209:

Hairston, Maxine (December 1976). "Carl Rogers's alternative to traditional rhetoric".

5096: 4747: 2992: 2909: 2905: 2780: 2663: 2590: 2543: 2509: 2462: 2313:

Maxine Hairston, in a section on "Rogerian or nonthreatening argument" in her textbook

2189: 2081: 2010: 1984: 1884: 1696: 1494: 1328: 1223: 1153: 1043: 1036: 896: 828: 513:

Scholars have compared Rogerian argument to some ideas of the classical Greek thinkers

387: 378: 358: 255: 128: 6512:

Discovering arguments: an introduction to critical thinking and writing, with readings

5933:. Non-violent communication guides (2nd ed.). Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer Press. 2575:

that role reversal as a formal rule of argumentation has been used at least since the

2503:

and use it to evaluate alternative ways of communicating. Lamb considered more recent

6973: 6905: 6705: 6546: 6515: 6428: 6300: 6248: 6206: 6133: 6089: 6061: 5999: 5914: 5606: 5575:(1968). "The effects of role-reversal during the discussion of opposing viewpoints". 5324: 5029: 4756: 2618: 2580: 2552: 2492: 2364: 2050: 2037: 1797: 1782: 1633: 1434: 1293: 1268: 1233: 1080: 1048: 579: 569: 337: 251: 239: 98: 70: 5056: 2299:"A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid." 6944: 6912: 6330: 2518: 2409: 1777: 1722: 1323: 1109: 964: 933: 801: 394: 313: 226:, and other authors published book chapters and scholarly articles on the subject. 6715: 5367: 2613: 1871:

situations—when two parties are trying to understand and change each other—and in

6697: 5927: 2013:, is listening to others so that they will be willing to listen as well. Second, 17: 6959:

Compendium of columns on Rogerian rhetoric, some of which were published in the

6900: 6871: 6045: 5987: 5958:

Rogerian perspectives: collaborative rhetoric for oral and written communication

5878: 5839: 5812: 5784: 2775: 2766: 2576: 2568: 2564: 2421: 2231:

even ethics" that are beyond simple game-like rules. He also suggested that the

2170: 2150: 2097:"Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism." 2065: 1936:

Professor of communication Douglas Brent said that Rogerian rhetoric is not the

1802: 1762: 1737: 1248: 1243: 927: 917: 302: 282: 259: 247: 243: 183: 175: 86: 6750:"A textbook argument: definitions of argument in leading composition textbooks" 5906: 5590: 5477:

Lamb, Catherine E. (February 1991). "Beyond argument in feminist composition".

2273: 1843:

There are different opinions about whether Rogerian rhetoric is like or unlike

6607: 6576: 6550: 5870:

It was also reprinted in full in the book that popularized Rogerian rhetoric,

5521: 5461: 5253: 5154: 5057:"Rogerian rhetoric: ethical growth through alternative forms of argumentation" 5047: 5001: 4947: 2735: 2323: 2145: 1876: 1454: 1333: 1318: 1313: 1092: 1014: 975: 889: 780: 676: 391: 6839: 6495: 5340: 5201: 5130: 1858:

all share the common goal of controlling or persuading someone else, but the

6930: 6740: 6537: 6450: 6408: 6366: 6322: 6281: 6017: 5979: 5948: 5656: 5082: 2531: 2383:

to refer to ideas that can already be found elsewhere in rhetorical theory.

2338: 2296:"A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid." 2173: 2154: 2108: 1905: 1895: 1772: 1273: 1203: 1141: 1073: 987: 970: 951: 946: 732: 726: 705: 687: 518: 478: 448: 410: 354: 295: 178:

in psychological research. Rapoport came to Michigan from a position at the

140: 42:

enough to be able to state the other's position to the other's satisfaction.

6831: 6675: 6239: 5804: 5508:

Lassner, Phyllis (Spring 1990). "Feminist responses to Rogerian argument".

2424:, he noted that the Rogerian approach was mostly irrelevant to the task of 2420:

In a 1968 paper that Anatol Rapoport wrote during, and in response to, the

6024:

Getting to peace: transforming conflict at home, at work, and in the world

5865: 5684: 5638: 5439: 1955:"Rapoport's rules" redirects here. For the ecogeographical principle, see 158: 6196: 5739: 5138: 2643: 2488: 2484: 2467: 2413: 2353: 2342: 1085: 1063: 981: 787: 773: 635: 618: 601: 584: 574: 564: 556: 537: 371: 309: 215: 105: 74: 54: 6813: 6792: 6770: 5828: 5771: 5708: 5286: 5269:

Hart, Alice Gorton (May 1963). "Book review: New insights on conflicts:

509: 6775:

An analysis of how Rogerian argument is portrayed in writing textbooks.

5845:"Dealing with breakdowns in communication—interpersonal and intergroup" 5791:

Client-centered therapy, its current practice, implications, and theory

5747: 5429: 5412: 5375: 5009: 2522:

class exercise was included in later editions of Nancy Wood's textbook

2130: 1338: 1263: 1258: 1208: 1068: 1058: 1031: 794: 738: 681: 628: 589: 421: 62: 39: 6647: 6053: 5598: 5563: 5529: 5500: 5469: 5261: 5232: 5162: 4978: 4633:, p. 17; Paul G. Bator reported a student's similar complaint in 2122:

pointed out that an important part of how Rapoport's rules work is by

5312: 2327:: "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." 1943: 1747: 1742: 1283: 1278: 1238: 1019: 994: 922: 856: 822: 809: 720: 694: 447:

aggressive to some degree, or even destructive of the other's entire

150:

and found that its effectiveness depends on the issue and situation.

6553:; O'Hara, John (2020) . "A psychologist's view: Rogerian argument". 5815:(Winter 1952) . "Communication: its blocking and its facilitation". 2470:

argued: "Rogerian argument has always felt too much like giving in."

1850:

Young, Becker, and Pike said that classical rhetoric and Rapoport's

6639: 5713:

The first page of this article notes that its argument is based on

5695:(Summer 1960b). "On communication with the Soviet Union, part II". 5555: 5492: 5224: 4970: 4955:

Bator, Paul (December 1980). "Aristotelian and Rogerian rhetoric".

1962: 5540:(May 1979). "Aristotelian vs. Rogerian argument: a reassessment". 5297:(October 1967). "Use of role reversal in intergroup competition". 4122:, pp. 111–112; "The inadequacy of individual rationality" in 3280:, p. 44; also cited (but not this quotation specifically) in 2461: 2403: 2272: 2192:

had introduced Rapoport to the prisoner's dilemma game, a kind of

2144: 1961: 1915: 1308: 863: 849: 514: 508: 420: 353: 277: 190:

In the study and teaching of rhetoric and argumentation, the term

157: 29: 4256: 4254: 4252: 4250: 4248: 4246: 4244: 3221: 3219: 3095: 3093: 3091: 3089: 5621:

Boundaries of competence: how social studies make feeble science

2807: 2805: 2094:"You should mention anything you have learned from your target." 1880: 1712: 6120:

Zariski, Archie (April 2010). "A theory matrix for mediators".

5413:"Tit for tat and beyond: the legendary work of Anatol Rapoport" 3236: 3234: 3170: 3168: 6072:; Waters, Nancy J. (October 2006). "The origins of a classic: 6297:

Process, form, and substance: a rhetoric for advanced writers

4543: 4541: 4539: 2742:

to choose among them—either to retain our old or take a new."

2379:. In her view, it is "not parsimonious" to coin the new term 365:

of persuading people through "explaining away" their beliefs.

170:

and others. In the 1960s, Rapoport had helped put Michigan's

5026:

How to have impossible conversations: a very practical guide

194:

was popularized in the 1970s and 1980s by the 1970 textbook

6383:

The informed argument: a multidisciplinary reader and guide

5776:

This paper was written for the International Conference on

5141:(September 1984). "Is Rogerian rhetoric really Rogerian?". 5059:. In Emmel, Barbara; Resch, Paula; Tenney, Deborah (eds.). 4926:

We must not be enemies: restoring America's civic tradition

3950: 3948: 3946: 3944: 3942: 3877: 3875: 3873: 3871: 3143: 3141: 3139: 3114: 3112: 3110: 3108: 1998:

Rapoport proposed three main principles of ethical debate:

3573: 3571: 2478:

and testimonies from women college students in the 1980s,

2426:

opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War

6907:

Difficult conversations: how to discuss what matters most

5850:

On becoming a person: a therapist's view of psychotherapy

4783: 4781: 1995:

of debate, a term that other authors have since adopted.

104:

A key principle of Rogerian argument is that, instead of

4840: 4838: 4502: 4500: 4079: 4077: 4028: 4026: 4024: 4022: 4020: 4007: 4005: 4003: 3765: 3763: 397:

are "explained away" by Marxists as nothing more than a

6542: