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: