Read Chapter 9 and 10 and complete the review questions.

CHAPTER

.~, -; ;~1i

. ;..~ ~

,.

Rogerian Argument and Common Ground

After studying this chapter, you will be able to: i..O:

L0.2

1.03

Define the purpose and key aspects of Rogerian argument.

Create your own examples of Rogerian argument.

Apply the principles of Rogerian argument to academic writing.

T raditional argument, which has its origin in classical sources, is the form of argument that predominates in American culture. It is what you are used to when you listen to people argue on television or when you read arguments in blogs, periodicals, or books. In traditional argument, the arguer states a claim and proves it by drawing on various types of proofs, including reasoning and evidence. The object is to convince an audience that the claim is valid and that the arguer is right.

In this traditional model, the arguer uses the rebuttal to demonstrate

how the opposition is wrong and to state why the audience should reject

that position. Thus, the emphasis is on winning the argument. Debate,

with participants on both sides trying to win by convincing a third-party

judge, is one form of traditional argument, as is courtroom argument

and all other single-perspective argument in which one person argues to

convince one or more people of a particular point of view. As you know from your own experience, traditional argume~t

does not always achieve its aims with the audience. Indeed, in certam . . . alue systems are

situations when strongly held op1n10ns or entire v . b

ff t've at all. The audience challenged, traditional argument may not e e ec

1 ·t . useful

When that happens, I is might simply stop listening or walk away. that might work

. to turn to, one to have another argumentatwn strategy doff or a lack of common

. . ems to be a stan better in cases m which there se

h uing parties. .

ground among t e arg ll d because it evolved from techmques . ment, so ca e . h .

Rogenan argu th . st Carl Rogers, is a techmque t at 1s li d by psycho erap1 originallY app e

282 Chapter 9 Rogerian Argument and Common Grou nd

LO 1 Define the purpose and key aspects of Rogerian argument.

. d tablishing common ground betwe · d · onfhct an es en particularly useful for re ucmg c t times e>..rpress hostility to . 't' ons and who may a - Warct people who hold divergent posi 1 . 'bl to achiev-:: in such situar each other. Common ground often seems 1m~odss1 e th1'n g t ,1 ~gre e on i'f th ions, 1 fin some , ~ 0 · ey t but two opposing parties can almost a ways ry

hard enough. · . 1

f bl' h·ng common ground, Rogena n argument also To achieve the goa o esta 1s 1 1- h employs rebuttal differently. Instead of using rebuttal to shew ~low t e opposition • R · n argument requires that the argu 1s wrong, as in traditional argument, ogena er spend at least some time at the beginning of the argument not only explaining

how the opposition's position is right but also identifying situations in which it might be valid. The arguer cannot do this successfully without finding some common ground with the opposition. It is almost impossible to show how any part of another individual's opposing position is valid if you disagree with it totally.

To illustrate, imagine an argument between two individuals who are seeking common ground on methods for reducing gun-related violence . One of these individuals advocates that private citizens arm themselves with handguns as a deterrent to shooters. Another believes that the availability of handguns is the problem and advocates that private gun ownership be abolished. Common ground exists between the two parties because of their common concern for personal safety. To use Rogerian argument in this situation, the anti-handgun party would restate the pro-handgun party's position and would emphasize the common concern they both have for protecting their safety, before they search together for a solution on which they can agree .1

You may find Rogerian argument frustrating at first, especially if you favor con- tentious debate in situations in which your ideas and values seem to be under threat. Because Rogerian argument emphasizes malting connections with the opposition and reducing hostility in such situations, you will need to curb your instincts to launch your argument by letting the opposition know how wrong you think they are. y 0 u can learn to use Rogerian argument, even if it is not your pref erred or most natural style of arguing, in situations where traditional argument is no longer effective. It is a useful strategy when other strategies are failing. Let us look at a couple of examples.

Achieving Common Ground in Rogerian Argument In 2005, Cal Thomas, a politically conservative newspaper columnist, and Bob Beckel, a liberal political analySt and cons~tant, began coauthoring their popular column "Common Ground" that appears m the newspaper USA Today. In 2007,

11 am indebted to J enny Edbauer for this example.

. Achieving Common Ground in Rogerian Argument theY pubhshed Common Gro d·

. d . . un . How to St h America, an in it Cal Thomas de "b _op t e Partisan War That Is Destroying sen es their collaboration.

We're a good example of ho th 1

- w common o er, we on y krww "about" e h ground can work. Before we kne h · h" ·1 11 ·d ac other Is w eac wit ev1 1 ea s and positions con : aw you [Beckel] as a liberal Democrat as a conserva tive Republican wi"thse:v~tives associate with that label. You saw m

kn sunllar " il" "d e we got to ow each other and talked abou ev . _1 eas and suspect friends. When challenges, we stopped seeing each h . t politics, as well as personal and family then (shock, shock) even to admi ot e~ m stereotype and came first to respect and than the relationship . And most re ea_c. 0ther. The politics became less important about quite a number of things t~urpr~mg of all,_we found ourselves in agreement to achieve our common goals . .i oug we occasionally still differ on the best ways

Their purpose in writing the book th k . politicians to follow their exam

1 ' e~ ma e clear, 1s to encourage U.S. . . P e and make 1t a rule to seek common ground as partd Boftckhelpolli~1calhprocess for resolving difficult and divisive issues. Indeed Thomas an e e c arm t ey are present" " 1 h ' · . ,, mg a P an t at makes polarization the issue and c_ommon ground the solution. They "believe the time is right to challenge polariza- t10n and for common ground t b h · . . . ,,

3 o ecome t e next dommant strategic force in

national ~,?htics. To support this idea, they argue that the public prefers this approach. Surveys conducted over several years have found that Americans believe even the most partisan issues-from abortion to the Iraq war-can be resolved with an honest commitment by elected leaders in Washington to finding consensus."4

Rogerian argument, with its emphasis on finding common ground and reaching consensus, can sometimes help people who differ strongly in their views find a bedrock of values and ideas that they can all hold in common. As a result, divided individuals are often able to resolve at least some of their differences. The process of seeking political common ground that Thomas and Beckel believe is beginning to occur in political discussions, and that they hope will occur more often, includes listening, understanding, and accepting points of view different from one's own, recognizing that both positions have some merit, and finally finding a way to resolve some of the differences. This process is at the heart of Rogerian argument strategy.

Let us look at another real-life example of building common ground between disagreeing parties with each side demonstrating an understanding of the other's Point of view. Environmentalists, who typically want to protect the environment at all costs, often find themselves in opposition to individuals who make their ~iving by exploiting the environment. Loggers, ranchers, mill own~r~, and other Industrialists, for example, can fall into this second category , Ind1v1duals from both groups, stereotyped as "nature haters" and "eco-freaks" by the press, met in Idaho to discuss efforts for protecting endangered wildlife in the area_- The enVironmentalists went to the meeting with some trepidation, but "as they Jok~d

. h "d Jived up to its and sparred over steak and beer, they discovered that ne1t er s1 e er at , "d Al x Irby a manag stereotype. 'We found that we didn't hate each other, sa1 e '

i ------- . . War That Is Destroying America (New York : Ca) Thomas and Bob Beckel, Common Ground: How to Stop th e Par/lsan

~arperCollins, 2007), 257 .

homas and Beckel. 12 .

4rhomas and Beckel, 10.

283

284 Chapter g

L02 Create your own examples of Rogerian argument.

n Ground Rogerian .Argument and Commo

l.k to do a lot of the same things ,h we all i e ·1 f h . rve th y,,.- k 1 .11 i·u 'Turns out, about the detm s o t e meeth,g f e 1.'\..on o vi e sawm · ho wrote . h -1.l! or love the outdoors."' Timothy Egan, w h' coTY"lrnent: "Loggers in 1 e back counth,

. kes t is i.1.u..u- " 0 . ·1 the New York Times Magazine, ma_ is an astonishing change. ne can Inferthat sitting down with environmental~sts . eting was brought about by each sict

bl. h d lil this me . t d e the common ·ground esta is e 1 d. on the environrnen an on outdo hey pace . or

describing to the other the value t both parties perceived that they had been activity in general. In such an exchange, "ble heard, and further dialogue was then possiam.ples understanding the rhetorical

b h f these ex ' . As you can see from ot ~ . rticular by analyzing the thoughts anct situation in gener~l a~d the au~ienc:i:c~timportance in Rogerian argument. As values of the parties involved is 0! c din the examples of Rogerian arguments you read the rest of this chapter, in clu h g t r •pay particular attention to how written by students at the e_nd of_

th e c, :s:~ting opinions and values and then

Rogerian arguers analyze thelf audiences respond to them as part of their overall strategy.

Rogerian Argument as Strategy Carl Rogers was a psychotherapist who was well known for the empathetic listening techniques he used in psychological counseling. Here is how he describes the importance of listening:

I like to be heard. A number of times in my life I have felt myself bursting with insoluble problems, or going round and round in tormented circles, or during one period, overcome by feelings of worthlessness and despair. I think I have been more fortunate than most in finding at these: !imes individuals who have been able to hear me and thus to rescue me from the chaos of my feelings. I have been able to find individuals who have been able to hear my meanings a little more deeply than I have known them. These individuals have heard me without judging me, diagnosing me, appraising me, evaluating me. They have just listened and clarified and responded to me at all levels at which I was communicating. I can testify that when you are in psychol_ogical dis~ress and someone really hears you without p~ss- ing judgment on you, without trymg to take responsibility for you, without trymg to mold you, it feels damn good. At these times it has released the tension in me. It has permitted me to bring out the frightening feeling, the guilt, the despair, and the confusions that have been a part of my experience. When I have been listened to and when I ~ave be~n _heard, I am able to reperceive my world in a new way and to go on. It is astomshmg how elements which seem insoluble become soluble when someone listens, how confusions which seem irremediable turn into rela- tively clear flowi~g stream~ when_ ~ne is heard. I have deeply appreciated the tunes that I have expenenced this sensitive, empathic, concentrated listening. 5

Rogers later became interested in how listening techniq ld be used to • • · h cliff. ues cou d

improve com:11-umcat10n m ot er icult, emotionally charged situations. Richaf Young and his coll~agues Alton Becker and Kenneth Pike built on Rogers's ideas to formulate Rogenan argument, a method for helping people in difficult situatiollS

A Way of Being, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1980, 12-13. I thank Barb . . this tO 5Carl R. Rogers, ara C1areUo for calling

IU) , attention.

Rogerian Argument as Strategy 285 ake connections, create comm tll • d on ground d bjeCt was to avm undue conflict ' an understand one another. The 0

According to Young, Becker, ;~d e;i~~ wor.se, a mutual standoff .6 the reader's sense of threat and confli . ' wntten Rogerian argument reduces ct with the w ·1 h . onsidered. Four goals are met with th· n er sot at alternatives can be

c is strategy.

Goal 1. Writers let readers know they h b t he writer restates th e opponent's po:~t: ee~ underSt00d. To accomplish this purpose, 1 ion m summary form b . di .

ate, neutral anguage . The writer demonstrates th Y usmg spass1on-th t the writer u nderstands the · at the reader has been heard and

a issue exactly as the read d Th 1 vrronrnentalists listened and d er oes. e oggers and the

en un erstood one another in th 1 · d 1· Goal 2. Wri ters show how readers' . . . . e examp e ate ear 1er. . . . ~- . posztzons are valzd zn certain contexts and under

certain condztzons. 1 he wnter demonstrates to th d h , . . . b e rea er t at at least part of the reader s position is oth valid and acceptable and thereby k ·1 . f h

. ma es i easier or t e reader

1? renproca~e an~ accept part of the writer's position. Both the loggers and the environmentalists discovered validity in each other' -1· · · h s posi 10ns smce neit er group wanted to destroy wildlife. ~oal 3. W:iters help readers ~nderstand that both of them share the same values, types of experzenc:, attitudes, ~nd perceptions and are thus similar in significant ways. The loggers and environmentalists made it clear to each other that they shared a love of the outdoors, held.some of the same values, and enjoyed the same types of experiences. Goal 4. Writers propose solutions made up of elements from both sides that can be agreed to by both parties. At this point, environmentalists discovered that loggers were quite willing to pursue ways to preserve wildlife . The most important feature of Rogerian argument is listening empathetically and nonjudgmentally. Rogers perceived that people usually listen judgmentally and evaluatively. They are eager to jump in, point out what is right or wrong, and make corrections or refutations, whereas Rogerian listening requires that insight into the other's position precede evaluation. Thus, a writer of Rogerian argument takes the reader's place, and this is achieved by requiring that the writer provide neutral summaries of the reader's position that show sympathetic understanding of it and its context. In doing this, the writer encourages a continued and open exchange of ideas with the-reader. In Rogers's words, the writer "listens with" as opposed to "evaluating about." In real life, Rogerian argument is used frequently, particularly in business and Perhaps increasingly in-politics, where agreement is indispensable. Some people in business claim they could not get anything done if they did not use Rogerian strategies on a daily basis. William L. Ury, one of the founders of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, claims that in business now, the best way to compete is to cooperate. Cooperation is necessary because of the numerous

rn . · es now work

ergers and cooperative ventures between companies. Many comparn . With the same markets and the same customers, and they cannot co~pete7 as m form.er times, without weakening themselves as much as their compeutors. 6 ------ -

h (Ne w Yo rk : Harco urt, Brace, and R· h

- · very and C ange le ard You n g Alto n Be cke r and Ke nn eth Pike, Rh eto ri c: Disco

w , , ' Orld, l 970), 7-8 , 27 4--9 0 .

. . " Wo rksh o p, Dallas, October 12, 1999 . \Viii •

. . Th e Art o f Negou a u o n. 1am L. Ury. "Gett in g Past No . . . to Yes !

on Ground Chapter 9 Rogerian Argument and Comm

. Argument Co mpared Traditional and Roger1an

• , " What Is Rogerian Argument? ROGERIAN ARGUM ENT

Basic strategy

Ethos

logos

Pathos

Goal

TRADITIONAL ARGUMENT

Writer states the claim and gives reasons to prove it. Writer refutes the opponent by showing what is wrong or invalid.

Writer establishes own character by demonstrating fair-mindedness, competence, and goodwill.

Writer appeals to reason to establish a claim and refute the opponent's claim.

Writer arouses emotions with evocative language to strengthen the claim.

Writer seeks to change opponent's mind and thereby win the argument.

The writer states oppo n,2_n t 's claim to demonstrate understandi ng and shows how it is valid.

Writer builds opponent's ethos and enhances own character through empathy.

Writer proceeds in an explanatory fashion to analyze the conditions under which the position of either side is valid.

Writer uses descriptive, dispassionate language to cool emotions on both sides.

The writer creates cooperation, the possibility that both sides might change, and a mutually advantageous outcome.

Box 9 .1 contrasts Rogerian argument, as explained by Young, Becker, anc Pike, with the traditional model of argument.

While the emergence of the Web has fostered greater public engagement with issues, it has also, in many cases, led to greater polarization. Extreme viewpoints of those who evince no interest in hearing, let alone accepting, other views are found everywhere on the Web. As a result, some online arguments try to seek common ~round. T~e ste_ps outlined below provide you with a guide for using the principles of Rogenan analysis to find common ground in online arguments.

t t I Identify the Differences • What;. if anything, is ROlarizing about this on line argument?

k It . ements are used to present a polarizing viewpoint, if any? • What eymu 1

Rogerian Argument as Strategy 287

(continued) , , t Restcd:t: 1'his Position in Neutral Terms

• How ca n y~:- u restate this multimed ia argument in a more objective way? , • • Uncovef H"~e Common Values

• Wh at assurn ptions, views, and va lues might this arguer share with those on the other side of this arg um ent?

, ••Propose a Solution • What chang es would you make to this multimedia text, if any, to create common ground? The Web site b el ow offers an exampl e of how these steps f or creating common ground can be put into practice . Look closely at thi s image and the sample analysis t hat follows .

Immigration

Search hi eHoos .gov Search '){-•.:~-.,~~· .

• ; ~ -. ,.I ~: 1

Crea· Sisfe een ·· Our·'ria'tkin

: ... ,::,,,(·~'-:_".'';::-:---;~.-;;..:;·-'I'"':'\,'..:-'.:;,---'' Fixing It Is an economic a~d na security lmper~tive. Th'ir;;hy: es . en i-~3%°' Obama Is working to pass aco·;;;~; i, ·.:';°:;· ·· ... sense, comprehensive set of reforms that ensures everyone plays by the same rules.

Hide This

'~ 1:34 , :< 1-1

BORDER SECURITY

STRENGTHENING EARNED ENFORCEMENT CITIZENSHIP

STREAMLINING IMMIGRATION

IMMIGRATION & THE ECONOMY

Immigration America's Immigration system Is broken . Too many employers game the syste m by hiring undocumented w o rkers and there are ,, mllllon people living In the shadows . Neither Is good for the eoono my or the oountry. The President's plan bullds a smart, effective Immigration system that continues efforls 110 seoure our borders and cracks down on employers Who hint undocumenlllll lrNnigrants. It's a plan that requires anyone 'Who"t WICIQQmlenad 10 get right wlll'I ll'le law by paying ll'lelr taxes Ind I~. IMmlng English, and undergoing background checkS be.._ ll8Y can be eligible 10 eam citizenship. It requires every businaa Incl 9WlfY woncar 110 play by the same set of rules.

Together we can build a fair, effective and common sense immigration system

, 8 a nation of that lives up to our hentage 8 laws end a nation of Immigrants.

Vea csta secci6u en Espano l

SHARE YOUR IMMIGRATION STORY ►

HOST A ROUNDTABLE ►

continued

I

I :i :·!

ii l I 1 i I'

I ! ~ i

i I !I

288 Chapter 9 Rogerian Argument and Comm on Ground

t t t Identify the Differences . . • • 1

f n uses a combinatio n of visual and Excerpted from the official White House Web site, th1 s se ec 10

rs·ial issue of immigration reform d d the controve · textual elements to create common groun aroun .

1 erns over fairn ess and security More specifically, it makes an argument designed to reconci e cone

that typically divide pro- and anti-immigration groups.

t t t Restate This Position in Neutral Terms The selection seeks to accomplish this goal first by employing language th at emphasizesft?e · f II b · • F te· "Together we can create a air, importance o co a oration and compromise. or examp • ' . effective and common sense immigration system that lives up to our heritag~ as ~ nation of la_ws and a nation of immigrants." This same emphasis is reinforced through the links included, which bring together all of the key issues (i.e. "security," "enforcement," "citizenship") over which discussions about illegal immigration most often become polarized. By presenting them as a set of related concerns that this "comprehensive reform plan" will address, the Web site succeeds in conveying to viewers its desire to overcome the differences that typically prevent the creation of common ground. This message of inclusion is also conveyed visually, in the form of the U.S. map, which draws a connection between vibrant immigration and national economic health.

t t t Uncover the Common Values Through these various multimedia elements, this Web site succeeds in uncovering the potential common ground that might bring the sides involved in the debate over illegal immigration closer together. Such common ground includes: an acknowledgment that illegal immigration is not a threat to the e~onomic health of the United ~tates; an ~greement that sensible immigration reform needs to incorporate concerns over national security; a commitment that immigration refo~m will also respect the rule of law.

t t t Propose a Solution With these shared values clearly communicated, it is easy to imagine a v·,ewer w·ti · t • I . . . . 1 mg o serious y consider the 1mm1grat1on reform plan presented here. Such a viewer would like! b d b the . . . b d . h y e swaye y argument that 1mm1grat1on can e manage wit the requisite attention to fa·,r •t d economic health. ness, securi y, an

Activity Now use these same steps to analyze an online argument of your own. Choose an exam I f n · · . II I . . h Pe O a online argument that, in your view, is espec1a y po anzmg. ~- at does this argument look like? What views does it pit against each other? Moreover, what is it about these views that makes this issue so polarizing? Use the steps outlined above to create a model for how these differences

might be bridged.

• • Rogerian Argu t · . Wr1t1ng Ro . men in Academic Writing 289 -----~g_er-=1an Argume

. R . - -::::::- lit ro wnte ogenan argument : ~-----------

d · h , accordmg t procee s mp ases rather than folio . 0 Young, Becker a . strategies. These phases are as f llVVIng set organizational pat~ nd Pike, the writer

o ows: ems or argumentation 1. The writer introduces th .

d d b e issue and sh un erstoo y restating it 0 ws that the opponent' . . . . · s pos1t10n 1s

2. The wnter show s in which c . . b . ontexts and und h

pos1t10n may e valid. Note that the o er_w at conditions the opponent's wrong. pponent is never made to feel completely

3. The writer then states his or h .. it is valid. er own position, including the contexts in which

4. The writer states how the opp , .. d onent s pos1t10n would b f 'f were to a opt elements of the writer's . . ene 1t 1 the opponent

show that the two positions co 1

positwn. An attempt is finally made to what the other lacks. mp ement each other and that each supplies

Rogerian Argument in Academic Writing Rogerian argument as described by Young, Becker, and Pike is rarely, if ever writ- ten exactly according ~o thei~ format. You can learn more about Rogerian' argu- ment, however, by using theII format as practice. The "Exercises and Activities" section of this chapter provides two examples of Rogerian argument papers written by students who followed Young, Becker, and Pike's formulations. You also will be invited to write a Rogerian argument paper using this format.

As you read professionally written argument, however, you are much more likely to find elements or variations of Rogerian argument rather than arguments that include all of the parts of the Young, Becker, and Pike model. Here are some variations of Rogerian argument that you may encounter in your academic reading.

1. Report on past research at the beginning of an academic argument. Authors of academic argument, as a matter of convention, often begin with a review of what previous writers have contributed to the subject. They identify the writers by name and summarize their contributions before identifying and developing their own contribution to the subject. Thus an ongoing chain of conversation is established that acknowledges what has gone before the new material that is the actual subject of the article.

h f d d resources from 2. Research proposal. Research proposals t at request un s an 'b t· ns . . . . . . of the contn u 10

granting agenoes typically begm with a pos1t1ve summary 1 dged does f h . f k has been acknoW e of past researchers . Only a ter t 1s armer wor .11 build on what has . h h sed research w1 the researcher explam ow t e new propo

gone before. 8

. f Roge rian a rg um ent. SI . me to thi s use o

ani indebted to Mary Stanley for ale run g

L03 Apply the principles of Rogerian argument to academic writing .

290 d common Ground Chapteo-!f, R~gerian Argument an . written in resp onse to an essay w . This paper is rr•i p th f tltte 3. Rogerian response paper. h author disagrees . ,.1~1 ..... au or o a resp ll "th whom t e h ·'· ., i' ,_, other e OlJ.so by another person w1 . . h t the aut or or , Ii.... ssay pr ' . h pos1t1on t a i· ·, . h h esen.t Paper typically reJects t e d and understancin ,g wit t at Pers s mon groun - . on t but hopes to create co~ . The goal is to ma ke a connection With 0

keep a dialogue on the issue ~o:~i~ create a context of ·un derstanding so t~he author of the other essay an

1 . the issue Such p an ers usually begin ,x,; at f e exp onng • . 1 •v 1th both authors can con mu h , position along w ith a n acknowledgm

a restatement of the otherhaut or.:ion before the au t;wr goes on to prese;;t of what is valuable about t at posi a different view of the matter.

·tt by other authors, look for elements of Rogerian As you read arguments wn en h h • • . 1 • t cited by no means ex aust t e poss1b1hties argument. The three examp es JUS ·

One criticism sometimes leveled at Rogerian argument when it is first encountered is that it can be perceived to be manipulative. Though it can be used in this way, it is not inherent to this form of argumentation. People who use Rogerian argument in unethical ways to manipulate other people may exhibit a condescending attitude or fake sincerity. They may also use some of the same tactics that unethical arguers use in tradition·a1 argument: for example, hiding the real purpose of the argument by misrepresenting the issue; using inappropriate emotional appeals, including emotionally loaded language; manufacturing evidence; or the use of inaccurate evidence, exaggerations, or lies.

Individuals who practice ethical Rogerian argument, on the other hand, make a genuine attempt to understand an issue and its consequences from a range of different perspectives. Participants in Rogerian argument have to sincerely believe that the position they propose is in the best interests of both parties and, possibly, the larger society as well. They need to be able to answer the questions, Who are benefited by what I want? and Who are burdened or hurt? and to scrupulously consider the consequences of their answers to those questions. They need to listen and hear nonjudgmentally; they need to seek genuine agreement with at least part of the opponent's position; and they need to develop some unconditional positive regard for the individuals with whom they are engaged and show that regard in all that they say. In other words, participants in Rogerian argument need to think, argue, and act like a citizen.

In order to test out this premise, return for a moment to the online issue you analyzed above. Now that you have seen how Rogerian argument can help overcome the polarization we so often see in the online media, look at the sample analysis below to see how this same framework can help you connect such a common ground argument to citizenship.

t t t Thinking Like a Citizen • Why do I care about this issue? . . . . . . rtant to me because ,t concerns one of our national values in which This issue 1s 1mpo . di f h · · I believe most deeply: the right of all immigrants, regar ess o t e,r ctrcumstances or

Review Questions

background, t o seek .- . . a new hom . .

founded a:i an immigf'. . em the United St t . . . ant nation d a es. I am keenly a ,mmIgrat10n la w s that h an , as a result I fi I ware that America was

myself in svmpa thy w,·thotnhor this tradition. As a~ Ameeer~tron~I~ that we should support .,, e po· t ft 1can Citizen ho

immigration,, especially illegal i~: _o e~ made by those in favor of tig;:;~~ : ~Is~ find 1grat10n: the need fi s nct10ns on

••• Argui ni~, {, ~t;re a c·t· or everyone to respect the rule of law. " " " ;;,, fl,;. • h . 1 1zen

• What arg u rnent can I mak th e at supports my . b · common g ro und? view ut also creates the possibility of

In light of my views on this issue I th. . edges the rights of immigrants , h ·1 m_k the most effective argument is one that acknowl-

the law. Such an argument . : , e SlfT~ultan_eous~y ~ecognizing the importance of obeying

more immigrants. the ch m,g tread l,ke t~1s: Ex1stmg law needs to be changed to allow

ft' fi h ance to enter the Umted States legally, as well as to strengthen pena ies or t ose who attempt to enter the country illegally.

t t t Acti ng Like a Citizen

• What concrete action can I take to create greater common ground on this issue?

To help garner public acceptance of this argument, I could undertake any one of the

following measures: (1) write a letter in support of this approach to my local or state

representative, (2) participate in a public discussion with opponents of immigration

reform, and (3) solicit firsthand stories about the challenges and struggles faced by

newly arrived immigrants and post them online.

Activity Choose a polarizing issue and, following the steps above, use the principles of Rogerian argument

to I · ·t· n on the ·,ssue so that those who disagree will find it more acceptable.

exp am your pos1 10

Review Questions - d h d th y differ from 1. What are the four goals of Rogerian argument, an ow o e

those of traditional argument? (L0 1) f Rogerian argu-

2 Wh f the advantages and disadvantages o · at are some o ment? (L01) think you might find Rogerian

3. In what type of argumentation situa;i~n~~ J:;ment? pescrib~:,~';~~:~~;; argument more productive than tra . ht prompt you to res

. . . · n that rnig With the rhetoncal situauo ' argument. (L02)

291

-

BEFORE YOU READ: What ire your view, 00 the value of WucaHor,7 Do you know of anyor,e who holds • d;fft rem view? What is it7

SAY #1 HEAL THE ACADEMIC- VOCATIONAL SCHISM* M ikeRo5e