Arguing with Mr. Rogers

Regarding his sympathetic method of argumentation, Rogers asserts:

"This procedure gradually achieves mutual communication. Mutual communication tends to be pointed toward solving a problem rather than toward attacking a person or group. It leads to a situation in which I see how the problem appears to you, as well as to me, and you see how it appears to me, as well as to you. Thus accurately and realistically defined, the problem is almost certain to yield to intelligent attack, or if it is in part insoluble, it will be comfortably accepted as such" (Rogers 109).

I can't help but think that this is more than a little naive when applied to certain scenarios. How, for instance, would Rogerian argument have been applied to Hitler? "We understand, Adolph, how you feel about the 'Jewish situation,' but we feel differently and you should respect that." Or how about in relation to a group with a cult-like, irrational belief structure: "We understand, Dr. Zamzam, that you believe the Goat God will be returning soon, but we think that human sacrifice is wrong and you should respect that." It seems that the Rogerian form of argumentation presupposes a fundamentally "rational" and "equitable" human nature, but this presupposition is not always valid. Often, in fact, disagreements are irreconcilable and differences are not reducible.

Some other obvious examples would be the Evolution/Creation schism and the abortion debate. Both sides of each argument start from irreconcilable first principles. Then, they reason from those first principles to opposite conclusions. I would not disagree that trying to understand both sides of the issue is a good idea, but it seems false to contend that disagreements that are "in part insoluble . . . will be comfortably accepted as such." Neither side is likely to just roll over and say, "Well, let's agree to disagree." The main reason for this is that doing so would have legal implications. If the evolutionists decided to "lay off," creationism would likely end up being taught in public schools. And for the evolutionary scientist, who sees the "creationist" theory as a piece of abject, theological chicanery that explains nothing, this would be completely unacceptable.

In any case, I am not arguing that traditional forms of argumentation are any more effective than the Rogerian form regarding these types of issues and situations. But, it seems to me that stripping the argumentative process of "emotion" may not always be a good idea. Rogerian argument seems to suggest a kind of detached, epistemological relativism with which I disagree. I do not believe that both sides in every argument are valid. Sometimes one of them is wrong -- utterly. I don't believe that pretending to empathize with an obviously absurd position is necessary. Sometimes, particularly when dealing with people you know to be relatively sane, Rogerian argument could be extremely productive. But Rogers seems to want to apply this form of argumentation to nearly everything (including Cold War Russia!), and I just don't buy his moral optimism.