I think that Rogerian Argument should be one of the things that we teach comp. students, if only for the fact that it emphasizes the fact that arguments are intended to reach and influence an audience, and unless you really just want to preach to the choir, you need to find common ground with those who oppose you. Rogerian Argument assumes that the opposition is going to be hostile to your proposal, and deliberately attempts to find common ground with the opposition before doing anything "threatening" which would put off the other side. I think this is essential, as many student papers that take a stance will take a bandwagon approach, for example:"Everyone agrees that abortion is wrong" which automatically creates a situation in which the only people who will agree with your stance are people who already agree with it. Those who disagree, or may be on the fence, immediately assume a hostile stance to what you will propose because you have not included their viewpoint in your claim. I think that Freshmen come to college with a lot of generalities ingrained about how the world works, and what other people's attitudes are. The assume, and presume, too much. Getting them to consider that the audience they are writing to may be resistant to their approach is important, and getting them to consider that those who disagree with the ones they should be trying the hardest to reach is important.
That being said, I think it is important to realize that perhaps the best argument incorporates the audience-sensivity of Rogerian with the concise point-by-point attack of classical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I also think teaching Rogerian argument can be helpful. The aim here is to create the atmosphere of discussion. One of the problems is when people avoid any discussions as described by Kastely. Having read his work I realized that the easiest way a student can find is to remain passive and to think, “This is just my opinion and I am determined to keep to it.” The argumentation in this case will remain only formal. Something should be done to open space for interaction. Rogers’s approach of getting away with “threat” can be effective here.
Does it seem odd to you that we want students to consider an audience in their papers, to make a connection to the reader, but we, as instructors, will not let them use the word "you" in their essays?
I completely agree with your synopsis of Rogerian Argument.. It is important for freshman to understand that they need to be perceptive and “sensitive” to their audience as one the crucial starting points for successful argument. Though I am not completely sold on the argument itself, your viewpoint as expressed here has opened my eyes to something I must have missed in my readings :)
Post a Comment