Use Rogerian persuasion with a hostile audience
by Stephen Wilbers, from Star Tribune, January 19, 1996

Do you prefer classical rhetoric or Rogerian persuasion?   If this is a question you haven't given much thought to lately, you may be taking a standard, one-size-fits-all approach in your persuasive writing when a variety of methods is called for.  First some definitions.

Classical rhetoric is a body of rules and principles governing the persuasive use of language, as devised by the ancient Greek philosophers (primarily Aristotle).  Sometimes called the "antagonistic" or "oppositional" method, this style of argumentation involves two parties presenting opposing arguments to a third, theoretically neutral party.  Both our judicial system (composed of prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, and judge or jury) and our political system (composed of Republican candidate, Democratic candidate, and electorate) are based on this win/lose model.

In contrast, Rogerian persuasion, sometimes called the "non-antagonistic" or nonoppositional" method, is a rhetorical strategy that seeks not to highlight differences but to find common ground. Based on the thinking of the American humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers, this style of argumentation involves only two parties.  The goal is not for one party to vanquish a second party (in the judgment of a third party), but for one party to try to change the thinking of a second party.  Rogerian persuasion requires the writer to give a fair and accurate statement of the other party's ideas and feelings before presenting the opposing viewpoint.   The rhetorical strategy is that the writer's empathy and fair-minded tone will lower the other party's resistance to new thinking.

To contrast the two methods, consider two current events: In Washington budget negotiations, the predominant rhetorical style seems to be classical; in the Dayton peace talks, the predominant style is presumably Rogerian.  In classical rhetoric, two opposing parties address a third party without trying to convince the other; in Rogerian persuasion, two opposing parties acknowledge each other's viewpoint even as they try to convince the other.  The objective of classical rhetoric, with its emphasis on conflict, is victory; the objective of Rogerian persuasion, with its emphasis on empathy, is understanding and problem-solving.

So, what are the practical implications of classical rhetoric vs. Rogerian persuasion for the business writer?  Which method offers more promise for winning arguments, making decisions, or resolving conflicts?  Well, it depends on the situation. 

Let's say you are a branch manager in a firm with a relatively centralized power structure.  One of the other branch managers has presented an argument to your CEO advocating more autonomy and local leadership.  You see this as a power grab, and you want to argue against the proposed changes.  In this situation, you might devise an argument using classical rhetoric and a standard five-part format: opening and background, presentation of your argument, proof, refutation of opposing argument, and closing restatement of your argument.

On the other hand, if your goal is not to defeat your opponent's initiative but to change your opponent's mind, you might present an argument (not to your CEO but to your opponent) using Rogerian persuasion and this format: opening and background, fair and accurate statement of opposing position, presentation of your position, identification and appeal to common interests, proposal for compromise.   This less aggressive strategy offers some obvious benefits.  You might change your opponent's mind.  Your opponent might change your mind.  More important, if your opponent has used Rogerian persuasion on you to enlist your support in the first place, a classical conflict might have been avoided.

As a general rule, classical rhetoric is more effective with uncommitted, open-minded audiences; Rogerian persuasion is more effective with biased or hostile audiences, particularly when the situation is delicate.

"Chairing" the Members, William Hogarth, 1758