The Rogerian Argument

Rogerian Argument Everyone is familiar with the idea of a persuasive essay. The goal is to convince one’s audience that the writer’s point of view is correct. They use logic and their prior understanding of a subject to help argue their side on a position. When using this technique, the writer rarely pays attention to the feelings of those who are most likely to read the writing. Oppositely, Rogerian argument is attempting to find a common ground in the midst of disagreement. One tries to make sure that everyone is heard an understood. Basically, it is a way to discuss things without one party feeling attacked. Rogerian argument is similar to negotiation. When a person feels victimized, there tends to be higher resistance when solving problems.
No one like to be told they are wrong. With Rogerian argument, each party involved feels as though their stance is legitimate. By not attacking the opinion of others, one is more able to connect and communicate with them. If everyone who is a part of the situation is comfortable, they will be more open to change, therefore increasing the chances of finding common ground. While some may think that finding a common ground between opposing ideas hurts one’s argument, I believe it strengthens the argument. If it is clear to see that the writer values the opinions of others, it makes them easier to relate to. When someone feels belittled and attacked, they close themselves off and refuse to be spoken to. Common ground allows the reader and the writer to have a relationship based on equality, leading to a resolution more quickly than without.