Rogerian argument


Rogerian argument is a conflict-solving technique based on seeking common ground instead of polarizing debate. According to English professor James Baumlin,

Origin

The writings of American psychotherapist Carl Rogers inspired rhetoricians to formulate principles of communication based on empathizing with the views of others and seeking common ground. The rhetoricians proposed trying to understand the adversary's beliefs and emotions, by listening to them, instead of adopting a point of view without considering those factors.
Some rhetoricians have portrayed this form of argumentation as the opposite of Aristotelian argumentation, which they portrayed as an adversarial form of debate, because Rogerian argument attempts to find mutual understanding and compromise between two sides.

In practice

Rogerian argument can be useful in emotionally charged topics since it defuses emotional reasoning and highlights rational arguments.
Young, Becker and Pike identified four stages:
  1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.
  2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.
  3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.
  4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if they were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better.