Rogerian Argument: A New Approach to Persuasion

When it comes to an argument, we tend to think in the context of winners and losers. Two opposing sides battle for victory and bragging rights, and in the end, someone inevitably comes out on top. Most people think that the point of an argument or debate is to convince the other side of your own perspective, thereby bringing your audience to your way of thinking.

This is not true of Rogerian Argument, which did not come about until the early 1970’s but was influenced primarily by the philosophies of Carl Rogers. In this type of argument, the goal is to validate your own point of view by making concessions to the opposing side. In other words, you will mention the logical factors in the opposing viewpoint in addition to stating your own opinions.

In theory, this might seem like a radical contradiction of terms; after all, the basis for an argument is the disagreement between two people or parties. Why give the opponent ammunition when it is your turn to take the floor? If you think about it, you’ll realize that you use this form of argument everyday without even realizing it.

For example, let’s say that your boss wants to change a particular work policy, but you think that it will be detrimental to you and the other staff. You certainly can’t just tell him that he’s wrong – he is your superior – but you can work it by coming in through the back door. You tell him that you understand why he wants to make this policy change, and as an opener to your defense, you state the reasons why it would be a positive modification. Then, to refute what you have just said, you give points about the inevitable negative effects to the staff.

Voi La! Rogerian Argument!