Structuring and Analyzing Arguments:

The Rogerian Model

Rogerian Model

Developed by psychologist Carl Rogers (also in the ’50s)

Emphasizes problem-solving and/or coming to consensus

Unlike in Classical argument, is not an argument to win; instead, emphasizes a “win-win” solution benefiting both parties

Useful in psychological and emotional arguments, where pathos and ethos dominate.

Benefits of Rogerian Argument

Allows the author to appear open-minded or even objective

Appropriate in contexts where you need to convince a resistant opponent to at least respect your views

Rogerian Arguments:Structure

Introduction: statement of problem to be solved or question to be answered

Summary of Opposing Views: described using a seemingly objective persona

Statement of Understanding: concedes circumstances under which opposing views might be valid

Statement of Your Position Statement of Contexts: describes contexts in

which your position applies/works well Statement of Benefits: appeals to self-interest

of readers who may not yet agree with you; demonstrates how your position benefits them

An Example of Rogerian Argument: Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr.’s “Whiskey Speech”

Persona: Author/Speaker was a legislator, lawyer, and judge

Known as Judge “Soggy” Sweat; “Soggy” was short for “Sorghum Top” = the tassel at the top of a sugar cane plant

Occasion/Context: Debate in Mississippi Legislature in 1948 regarding the possible legalization of liquor

Sweat’s Speech, continued

My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time.  However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy.  On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be.  You have asked me how I feel about whiskey.  All right, here is how I feel about whiskey.

Sweat’s Speech, continued

If when you say whiskey, you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children;  if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation and despair and shame and helplessness and hopelessness --- then I am certainly against it.

Sweat’s Speech, continued But if, when you say whiskey, you mean

the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes;  if you mean Christmas cheer;  if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning;  if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy and his happiness and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies and heartaches and sorrows; 

Sweat’s Speech, continued

if you mean that drink the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our pitiful aged and infirm, to build highways and hospitals and schools, then I certainly am for it.

This is my stand, and I will not

compromise.

Your challenge…

Keep the first and last paragraph of Sweat’s speech essentially the same, changing the issue from whiskey to whatever you want.

Construct a Rogerian argument around this issue.