In today’s day in age, it can be troublesome to develop an agreement between two different viewpoints. A lot of us struggle with actually listening to differing opinions because we automatically feel threatened by an opposing opinion. This is present today in topics ranging from Internet posts to actual political matters. Since we have a hard time listening to different viewpoints, we have to come up with alternative ways of discussing our beliefs with people of opposing viewpoints. There are countless examples of authors who try to elaborate on what they feel are the best ways to convey a particular opinion. Joe Moxley, Jim Corder, and Rebecca Solnit offer different ways to communicate a message to a particular audience. The differing approaches provide a great awareness to the variety of creative approaches to articulate a message and embody a particular uniqueness.
Joe Moxley- “Rogerian Argument:”
Joe Moxley opens the article about our beliefs and arguments being fueled by faith, emotion, and logic. Our beliefs are influenced by different experiences and cultural views that play a role in defining how we think. He also states how we naturally feel threatened by someone with an opposing viewpoint so we have to come up with creative ways to negotiate our differences. This provides a transition into “Rogerian Argument;” this allows people of different viewpoints to find a common ground. Moxley states that when it comes to Rogerian Argument the goal is, “not for you to win and for your opponent to lose, a scenario that more often results in both parties losing. Instead, you explore ways that will allow both you and your audience to win” (2010). When a writer applies Rogerian strategy then they consider three techniques; these include conveying to the reader that they are understood, delineating the area where writer believes the position is valid, and inducing the reader to believe that they share common moral qualities. This supports Moxley’s claim that if we want to attempt to persuade an opposing viewpoint, then we should try to find common morals and brainstorm ideas that both parties would benefit.
Jim Corder- “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love:”
Jim Corder emphasizes the overall idea that we are all authors and that our life is a narrative in his article “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love.” Corder considers everyday life a narrative. He also states that since we are all our own narratives, we can sometimes collide with other narratives with different ideas; this creates an argument. We also have the power to choose what goes into our narratives, which also establishes our argument. Since we believe in different arguments, we are likely to react in different ways. Corder concludes that we have to learn to appreciate each other’s narratives and that we should change the way we talk and conceive our arguments. However, when it comes to discussing beliefs with another narrative, Corder also adds that disputers can learn to incorporate elements rhetoric to make their argument more persuasive. Rhetoric can help when discussing arguments because, as Corder quotes, “rhetoric is love, and it must speak a commodious language, creating a world full of space and time that will hold our diversities” (31). This enforces the concept that when we use elements of rhetoric, we show sympathy and that we are interested in coming up with a resolution to a problem.
Rebecca Sonlit- “Preaching to The Choir:”
In Rebecca Sonlit’s article entitled “Preaching to The Choir,” the author opens her article by talking about her encounters with people of differing opinions when she was on vacation. This experience made the author more aware of the vast opinions that may differ from our own. Sonlit clarifies the definition of preaching to the choir as, “hectoring your listeners with arguments they already agree with, and it’s a common sin of radicals, the tendency to denounce others as a way of announcing one’s own virtue” (1). This means that we typically tend to express our opinions with people who already agree with us and that if we express our opinions with other’s differing opinions, we are considered radicals. However, Sonlit feels that we waste our time engaging with people who already agree with us and should spend our time trying to discuss issues with our enemies and try to persuade them on a particular view of come to an agreement. We also have to keep in mind that disagreement does not mean to tear down a rival, but rather we should test and strengthen our proposals. Sonlit concludes that if we dismiss the value of talking to people with other opinions then we fail to fully utilize the power of conversation.
Conclusion:
I do agree with the overall message that a lot of these articles are conveying to readers. They make us aware that we will encounter people with opinions different from our own. Instead of radically arguing with them to try and change their point of view we should calmly engage in a conversation and attempt to persuade or come to a common agreement. I agree with Joe Moxley when he talks about finding a common ground through Rogerian argument. I think that this argument style would effectively convey opinions and offer a unique way of persuasion. I also feel that Jim Corder effectively elaborates how our lives are a narrative and that when we clash with people from other narratives we are likely to get involved with arguments. I agree that articulating an argument with elements of rhetoric would be the best way to effectively persuade an audience. After reading Sonlit’s article, I do agree that we should utilize the power of conversation with our enemies to come to a mutual agreement, however I feel that discussing ideas with people who agree with us because they can also have opinions on how we need to compromise with others about a particular issue. I think that the best approaches to conveying a message to an audience is including elements of rhetoric to persuade them, while also discussing the importance of the ideas from opposing opinions as well. If I am going to talk about the effects of negativity being presented to Internet users, these approaches could be very useful when finding a common ground between differing opinions.
Works Cited:
Corder, J. W. (1985). Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love. Rhetoric Review, 4(1), 16-32.
Moxley, W. B. (n.d.). Joe Moxley. Retrieved October 25 2017, from https://writingcommons.org/index.php/open-text/genres/academic-writing/arguments/318-rogerian-argument
Solnit, R., Hallman, J. C., Rab, L., Starr, A., Maharidge, D., & Kroll-Zaidi, R. (n.d.). Preaching to The Choir. Retrieved October 25, 2017, from https://harpers.org/archive/2017/11/preaching-to-the-choir/4/