Rogerian Politics

I hate to keep blogging about politics, but it keeps coming up. In Sister Neill F. Marriott's talk, she mentioned an experience that gives us a helpful example of how NOT to express a political disagreement:

One memorable night a relative and I disagreed about a political issue. She briskly and thoroughly took my comments apart, proving me wrong within earshot of family members.

This is not the best way to win an argument. Attacking one's argument on a rhetorical level tends to engender defensiveness, especially when one is within earshot of others, and when one gets defensive, they are rarely willing to listen, no matter how good our arguments are.

Fortunately, there is a better way to present an argument. Earlier today, I had the opportunity to learn and teach about the Rogerian style of argumentation. Named after psychotherapist Carl Rogers, the Rogerian argumentation style begins with understanding and seeks to establish common ground.

The first step is to ensure that you understand the other side's point of view. This can be done by asking questions, listening, and then repeating what they said in your own words. It is helpful to acknowledge the valid points of their argument.

Once you're sure you understand the other's point of view, you can present your own point of view and seek to find common ground between them. Often, two people have similar principles, but different priorities or interpretations of those principles. If you can show that you share at least some of the same moral principles the other person values, they'll be more likely to be willing to listen to your point of view.

As you present your position, seek to find common ground. This is sometimes called a compromise, but that word has a negative connotation for some reason, so let's call it a Win/Win solution, rather than a Win/Lose solution. Too many people try to win political debates at the expense of their political opponents, but I don't like the term "political opponents" either. I don't believe that people have to be enemies. We can often find mutually-acceptable solutions to our political disagreements, as long as both sides are willing to negotiate.

Engaging in Rogerian argumentation in politics is fairly difficult. It's far easier (and more fun) to attack the other side and their arguments in an attempt to make your opponents look stupid, which is why so many people do it. But you can't win arguments that way. Traditional political arguments (complete with strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks) seldom convince one's political opponents to soften their position. In fact, the opposite is far more likely. If we are to have any hope of helping others understand, and perhaps accept, our point of view, we have to reject the traditional form of political argumentation and take a gentler approach instead.

The Rogerian approach to argumentation isn't common in our political climate, but I believe it should be. If we engage more in Rogerian politics than traditional arguments, we will be more likely to bring people together and find Win/Win solutions, and less likely to drive friends, family, and the nation apart.