This week, we read a few texts discussing the topic of invitational rhetoric. I found this to be particularly interesting idea, especially having studied persuasion and argumentative communication. In Nina Lozano and Dana Cloud's article "The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality" they outline the ethical dilemmas of persuasive rhetoric and how this has influenced feminist studies. In this text, the authors are presenting their audience with this ethical situation and exemplifying how invitational rhetoric differs from persuasion. Lozano and Cloud quote many communication scholars, one being Jennifer Bone. In her studies, Bone talks about how persuasion, while an effective, contains come ethical violations that require deeper consideration. "Bone et al. recognize that persuasion and even violence are sometimes necessary for the successful resolution of conflict. Yet their examples equate persuasion with violence, whereas disruptive tactics like sit-ins are described as examples of invitational rhetoric. Violence and persuasion should be conceptualized as distinct; there is nothing invitational about purposeful public disruption when previous invitations have been ignored. Furthermore, some sorts of "invitation"--for example, to come to the principal's office, or to make overdue credit card payments--are indeed coercive." (Lozano & Cloud, pg. 2). Making this distinction between persuasion and invitation is crucial to observing the ethics of communication. While the two rhetorics share similarities, the primary distinction lies within the ethics.
The analogy of credit card payments is an example of this dichotomy that I think many people can digest. Invitation rhetoric suggests a safe space for consensual communication to occur. On the other hand, persuasive rhetoric is oftentimes set up with power dynamics and suggestive outcomes. I found the credit card analogy the author used to be ironically humorous. As a card owner, I am later required to pay the amount the card company agreed to front me with potential interest. If I fail to make good on what I owe, the credit card company will send me a payment notice "inviting" me to pay. However, this invitation is paired with consequences if proper action is not taken care of. While I have the choice to opt in to a credit card, my options begin to dwindle as the power of the credit card company grows. One could look at credit cards as an invitation due to these factors, however there is a deeper underlying issue of coercion at play.
Hi Kendall!
ReplyDeleteI think you did a really good job of discussing invitational rhetoric and persuasion. From the article, I gathered that invitational rhetoric allowed for an open space in which the audience listened to the viewpoints/thoughts of the speaker while still being able to digest and come to their own conclusions. Persuasion does not typically allow for the same open space that invitational rhetoric does, instead it often involves coercing people to agree with you and see their viewpoint as the right one. The credit card analogy was really interesting to me as well. To see these concepts carried out in a scenario that for the most part, all of us have been through really put the concepts into perspective.
Thinking about how you stated that the primary distinction lies within the ethics of persuasion and invitational rhetoric, do you think that persuasion would be more likely to be considered unethical while invitational rhetoric is ethical? Or are there more variables that need to be considered? Personally, I would say it often depends on the situation that is presented. But, I also think that I often find when someone is persuading me to believe a certain thing or think a certain way, this tends to be more unethical because I don't feel like I have a choice in the matter. It is something very intriguing to think about for sure!
My argumentative communication class only covered Foss & Griffin’s article and only looked at how invitational rhetoric could be used in an academic or research setting. I know that class was focused on writing arguments but I think reading Lozano & Cloud,like you said points out a lot of really important points about invitation rhetoric. I especially agree with the quote you highlighted on how there is nothing invitational if previous invitations have been ignored. I think that with lectures really solidified for me some of the issues invitational rhetoric can have in an non academic setting. I really like invitational rhetoric but I feel it’s really hard to actually use in a non academic setting. Especially when I look at Lozano & Cloud talking about real-world agencies, “This model assumes shared interests between oppressor and oppressed, when, in fact, antagonistic interests (material stakes in a conflict) are undeniable features of society” (Lozano & Cloud 222). I wish it could be used more often as I feel everyone could benefit from a dialogue using invitational rhetoric. I think it can help others question their own opinions, thoughts, upbringing, or privileges as well to hopefully become a better person. I especially think the kind of discussion could become ethical communication when others are encouraged to explore their ideas more and hopefully shift towards a more positive and open mind set.
ReplyDeleteI very much agree with your distinction and understanding of inviting rhetoric and persuasion. At the same time, this is an interesting topic. The most intuitive difference between inviting rhetoric and persuasion is the environment in which the listening party is placed. The inviting rhetoric you elaborated puts both parties in a safe environment for communication. I think this is the difference between the two. The difference, persuasion is more purposeful in a sense, and the means are more direct. But it does not mean that the invitation is the so-called more ethical way. The example of a credit card allows us to understand that invitations can be used not only in a polite manner, but also in a coercive manner. Therefore, I think morality is not a direct way to measure these two.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of an example. Nowadays, there are teachers and students who are not in harmony with each other due to poor communication. We can learn from the theories and methods of inviting rhetoric, and practice by changing the concepts, roles and methods of teachers and students, schools and society. The "inviting teaching method", a new way of communication between teachers and students, can reduce contradictions and conflicts and improve the relationship between teachers and students.
Hello Kendall,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post because I also found the article, “The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality” to be very interesting. One aspect that was intriguing to me was the idea of violence being a necessary force when all other options have failed. While I don’t agree with this theory, I was brought back to the George Floyd protests that happened last year. My goal was to attend a peaceful protest to advocate for change in law enforcement. However, as soon as the protest became violent on both sides, I did not feel safe. It almost felt like being “violent” became the main focus of the protest and some people had lost the true meaning. I think violence is a distraction to solving the real problem. Have you ever experienced a time where violence felt “invitational”?