One concept from the articles we read for class this week that stood out to me was on invitational rhetoric. "Invitational rhetoric is an invitation to understanding as a means to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination" (Foss and Griffin 5). A factor that differentiates invitational rhetoric from traditional rhetoric is the idea that an invitational rhetor does not judge perspectives of others that may be different than their own. They present their viewpoint as they see it without trying to make other people agree with them, see it their way, or think it is the 'right' way of thinking about a concept. In traditional rhetoric, the goal is often to get others to see it one way or to change in order to believe in what is being spoken to them, rather than allowing the audience to take in all the information and make a decision on their own. The article also talks about change and its relation to invitational rhetoric. The authors state that "Change may be the result of invitational rhetoric, but change is not its purpose" (Foss and Griffin 5). This was very interesting to me because it allows for a space and opportunity to change without opinions and viewpoints being forced on the audience. This type of environment where an audience listens to what someone has to say and after hearing them out, can take time to digest the information, consider new insights, and then evaluate how these factors may change what they originally thought.
These particular concepts in relation to change were really interesting to me and made me think about my own personal experience with change and developing my own opinions. I think that people in general, myself included, are more likely to listen and adjust their viewpoint when the decision to do so is ultimately theirs. No one wants to be told to act a certain way or believe something just because someone else does and thinks that they should too. We want the opportunity to develop our own opinions and beliefs based off of information that we gather and hearing multiple different viewpoints. That is why I would think that invitational rhetoric is ultimately the more effective mode of communication compared to the traditional viewpoint. When put into a space that is safe and open to all opinions/viewpoints, we are more likely to feel comfortable and willing to hear what someone is speaking to us about compared to a setting in which we feel like our opinions may be wrong just because they differ from someone else's.
I think it is interesting to think about these concepts and how the setting/way in which information or viewpoints are delivered can impact the changes that we choose to make. Each week that we read articles I continue to learn how the ways in which things are communicated to us not only change the way in which we think but also how we communicate with others as well.
Sources:
Foss, Sonja K., and Cindy L. Griffin. “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric.” Communication Monographs, vol. 62, no. 1, 1995, pp. 1–18., https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759509376345.
Hi Madison,
ReplyDeleteThe concept on invitational rhetoric is a very interesting one to me as well. While it is clearly a useful form of persuasion, it does not force opinions onto others without their consent. By simply asking a person to learn about another side of an argument, you allow them to make choices themselves. The quote you cited pertaining to change being the outcome but not the goal was particularly fascinating- it made me wonder whether most things we say, regardless of intent, are sometimes persuasive in nature. While I found the Foss and Griffin article fascinating, I also was interesting in the Lazano and Cloud piece. Do you agree with them that invitational rhetoric could be seen as anti feminists because it encourages women and minorities to act with civility while white men do not (2009)? Or are more aggressive forms of persuasion anti feminist, because they are seen as acts only males should participate in?
I believe that either point of view could be held. Personally, I believe that more all people should employ invitational rhetoric in their means of persuasion. It is better to ask someone to see something from your side rather than force them into it, or to use power and control to convince them of your side.