The Longshore Workers' Strike (RogerianArgument)

For the final essay, you will be asked to write a speech(using Rogerian-style argument of at least 5 paragraphs) to bedelivered to the workers—who are divided about these issues—inwhich you propose what you believe to be the best solution to theLongshore strike dispute.

Remember that Rogerian essays do not take sides but seek tofind a compromise that resolves differences without obviouslyfavoring any one side.

Therefore, in your essay, be sure to include thefollowing, which may be used as an outline for a RogerianArgument:

• A brief and objectively phrased statement that defines theissue.
• A complete and neutrally worded analysis of one side’s possibleposition with comments about the benefits of this position.
• A complete and neutrally worded analysis of the other side’sposition with comments about the benefits of this position. Youshould carefully avoid any suggestion that you are more moral orsensitive than your audience.
• An analysis of what your positions have in common and whatgoals and values you share.
• A proposal for resolving the issue in a way that recognizes theinterests of both parties.

Here is the scenario...

San Francisco, California, 1934.

The Great Depression began in 1929 and will last until 1941.People are struggling to eat and to work. Poverty is rampant.People are skeptical about labor movements, unions, and worker’srights advocacy because they may suggest the influence ofanti-American communism.

Imagine that you are the union leader for the Longshore workers,and—as the San Francisco Crabicle article outlines—many ofthe workers you represent have chosen to go on strike to protestunfair treatment by their waterfront employers—but some haveexpressed concerns that the strike will backfire, and the communityof San Francisco has had a very mixed response (see “Statementsfrom the Community”).

As a paid, elected leader of the Longshore union, you representall members of the constituency: those who want tocontinue the strike, those who want all members to go out onstrike, and those who want to continue working because they havefamilies to feed and can’t afford to lose pay. As a leader, youanswer to all of these groups. As a member of the SanFrancisco community during the Depression, you also have a vestedinterest in the well-being of the city.

The union members have asked you to meet with them and addressthe group with a solution to their disagreement about the best wayto address their concerns about the workplace issues: their safety,their pay, and their hours. They are mad. They want a solution.

Keep in mind:

• You are in an elected leadership position and would like tokeep your job, so you don’t want to alienate any of the workerconstituency groups;
• You don’t want to cause rioting, provoke an attack by thepolice or National Guard (that’s what really happened), or createdivisions within the union;
• You don’t want the business to go bankrupt (thus losingjobs).
• You are in the union hall, onstage, facing angry workers whoare demanding a response from you.

More info on Rogerian argument

Rogerian Argument

Typically, readers think of winners andlosers of arguments. The western tradition of argument goes back toclassical Greece when speakers tried to sway fellow voters in theearly democratic debates over policy. Building on this tradition ofpro and con, the modern judicial system goes even further toemphasize the adversarial nature of many arguments. But argumentsdon't always have to assume that readers make a yes/no,innocent/guilty, on/off decision. Many arguments build towardconsensus.

Based on Carl Rogers' work inpsychology, Rogerian argument begins by assuming that a willingwriter can find middle or common ground with a willing reader.Instead of promoting the adversarial relationship that classicalargument typically sets up between reader and writer, Rogerianargument assumes that if reader and writer can both find commonground about a problem, they are more likely to find a solution tothat problem. Based on these assumptions, Rogerian argumentdevelops along quite different lines than a traditional argumentoften does.

Sections of a Rogerian Argument

Inthe introduction to a Rogerian argument,the writer presents the problem, typically pointing out how bothwriter and reader are affected by the problem. Rather thanpresenting an issue that divides reader and writer, or a thesisthat demands agreement (and in effect can be seen as an attack on areader who holds an opposing view), the Rogerian argument does notbegin with the writer's position at all.

Next, the writer describes as fairly aspossible—typically in language as neutral aspossible—the reader's perceived point of view onthe problem. Only if the writer can represent the reader'sperspective accurately will the reader begin to move towardcompromise, and so this section of the argument is crucial to thewriter's credibility. (Even though writers might be tempted to usethis section of the Rogerian argument to manipulate readers, thatstrategy usually backfires when readers perceive the writer'sinsincerity. Good will is crucial to the success of a Rogerianargument.) Moreover, as part of the writer's commitment toexpressing the reader's perspective on the problem, the writeracknowledges the circumstances and contexts in which the reader'sposition or perspective is valid.

In the next main chunk of the Rogerianargument, the writer then presents fairly and accurately his orher own perspective or position on theproblem. This segment depends, again, on neutral but clearlanguage so that the reader perceives the fair-mindedness of thewriter's description. The segment is, however, a major factor inwhether or not the writer is ultimately convincing, andso key evidence supports and developsthis section of the argument. Like the description of the reader'sperspective, this part of the argument also includes a descriptionof the contexts or circumstances in which the writer's position isvalid.

The Rogerian essay closes not by askingreaders to give up their own positions on the problem but byshowing how the reader would benefit from moving toward thewriter's position. In other words, the final section of theRogerian argument lays out possible ways to compromiseor alternative solutions to the problem that wouldbenefit both reader and writer under more circumstances than eitherperspective alone accounts for.

Rogerian approaches are particularlyuseful for emotionally charged, highly divisive issues. TheRogerian approach typically downplays the emotional in favor of therational so that people of good will can find solutions to commonproblems. But no argument, Rogerian or otherwise, will succeedunless the writer understands the reader. Rogerian argument isespecially dependent on audience analysis because the writer mustpresent the reader's perspective clearly, accurately, andfairly.

Background & Style: Rogers’ Principles ofCommunication

• Threat hinders communication. When a personfeels threatened by what another person is saying (or writing), heor she is apt to stop listening (or reading) in order to protectthe ego and reduce anxiety.
• Biased language increases threat; neutrallanguage reduces it.
• Making strong statements of opinion stimulates an audience torespond with strong opinions. However, once people have expressedthese opinions, they are more likely to be interestedin defending their opinions than in discussingthem.
• One reduces threat and increases thechance of communication with someone by demonstratingthat one understands that person’s point ofview.
• One improves communication by establishingan atmosphere of trust.

Applying Rogers' Principles to Argumentation: MaxineHairston

Maxine Hairston has identified five elements of anon-threatening Rogerian argument. These are not meant to be theoutline of a paper but they can be; Rogerian argument, inparticular, does not lend itself to formulae.

A non-threatening argument should, however, contain theseelements:

• A brief and objectively phrased statement that defines theissue.
• A complete and neutrally worded analysis of the other side’sposition with comments about the (limited) benefits of thisposition.
• A complete and neutrally worded analysis of the position youhold with comments about the (improved) benefits of thisposition. You should carefully avoid any suggestion thatyou are more moral or sensitive than your audience.
• An analysis of what your positions have in common and whatgoals and values you share.
• A proposal for resolving the issue in a way that recognizes theinterests of both parties.

For example, let’s say that your boss wants to change aparticular work policy, but you think that it will be detrimentalto you and the other staff. You certainly can’t just tell him thathe’s wrong—he is your superior—but you can work it by coming inthrough the back door.

You tell him that—

(1) you understand why he wants to make this policy change, andas an opener to your defense,

(2) you state the reasons why it would be a positivemodification.

Then, to refute what you have just said,

(3) you give points about the inevitable negative effects to thestaff, and

(4) you give specific examples from the workplace of incidentsand situations that the boss will be familiar with, and youreiterate common work and production goals that the boss andemployees share.

(5) You then propose a compromise resolution to the problem thatboth the boss and the employees can live with.