228 CHAPTER 16^ Foundations of Persuasion
Incorporate Principles and Forms
of Invitational Rhetoric
Positions on polarizing issues such as politics, religion, or lifestyles can be so deeply
rooted that presenting your best arguments credibly and sensitively will not be
persuasive. In these circumstances, you may prefer invitational rhetoric.^48 It’s a form
of sensemaking that invites your audiences to hear your perspectives and then invites
them to present their own views. The point is not to “win the argument.” Change may
or may not result, but you might achieve mutual understanding. The scholars behind
this concept identify three principles and associate two forms with invitational rhetoric.Combining Three Principles
Invitational rhetoric focuses on mutuality of understanding and influence based on the
principles of equality, individual value, and self-determination. It’s one way to develop a
dialogical spirit, as described in Chapter 3.- Equality: Instead of imposing your “superior” views on others who “need” to
change, you view your listeners as equals. Your strategies aren’t aimed at overcoming
their resistance; however, you do identify possible barriers to understanding and try
to minimize or neutralize those. In short, you provide your viewpoints and open
yourselves to theirs.
invitational rhetoric
inviting audiences to enter
and understand the rhetor’s
world and then share their
own perspectives; focuses
on mutual understanding and
mutual influence, not winning
or change per se
• Cultures conceptualize issues differently. In the United States people
commonly think of issues as problems and solutions we can define, propose,
test, and then eliminate or enact; other cultures think problems result from
fate, a bad relationship with the deity or deities, or being out of harmony
with one another or the universe.^45
• The norms for structuring and framing a discussion vary. Some cultures
ground their discussions in the historical perspectives of the participants or
rely on stories to frame their speeches, rather than looking for causes and
effects or making claims and counterclaims. Also, in the highly individualistic
culture of the United States, we typically ask, “Who won the argument?” But
in collectivist cultures, members deplore arguments that present one position
as superior to another and draw attention to the rhetor.^46 They see them-
selves as a community of equals who must cooperate to reach consensus.
• Levels of explicitness differ across cultures. In the United States, we
commonly state conclusions explicitly and concretely. However, other
cultures tolerate much more ambiguity; their speakers exert influence
through subtlety and indirectness.
• Forms of proof are often dissimilar. What’s considered rational or
irrational, what counts as evidence, and what constitutes a good reason
varies cross-culturally. As Chapter 8 pointed out, facts, statistics, and studies
by experts are typically used here, but elsewhere, narratives, analogies,
authoritative texts, and the sayings of wise, experienced elders make sense to
the listeners.
• Communication styles vary. Mainstream US culture is biased toward
linear, analytical models of reasoning. Other cultural groups reason more
holistically through drama, intuition, and emotional expressiveness.^47post hoc a fallacy of causa-
tion; a false cause
false dichotomy an either–or
fallacy that ignores other
reasonable options
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.www.ebook3000.com