Within the discipline of communication studies is an ongoing debate as to the viability of invitational rhetoric: a rhetorical theory grounded in the belief that better understanding of another point of view comes from a relationship of “equality, immanent value, and self-determination” between the audience and the speaker, according to the Encyclopedia of Communication Theory.
Contrary to the method of persuasion, invitational rhetoric invites both the speaker and audience to offer their differing perspectives to each other. Upon genuine consideration of the other side’s viewpoints, both parties are supposed to gain a better understanding of the issue at hand.
Considering different opinions is extremely important, especially for college students. A learning community thrives on the dissemination of ideas, and the diversity of viewpoints held by different students brings substance and vitality to classroom discussions.
But what distinguishes the theory of invitational rhetoric, and also what lends it to controversy, is how it aims to change the viewpoints of both sides, which in itself requires the two sides to not only consider, but also actually try and put themselves in the mind of the other and see an issue from an adversarial point of view.
I find that too often, when people just consider a different perspective, they are only considering why that viewpoint is wrong. The realms of political discourse, for example, are filled with candidates’ unremitting aggressions toward their rivals, who are stubbornly unwilling to submit to opposition. It seems that their bitter remarks emanate more from their desire to win a nomination than their values for finding a better solution to the nation’s problems, which certainly has the potential to be problematic.
It takes much more to view an issue from an opponent’s perspective and attempt, however hard it might be, to see why the other is right.
If diversity of thoughts is so important, what then is enough to justify an outright dismissal of another opinion? Critics have argued that invitational rhetoric can serve as a means of perpetuating discrimination and oppression. Take, for example, if civil rights advocates tried to incorporate the viewpoints of the racists who opposed them. This can be expanded to many contexts — slavery, the Holocaust, feminism, LGBT rights — but all of them culminate in the preservation of an inherently dangerous viewpoint. In all cases, perhaps society would benefit more if one side’s arguments were condemned completely.
In the context of our political stage, for some reason I think about Donald Trump and his stances. The Iowa caucuses concluded last week, and (I am sure) to the relief of many people, Trump did not win. While I acknowledge that some of his platform positions are rational, a few of his blatantly racist views and illogical solutions to issues — the Mexican wall, for instance — are very questionable. It is exceptionally hard, at least for me, to see from his perspective how some of his policy proposals are morally right.
Nonetheless, all ideas — no matter how radical, nonsensical or outrageous they may be — deserve to be considered. However, this does not mean that one should be obligated to integrate such ideas into one’s own viewpoints, as is preached by the theory of invitational rhetoric. While people shouldn’t be compelled to harbor dangerous ideas for the promotion of equality between two opposing sides, having the knowledge of a different perspective is always better than being ignorant of it.
William An is a freshman business student. He can be reached at willandbk@gmail.com.
