CULTURAL OR GLOBAL ISSUE

Introduction

In today's world of globalization and development, one must continuously live with people, being in this never-ending web of social connectivity and contacting others for getting one's work done, making an official bond or being just friendly over the phone. Now on many occasions, what happens is since people have been living their lives on a particular pattern (being an introvert, extrovert, happy-go-lucky, sadist, demeaning, etc.), clashes occur among people. This is because they are not of the liking to talk to people or maybe to listen to them, since they do not respect other people's opinions, are biased in terms of sharing their thoughts with the person in front of them, or simply just unwilling to listen to somebody.

What is Rogerian Argument?

When conversing with others, there are two styles that people usually adopt. One is labeled the Aristotelian argument while the other is Rogerian argument. Aristotelian argument suggests the notion that the goal of your conversation should prove that your viewpoint, ideas, thoughts and expression in speech and conversation are clear, correct and concrete in comparison to anybody else's thought specimen or even more valid than anybody else. Aristotle gave in three precise notions of practicing this style. According to him one should include Ethos (the source's credibility), Logos (the logic backing a claim with facts and figures) and Pathos (the emotional support or motivational appeals).

In contrast, the Rogerian Argument was put forth the famous American psychologist Carl. R. Rogers (1902-1987), who's renowned and best known for his client-centered theory and therapy. According to him, in his piece called 'Principles of Communication', one must listen to the person in front of him when engaged in a conversation rather than simply creating your own opinion on your own observation and reasoning. This form is rather combative in terms of debate because the approach itself looks for compromise in a conversation.

Because it supports mending gaps among people engaged in conversation, which holds substantial power on the values, beliefs, and judgments shared, a Rogerian argument focuses and functions on a 'win-win' situation, rather than a win-lose situation. Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: in the substance and in the relationship. This advice is probably quite worthwhile in the United States or perhaps in Germany, but in most places in the world such advice is nonsense. In most places in the world, particularly in collectivistic, high-context cultures, personalities and substance are not separate issues and cannot be made so. A simpler example could be that between the forms of negotiation, Aristotelian argument is the distributive bargaining, while Rogerian argument is the integrative bargaining practiced accordingly. Thus, this tool is most helpful in psychological and emotional situations and speeches, where pathos and ethos, rather than logos and strict logic, preponderate.

Rogers described the concepts of congruence and incongruence as important ideas in his theory. He, in his work, refers to the self-actualization notion, yet simultaneously recognized the need for positive regard. In a fully congruent person realizing their potential is not ...