Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric

In this article, Sonja K Foss and Cindy L. Griffin seek to revolutionize the world of rhetoric through the introduction of a newer form known as “Invitational rhetoric.” Foss and Grifith challenge the traditional persuasion based models of rhetoric and analyse its intent. 

They claim that the traditional model is a means to exert control over another person (consciously or unconsciously)  by changing their beliefs, values, or actions. They believe that this leads to the speakers sense of self worth becoming tied to this exertion of power over another, being able to change their minds, and leads to the assumption that “[a]udience members are assumed to be naive and less expert than the rhetor if their views differ from the rhetor's own”(Foss and Griffin 3) . This constant struggle of power and superiority over others reflects patriarchal and competitive assumptions, which is why Foss and Griffin seek to propose an alternative feminist rhetoric. 

According to the authors ,“[i]nvitational 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). It is based on similar feminist ideas that, rather than using persuasion to essentially “force” the audience on to your side, this method instead extends an invitation to the audience to enter the rhetoric’s point of view. Invitational rhetoric has three key features that sets it apart. It encourages the speaker to offer their perspective rather than asserting themselves as superior to their audience. It also strives to create conditions of safety, value, and freedom within communication to allow “rhetor and audience alike contribute to the thinking about an issue so that everyone involved gains a greater understanding of the issue in its subtlety, richness, and complexity” (8) .This allows both parties to understand each other while not  feeling pressured to accept the other side's perspective.

Foss and Griffin suggest a different method to handle these situations: rather than saying something like “[y]ou really ought to do___” (8) or “[y]our idea is flawed because of ___” (8) the authors suggest that we should instead take a gentler approach and say, “ "I tried this solution when that happened to me; I thought it worked well"(8) or "[w]hat would happen if we introduced the idea of ____ into this problem?” (8). This new model redefines what "successful" rhetoric can mean, one that can foster open dialogue instead of leaning on the notion of winning and losing a debate.