“Embedded in efforts to change others is a desire for
control and domination, for the act of changing another establishes the power
of the change agent over that other.”
In contrast to this traditional view of rhetoric, do you
think invitational rhetoric could be more persuasive to audiences by being more
open and accepting?
Hey Emily! I think that Foss and Griffin have some really great ideas about rhetoric being a process which is meant to gain insight and deepen understandings of one another and ourselves. However, they mentioned several times that the purpose of invitational rhetoric is not meant to persuade. This is where the lines get fuzzy for me because I always think of rhetoric as a means to persuade as well, and I think that the correct utilization of invitational rhetoric could be vastly persuasive. Foss and Griffin seem to be saying that in order to successfully engage in invitational rhetoric, that the intent simply cannot be to persuade. In order for the rhetoric to truly be invitational, the goal has to be only to share our perspective with another without the innate desire that they'll adopt our ideologies. I think that this proposes an entirely new realm of complexities because it turns the classical definition of rhetoric on its head. I think that invitational rhetoric would give the Sophists, Plato, and Aristotle something to agree on (I think the concept has them rolling in their graves). Personally, I love the idea of invitational rhetoric, but I'm not sure where it sits in my book in terms of practicality. I hope this helps!
ReplyDelete