This week's readings were about invitational rhetoric and how it plays a role in communication ethics. Foss and Griffin describe invitational rhetoric as “an invitation to understanding as a means to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination. Invitational rhetoric constitutes an invitation to the audience to enter the rhetor’s world and to see it as the rhetor does” (6). They talk about how there is no judgment and how each person listens to one another’s differing perspectives. I think that this is extremely important because it does not involve pushing one’s perspectives onto one another, but instead, involves a deeper understanding of each person’s perspective. This is extremely helpful when it comes to communication ethics because it creates a more open conversation between the parties involved. I found the article The Uncivil Tongue: Invitational Rhetoric and the Problem of Inequality by Lozano and Cloud interesting when they talk about how "it is disingenuous to pretend that one is not engaged in persuasion in making an invitation" (221) because I had never thought of it in that manner. It made me realize that each invitation, in conversation, is someone trying to persuade the other into believing their narrative and their perspective.
After reading the assignments, I immediately thought of my leadership classes. We talk about how important invitation is in regards to communication. Specifically, we talk about the importance of an invitation when talking to someone. Personally, I sometimes forget that people literally don’t need to respond when I am talking to them, and that I am actually inviting them to have a conversation, not forcing them. It also reminds me of the importance of dissent when it comes to communication. Dissent can be frowned upon and can be considered as a bad thing, when in reality, it’s about sharing perspectives with one another and trying to understand one another.
I also took the leadership class and immediately thought about it when I was reading this piece. I genuinely don't think I’ve ever thought about the fact that people don't have to respond to me even if they didn't want to. I think you bring up a good point with how important dissent can be to a conversation but I also think you have to consider the power dynamics between the people in the conversation. The person who has less power is less likely to engage in dissent making it more difficult to truly understand each other and share our perspectives. As Lozano and Cloud state, “In situations of power differentials that we should be most cautious about invoking the invitational paradigm”(221). They are referencing how influential power dynamics can be in invitational rhetoric and how it can change the conversation to be unequal.
ReplyDelete