1

Cepeda
Carolina Cepeda V.
Dr. Angela Rounsaville
ENC 3521
28 March 2015
Case Study 2: Invitational Rhetoric
Being a college student has involved me with a respective amount of

readings about rhetoric, always meaning the art of persuasion. Rhetoric is

a word connected with controversial and sometimes biased opinions; for
example, the often-negative connotation that politicians get accused of using
it during their campaigns or political terms to persuade the audience with
what they want them to believe in. However, traditional rhetoric can be taken
off the spotlight for a minute and give some space to the newly learned term
of invitational rhetoric, an idea that brings a comforting and refreshing
notion about rhetorical calls of action. We all see distinctive dimensions and
perspectives of every situation, and that makes everyones purposes and
outcomes different and relevant to hear about. Nonetheless, invitational
rhetoric wants to make sure that as a group, everybody works together as a
whole community to perform at its best without hesitating about having
pressure of others having different perceptions and not agreeing to those
points of views. Foss and Griffin bring out a point that demonstrates that this
type of rhetoric is not only inclusive, but brings an alternative to a community
to be brought together to assure them that their voices are being heard to
create new ideas. They want to expand on the idea that every viewpoint
doesnt stand on its own, but that the community is always open to offer

Cepeda

input about opinions, without pushing their own personal ideas into the
others.
Invitational rhetors do not believe they have the right to claim that their
experiences or perspectives are superior to those of their audience members
and refuse to impose their perspectives on them. (Foss and Griffin 6)
When it came to offering our project an invitational perspective was
somewhat tricky. Although our groups intentions were not to tell other
students and staff what to believe, agree, or disagree in, we were offering a
medium that was straightforward and where we would be the main mean of
information through a webcourses mini course. This means that our main
strategy fitted with the traditional rhetorical ideas of persuasion (because it
was a requirement for students to take). However, there are certain ways in
which we can incorporate some ideas that can fit with invitational rhetoric by
giving an offering perspective- a perspective in which each rhetor brings out
and explains the perception he or she has on a subject in order to open a
discussion without leaving the traditional rhetoric ideas behind. Some of the
ideas that can be added into this are to focus on professors as a target rather
than students and have them initiate hype and conversation about a topic,
letting students perform their knowledge with some guidance at first and
then each personal opinion can be established on their own. Professors are
the authority in the classroom and when it comes to having discussions about
a reading, students tend to believe that the professor is always looking for
the right answer. For this, implementing an idea where professors are the
ones inviting students to an open discussion where no answer is a wrong
answer, they would be implementing invitational rhetoric.

Cepeda

If invitational rhetoric is to result in mutual understanding of perspectives, it

involves not only the offering of the rhetors perspective but the creation of
an atmosphere in which audience members perspectives can also be offered
(Foss and Griffin 10).
The idea above can be implemented when it comes to the multiple
multicultural clubs at UCF (such as the Russian Club, Vietnamese Club,
Hispanic Club, Multicultural Club, etc.) to and create a sense of unity and
invitation to those that are willing to learn more about language diversity.
Extending an invitation to those students that want to learn about other
cultures and have an open discussion about language diversity in a place
where all opinions are valid for social change and involvement. Each student
that is involved in any of these organizations is prompt to be interested in
biodiversity and language difference, so by them being able to begin the
conversation with others by establishing a partnership together would
provide the UCF Community with significant knowledge and communication
among peers.
Foss and Griffin reinforce the idea that the approach of invitational rhetoric
focuses on providing a common ground for discussions- this means that with
invitational rhetoric and introducing a form of conversation between
professors and students can provide a form of starter that can turn into a
policy change, so more of an area where the students are free to respectfully
discuss about a topic without judgment or rebuttal. By being able to let
everyone perform on his or her own and determine where he or she stands as
far as language diversity on campus can provide an opportunity for change.

Cepeda

The relationship between the rhetor and the audience, in this case the
student and the professor has to be fluid, understandable, intimate, and both
parties have to come with an open mind to have success at invitational
rhetoric. The fact that both parties are willing to work together to achieve a
goal- in this case to collaborate as a whole community (UCF Community) in
order to get others involved into language diversity knowledge is what should
be achieved, whether it is upon agreeing or disagreeing, but still coming to a
common ground and sharing ideas about language diversity.
The ways in which the group can achieve its purpose starts with
acknowledging the main goal. What do we want to achieve? What mediums
are we going to take to do so? What is our target audience? How are we
going to approach them? Are we focusing on traditional rhetoric or
invitational rhetoric? The goal for establishing a language policy at UCF is to
bring out change within the community to improve the way we perform
successful arguments. By using invitational rhetoric, we want to be able to
strategically tailor the ideas towards our target audience and let them move
on from that main idea in order to drive the awareness within the group, yet
it is important to have a medium where everyone is invited to discuss
thoughts and ideas on how to execute this project. Additionally, we want to
make sure we emphasize the fact that every member that takes part in this
movement realizes that he or she is able to voice ideas, concerns,
recommendations, and strategies. Foss and Griffin would agree with this idea
calling it Freedom:
Freedom, the power to choose or decide, [where] participants can bring any
and all matters to the interaction for consideration; no subject matter is off

Cepeda

limits, and all presuppositions can be challenged [] The rhetors ideas are
not privileged over those of the audience in invitational rhetoric. (Foss and
Griffin 12)
Invitational rhetoric has left a significant mark on my opinion about rhetoric.
The term is often misperceived negatively as only persuasive and political,
but when it is introduced in a way that can involve the community as a whole
to fully perform and take the lead on the discussion, it becomes a successful
communicative community. Nonetheless, there has to be some ground rules
established before every discussion just to prevent controversies and
difference of opinions to not become disrespectful or violent. Other than that,
the idea as a whole should be introduced more as far as part of the
educational curriculum for professors. This idea can be more successful as
the traditional rhetoric term because of the inclusive standards that it stands
by.

Cepeda

Foss, S., & Griffin, C. (1995). Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational
Rhetoric. InFeminist Rhetorical Theories (p. 390). SAGE Publications.