Tiana Bernaola, Hazel Corona, Madison Favela, Esme Vasquez

English 307

Invitational Arguments

Definition: A rhetoric moving away from the commonly seen patriarchal bias. Invitational

argument style is rooted in equality and self-determination. It provides an invitation to

understanding and fosters the core competencies of safety, value, and freedom.

History of Invitational Arguments:

Overview

Invitational Argument was a term created and coined by Sonja K. Foss and Cindy L. Griffin in

1995. This type of argument aims to acknowledge both and all sides of an argument as well as

expanding the explanation of communication and perspectives. According to Sonja, “Invitational

rhetoric is an invitation to understanding as means to create a relationship rooted in equality,

immanent value and self determination”. The goal was to use invitational arguments hand in

hand with feminism and create a non-judgmental way of understanding multiple perspectives.

Invitational Argument has deep rooted feminist principles such as equality. Immanent value and

self determination that is displayed in the way the argument is built. With an invitational

argument you can ultimately offer your perspective/position without fearing of being judged as

both sides would be fairly discussing each other, and explaining their context and benefits.

Sonja K. Foss and Cindy Griffin

Sonja has a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from Northwestern

University. As well as her M.A. in speech and B.A. in Romance

Languages both from the University of Oregon. She worked at the University of Colorado
 Tiana Bernaola, Hazel Corona, Madison Favela, Esme Vasquez
English 307

Denver in the Department of Communication, before retiring May 2019. The research that Sonja

Prided herself in was contemporary theory, feminism and communication, and the inclusion of

marginalized voices within rhetoric. Throughout her career, Foss had been recognized by many

awards, including the Distinguished Scholar Awards, the Douglas W. Ehninger Distinguished

Rhetorical Scholar Award and the Francine Merritt Award. Cindy L. Griffin was of a similar

standing. Cindy was known for ground-breaking research in gender and communication,

Feminist Theories of Discourse, and Rhetoric of Civility. One of her most famous books was a

best selling text called Invitation to Public Speaking. Griffin was employed at Colorado State

University for twenty-three years before retiring.

So What? Who Cares?

Well, you should care! Students within the educational institutions, especially studying English,

are learning new rhetorical concepts everyday. Nowadays, we are conditioned to believe that

there is only one right answer and one wrong answer. This simply isn’t true. Linda Barry’s book

deciphers this idea really well. It’s mentioned that the desire for control and dominance is present

in efforts to alter others' opinions, because the act of influencing another establishes the change

agent's influence over that other. Invitational rhetoric is an invitation to comprehend as a means

of creating a connection built in equality, immanent worth, and self-determination, rather than

attempting to persuade one's audience (Kirtley, 2014).

 Tiana Bernaola, Hazel Corona, Madison Favela, Esme Vasquez
English 307

Core Values

The feminist background of the Invitational arguments significantly contributes to its core

meaning. This new rhetoric was birthed out of the need to part from rhetoric used only to

persuade. Patriarchal rhetoric is commonly known to view arguments through the lense of

persuasion with the intent to change or manipulate others; fostering power and authority over

others and essentially devaluing their perspectives. As discussed by Sonja and Cindy, In contrast,

Invitational arguments are based on the core values of imminent value, self-determination, and

equality, directly challenging classic patriarchal rhetoric.

Immanent value

As written in Beyond Persuasion “The essence of the principle is that every being is a unique and

necessary part of the pattern of the universe, and thus has value” (Foss & Griffin, 1995).

Engaging in conversation with the recognition of the immanent value of another allows you to

see their unique view.

Equality

Equality in a conversation strives to eliminate dominance. It rids the unspoken hierarchy that

assigns worth and creates an environment of recognition and safety.

Self-determination

Self-determination recognizes that individuals have the right to decide how to live their lives. It

gives others the authority to navigate the world as they choose, and requires respect in their

ability to do so. There is a trust in others that they are doing the best they can to meet their needs.
 Tiana Bernaola, Hazel Corona, Madison Favela, Esme Vasquez
English 307

Invitational Argument Partition:

Introduction

The introduction explains the subject, acknowledges that there are many positions and views on

it, and emphasizes that the purpose is to comprehend each viewpoint so that readers can make

their own decisions. This is usually the section where you’d include “the foundation of your own

engaged response to an invitation rhetoric” (Alexander and Hammers, 2019).

Body

This accounts for the careful detail that is carried within each

topic of discussion. Of course, when talking about each

perspective, being respectful and fair is taken into

consideration. Quoting those in favor of the perspective can

also be a helpful tool in letting those speak for themselves.

Conclusion

One thing that differentiates invitational arguments from other types of arguments is the

implementation of common ground surrounding the various perspectives of the topic. The

conclusion would allow readers to come up with their own consensus about the topics discussed

within the argument.

Examples of Invitational Arguments:

Frederick Douglas on his speech “What to the slave is the Fourth of July” : “ I am not

included within the pale of this glorious anniversary ..”

 Tiana Bernaola, Hazel Corona, Madison Favela, Esme Vasquez
English 307

- emphasizing the fact that because of racial segregation he doesn’t get to celebrate the

Fourth of July. He gives this issue to the audience in order to come

up with a solution together. This speech was given during a debate

about the topic of slavery. This emphasizes the ideals of being able

to approach a topic and give the audience the necessary

information without forcing them to lean a certain way. Douglas

approached this debate nearly 153 years ago, to a group of white

politicians, and gave this speech expressing their belief of not

being able to celebrate the Fourth of July festivities, as it's meant to be a celebration for

the ‘white’ individual, whereas for people of color, July 5th would be more reasonable.`

Dr. Martin Luther King in his “I Have a Dream” speech: “..black men and white men, Jews and

Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old

n*gro spiritual : “free at last free at least thank god almighty we are free at last.”

- Dr. MLK jr wants to bring up the issue of race to a

large scale audience in order to attempt to fix the problem

together to be able to be a more peaceful union. During this

speech he was addressing thousands of Americans in D.C. in

1963 for the March on Washington and it remains as one of the

most famous speeches in history. He is bringing forth the

issues that are pressing and one of the most urgent issues happening during that time,

without forcing a solo idea towards the crowds. He remains composed and lays out his

ideas to fix the issues of racism and discrimination between religion, sex, and race.
 Tiana Bernaola, Hazel Corona, Madison Favela, Esme Vasquez
English 307

Compare And Contrast:

With Invitational arguments and Rogerian arguments, both types of arguments are very

similar yet they do have differences as well. Both types of arguments share they both mainly

focus on persuasion. Both of these arguments work best with composition studies in order for the

argument to be successful. This is why with both types of arguments they want to have a

common ground with their audience. Both types of arguments want to show both sides of the

argument to be known in a very respectful way. This is why they prepare to have an audience

that can disagree with their argument or agree with the argument. What is very important is how

both types of arguments provide much evidence in order to cultivate their audience and persuade

them to have them change their point of view.

On the other hand, Invitational arguments and Rogerian arguments do share their

differences. One major difference is how Invitational arguments want their audience to have an

open mind and how they want to focus on one goal to make a change according to what the

Invitational argument is. In order for the audience to be able to change their mind if they are

convinced with the argument that the Invitational argument provided. While Rogerian arguments

want the audience not to change their mind completely but to compromise and find a way to try

to resolve the problem (Knoblauch, 2011).

How to apply Invitational argument:

Just like any good argument they first identify who their audience is. It is important to

understand people's context of their life and their experience. By this it means their age, gender,

where they live, what they believe in, and what they fear. In order for an Invitational argument to
 Tiana Bernaola, Hazel Corona, Madison Favela, Esme Vasquez
English 307

be applied they must also understand that every story has two sides. With this in mind they want

to respectfully represent both sides. This invites the audience to engage in the argument so that

they can see both sides and have any questions answered with the evidence provided by the

invitational argument. This can help people understand why they need a change and even change

their mind on the situation at hand (Scholes, Robert, et al 2021).

 Tiana Bernaola, Hazel Corona, Madison Favela, Esme Vasquez
English 307

Works Cited

1. Alexander, Bryant Keith, and Michele Hammers. “An Invitation to Rhetoric: A

Generative Dialogue on Performance, Possibility, and Feminist Potentialities in

Invitational Rhetoric.” Cultural studies, critical methodologies (2019): (H.C.)

2. Foss , S., & Griffin, C. (n.d.). (PDF) beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational

rhetoric. ResearchGate. Retrieved March 2, 2022, from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248924972_Beyond_persuasion_A_proposal_f

or_an_invitational_rhetoric

3. Scholes, Robert, et al. Reading and Writing Instruction in the Twenty-First Century:

Recovering and Transforming the Pedagogy of Robert Scholes. Utah State University

Press, 2021.

4. “Sonja Foss Phd.” Communication, 8 Jan. 2021,

clas.ucdenver.edu/communication/sonja-foss-phd.

5. Kirtley, Susan. “Considering the Alternative in Composition Pedagogy: Teaching Invitational

Rhetoric With Lynda Barry’s What It Is.” Women’s studies in communication 37.3 (2014):

339–359. Web. (H.C.)

6. Knoblauch, A. Abby. “A Textbook Argument: Definitions of Argument in Leading

Composition Textbooks.” College composition and communication 63.2 (2011):

244–268. Print.

7. Waxman, Olivia B. ‘What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?’: The History of Frederick

Douglass’ Searching Independence Day Oration.

https://time.com/5614930/frederick-douglass-fourth-of-july/
 Tiana Bernaola, Hazel Corona, Madison Favela, Esme Vasquez
English 307

8. History.com Editors. ‘I Have a Dream’ Speech

https://www.history.com/topics/civil-rights-movement/i-have-a-dream-speech

9. Puzzle Image https://www.chronicle.com/article/beyond-critical-thinking/

10. Feminist Image

https://www.dictionary.com/e/s/feminist-whats-superpower/#radical-feminism