Analyzing the First Amendment of the US Constitution using the Rhetoric of Aristotle, Carl Rogers, and Hairson

Chapter 1: Summary of Pages 1 through 16
The point of the First Amendment is for Americans to be able to express disagreement without fear of reprisal. Men and women of this country have been trained for their voices to be heard. Real life problems are often resolved through negotiation. This is stated on pages 1 and 2.
Argument, according to most authorities, gives primary importance to logical appeals; however, a writer or speaker must take into account the audience’s emotional response to the subject and the way it is presented. Success in convincing the audience depends on the writer’s trustworthiness.
- Aristotelian Rhetoric:
Aristotle used the term logos to refer to logical appeals, pathos to refer to emotional appeals, and ethos to refer to credibility. With these, he created classical and traditional rhetoric theories. He believed that in a perfect world logic alone would be enough to persuade, however he also acknowledged that in the real world, effective arguments depend on both logical and emotional appeals that have to be given by a writer/speaker with good established credibility. He also named intelligence, character, and goodwill as attributes that produce credibility.
The writer must convince the audience that they are knowledgeable and well informed about the subject. They must persuade that they are not only truthful in the presentation of evidence, but also morally upright and dependable. He must show good intentions and have considered the interests and needs of others as well as their own. Once credibility is lost by the audience it will be difficult to persuade subsequent claims not matter how sound the data is. Furthermore, in an argument there needs to be balance, anticipation of the emotional response of the audience, and acknowledgement of the same based on the 1st paragraph of the analysis in page 10 of Don’t Mourn Brown v. Board of Education by Juan Williams.
- Rogerian Argument:
Carl Rogers, as a therapist, believed that the experience of two people meeting and speaking honestly with each other would have healing effect. He became convinced that this could also work for large groups and even nations to create better relationships. In the Rogerian approach to argumentation, effective communication requires both understanding another’s reality and respecting it.

Hairston’s 5 Steps for using Rogerian Argumentation:
1. Give a brief, objective statement of the issue under discussion
2. Summarize in impartial language what you perceive the case for the opposition to be; the summary should demonstrate that you understand their interest and concerns and should avoid any hint of hostility.
3. Make an objective statement of your side of the issue, listing your concerns and interests, but avoiding loaded language or any hint of moral superiority.
4. Outline what common ground or mutual concerns you and the other person or group seem to share; if you see irreconcilable interests, specify what they are.
5. Outline the solution you propose, pointing out what both sides may gain from it.