Mo' Foss: Invitational Rhetoric

I really enjoy Foss's straightforward style, but this time her idea is a little more extreme (but logical). She claims that we should all practice Invitational Rhetoric, where you engage in conversation seeking a greater understanding. Unlike some other rhetoric, IR does not aim to change your mind or convert you to a cause, but simply to explore and expand your knowledge.

Because we've already discussed this piece in class, I thought it would be good to start with some of the discussion points we hit on that day. Most notably, is the community vs. self issue. Conquest rhetoric usually works for the good of the community, while invitational rhetoric looks at the self for change. I can see how this idea plays out in "real life" in that togetherness and cohesion are often beneficial frameworks to work for community improvement.

Personally, I really enjoy invitational rhetoric, and for the most part see it as a large part of class discussions I have in most of my courses. Sometimes, though I see a need for advisory rhetoric, when I just want to listen and consider an "expert's" opinion. Perhaps the large reason I find this beneficial is my introversion, but on a more practical level, advisory rhetoric has its education benefits as well. Sometimes, I want to hear a PhD holding professor's opinion without the conversation being clouded by my classmates' points of view. Sometimes, I find that total inclusion of all voices can cause the discussion to get stuck. For instance, in some 400/500 classes at Marshall, I'm in an English class with non-majors who have little previous knowledge for literature. While these individuals have every right to learn, their input (sometimes) hinders me from learning or exploring. To be honest that really gets on my nerves. But, to be a bit more academic about things, I think that invitational rhetoric is a great way to conduct conversations, but sometimes advisory rhetoric can be just as beneficial.