1. No category

Running head: INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
Invitational rhetoric: A solution to a broken political system
Daniel Eckert
Messiah College
1 College Avenue
Mechanicsburg PA 17055
484-663-4506
de1198@messiah.edu
DEBUT
*I am happy to present this in a panel scene or present the research in a Poster format
FACULTY SPONSOR: Dr. Kate Simcox, Messiah College, Mechanicsburg,
ksimcox@messiah.edu
!1
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!2
Abstract
Traditional persuasive rhetoric not only fails to create meaningful dialogue between adverse
political parties, it has resulted in the complication of political persuasion which contributed to a
broken and divided political system. Through the use of Foss & Griffin’s invitational rhetoric, it
is not only possible to provide an alternative to traditional persuasive rhetorical styles, but to heal
divides within the country. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat junior senator from Massachusetts,
utilizes invitational rhetoric effectively as a substitute for traditional rhetoric within her 2014
Netroots midterm speech.
KEYWORDS: Elizabeth, Invitational, Politics, Rhetoric, Warren
In submitting the attached paper or proposal, I/We recognize that this submission is considered a
professional responsibility. If this submission is accepted and programmed, I/We agree to register
for the 2015 ECA Undergraduate Scholars Convention, pay the $50 USC fee, and present in
Philadelphia. I/We understand that presenters with last minute emergencies must make
arrangements as possible for an alternate presenter as well as communicate their absences to
the Undergraduate Scholars Planner; no shows will be removed from the official program.
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!3
The 2014 midterm elections have ended, and despite statements from President Obama
and senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, the next two years look to be one of partisan
politics and political gridlock (Mcrae, 2014). The American political landscape is one divided by
extremes. Political gridlock ensures little progress is made in crafting legislation or reaching
across the aisle. Bi-partisan politics are no longer within grasp, and the political rhetoric of the
age is defined by what candidates are against, as opposed to what they support. Politicians
attempt to exert their will over opposition and persuade the masses through tactics such as fear
mongering (Glassner, 2004). Strategies such as these are manipulative and aggressive and
support Foss & Griffin’s offerings that traditional rhetoric within a patriarchal system is violent
(1995). Despite this, politicians like Elizabeth Warren, are forging new pathways in
communication by invoking invitational rhetoric within her recent speeches. They have
recognized the failure of patriarchal persuasion, the failure of political advertising built on this
persuasive form, and the destruction caused by dehumanization through patriarchal forms.
Political campaigns yearly spend thousands of dollars on advertising, a process which is
by its very nature persuasive. Millennials are particularly adept at avoiding messaging, as many
do not engage with traditional advertising platforms. In 1980, 52 million individuals viewed
network television regularly, in 2006 that number had fallen to 27 million (Clemons, 2007).
Resources such as Adblock allow millennials to use the internet without even encountering
advertisements. The internet and television are not alone in this, as newspapers continually lose
readers (Clemons, 2007). Despite this drop in advertising interaction, spending on
advertisements continues to surge. Advertising firms are consistently exploring new platforms
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!4
to spread persuasive messages, but have found that “reaching consumers through advertising is
significantly more difficult than in the past” (Clemons, 2007, p. 270). These troubles in
advertising are not only problematic for corporations, they are problematic for political parties,
candidates, and individuals. Political candidates frequently experience advertising woes. The 2014 midterm election
was the most expensive yet, as political candidates attempt to break through the noise of
advertising. The difficulty reaching audience often leads to increases in messaging. The
increase in messaging, particularly political messaging, results in an increasingly politicized
society (Atkins, 1976). The money spent on political persuasion may seem offensive on its own
merits, but when political rhetoric is broken down to its bare essentials a deep seated problem
emerges. Political persuasion is characterized by argument and changing another’s beliefs (Cobb
& Kuklinski, 1997). The democratic process seems slighted when its fundamental nature is that
of domination, and violent dehumanization of those who disagree with the majority. Attack ads,
character assassinations, and fear mongering have become the manifestation of problematic
political persuasion. Attack ads comprise more than a third of all political advertisements and
are viewed as highly effective (Pfua & Burgoon, 1989). When this volume of aggressive
advertising saturates the American political sphere, it is no small wonder that American politics
have become distorted. Congressional productivity requires compromise in order to create
legislation, a process that is clearly impeded by the failure to identify with the other and seek
mutual understanding. This is demonstrated in the least productive congress in the United States’
history (Desilver, 2014). The failure is not so much a problem of America as it is a fundamental
problem in persuasion and interaction between rhetors and audiences.
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!5
Persuasion in politics has reached a point of failure. The dominant ideology of
persuasion is that influencing others produces change (Foss & Griffin, 1995). Changing others
not only establishes dominance, but devalues the lives and the perspectives of others (Foss &
Griffin, 1995). This devaluation is especially toxic and continually divisive. The rush of power
which rewards the successful rhetor is often accomplished by feelings of self worth (Foss &
Griffin, 1995). While the rhetor enjoys this emotional high and short term victory, the audience
may be left feeling stripped of power or inadequate. Even discursive strategies, meant to soften
the blow of persuasion or make it less intrusive still are extremely problematic. According to
Foss and Griffin (1995), discursive strategies trespass on the individual personhood, they create a
sense of failure in the audience that can be solved by the rhetors ideas or styles. These are
insurmountable issues in standard persuasive rhetoric. All forms of persuasive rhetoric,
especially political persuasion, can cause undue damage to personhood all in the name of change
and an underlying need to control.
Controlling others and dominating them is one of the detriments of persuasive rhetoric.
Foss and Griffin state that, “Embedded in efforts to change others is a desire for control and
domination, of the act of changing another establishes the power of the change agent over that
other” (1995, p. 3). This established power change and domination is inherently non-democratic,
and to a greater degree, violent against the will of the other. The audience member is forced into
a submissive role, while the speakers role becomes paternalistic (Foss & Griffin, 1995). While
Foss and Griffin (1995) stop short of proclaiming that the rhetor is more than parent-like, there
are times when the role of the rhetor could contain authoritarian leanings. Despite these draw
backs, persuasion is still a highly desired attribute and it is important to acknowledge that
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!6
persuasion is necessary.
Persuasion is a necessary form of rhetoric, and despite its short-comings, the form is
highly desired. Even Foss and Griffin assert that persuasion is necessary; but alternatives, such
as invitational rhetoric, provide chances to engage rhetoric where changing goals is not necessary
(1995). These moments are perfect places to use invitational rhetoric as a substitute for the
damaging and dehumanizing persuasion. Perhaps, invitational rhetoric could be a solution to the
broken system of political persuasion through advertising, and allow healing of the political
divide. If so, invitational rhetoric could function as the key to positive change through personal
and communal growth.
The Emerging Political Invitational Rhetoric
While traditional rhetoric results in feelings of inadequacy, insecurity, pain, humiliation
guilt and embarrassment, invitational rhetoric is empowering and decidedly non-hierarchical,
non-judgmental, and non-adversarial (Foss & Griffin, 1995). The invitational aspects of rhetoric
ensure that the audience and the rhetor are not given positions of power over one another. The
results of this are tangible and create an arena of understanding. Foss and Griffin state that,
“Invitational Rhetoric is an invitation to understanding as a means to create a relationship rooted
in equality, immanent value, and self determination” (1995, p. 4). This bridge to understanding
is a crucial aspect of communication missing in patriarchal persuasion. Invitational rhetoric takes its cues from feminism, and thus is a focuses strongly on the
immanent value of all things (Foss & Griffin, 1995). This world view allows for deeper dialogue
to occur between rhetor and audience. This occurs when two conditions are met within
invitational rhetoric. Firstly, the offering of perspectives and the creation of external conditions
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!7
(Foss & Griffin, 1995). Offerings occur when suggestions are fielded by the rhetor or the
audience. Perspectives are articulated as carefully, completely and passionately as possible to
give participants their full expression and to invite others to carefully consider said offerings
(Foss & Griffin, 1995). The careful consideration ensures involvement on the parts of all parties.
When offerings are made, the rhetor is to recognize the valuable contributions from the audience
(Foss & Griffin, 1995). The contributions are recognized in such a way as to build value and
understand the position of the audience. This position is met in its uniqueness and allowed to
have the deserved impact (Foss & Griffin, 1995). These positions are not moderated or censored
as to do so would be a betrayal of external within invitational rhetoric. Instead, individuals are to
be unconditionally considered experts within the context of their lives (Foss & Griffin, 1995).
They alone know their individual reality and are certainly more familiar with it than any other
person in the world. Invitational rhetoric functions as an invitation directed towards the other to
enter the rhetor’s world (Foss & Griffin, 1995). In doing so, the offerings of perspective are
done effectively and in such a way that does not paper the external conditions created by
invitational rhetoric.
External conditions allow for the offering of perspectives. External conditions include
safety, value, and freedom (Foss & Griffin, 1995). These conditions are instrumental in creating
the atmosphere in which perspectives can be offered. Safety ensures the safety of ideas and the
safety to offer ideas without being marginalized or humiliated. Value is placed on all ideas no
matter how they differ from that of the rhetor. As individuals are considered to be experts on
their own lives, they are of course not going to offer information of little value. Their offerings
must be respected and valued, “even if they differ dramatically from the rhetors own” (Foss &
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!8
Griffin, 1995, p. 5). Finally, the audience and the rhetor have the freedom to share any
information that they deem valuable. No idea is censored or no individual is made to feel
uncomfortable in sharing. By using these two external conditions and utilizing the offering of
perspectives, invitational rhetoric promotes understanding and tolerance.
The strengths of invitational rhetoric lie in its promotion of understanding. When mutual
understanding is the goal, dialogue no longer is about an argument. By actively listening and
trying to understand the other, individuals are provided with stories and experiences that may
never otherwise been encountered. Cognitive complexity is increased, and rhetors begin to see
the world through the eyes of the audience. Similarly the audience begins to see the world
through the eyes of the rhetor. This is vital to reconciliation, both between individuals and
society. Foss and Griffin eloquently state that, “change may be the result of invitational rhetoric,
but change is not the purpose” (1995, p. 6). This quote accurately explains how, despite
differences in opinion, change occurs on an individual level; change which may or may not
influence society at large. For its great strengths however, invitational rhetoric is not without
criticism.
Critics of invitational rhetoric have valid complaints which require significant thought.
Many may argue that invitational rhetoric is merely disguised persuasion, perceived as less
confrontational and violent. Lozano-Reich & Cloud (2009) find that, a distinction made between
persuasion and invitational rhetoric is contrived. Persuasion, to Lozano-Reich & Cloud, is
always a combination of invitation and purgation (2009). While Foss and Griffin maintain that
audience members make choices based on whats right for them at that time, and that change is
not the goal of invitational rhetoric, this is difficult to substantiate or prove (1995).
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!9
Other criticisms lobbied at invitational rhetoric include the detrimental fact that two
parties must invest in the success of invitational rhetoric. It is exceedingly difficult to engage in
invitational rhetoric when the audience or rhetor is more interested in persuading than creating
mutual understanding. Similarly invitational rhetoric is difficult to use in situations with
excessive power differentiations. “…It is precisely in situations of power differentials that we
must be most cautious about invoking invitational rhetoric” claim Lozano-Reich & Cloud (2009,
p. 221). There are instances in power confrontations where invitational rhetoric could
conceivably exasperate an issue and create a break down in persuasion and invitation. This
could be due to the nature of humility within invitational rhetoric. Someone in a power position
may have a harder time meeting the audience and treating them with equality, fairness, and
value. Yet these criticisms are relatively few, and, as typical persuasive means have so far failed
to generate healing or understanding in the political arena, invitational rhetoric shows
unprecedented promise as a potential solution.
Elizabeth Warren and Feminist Invitational Rhetoric
Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic junior senator from Massachusetts, is an increasingly
recognizable politician. After serving as a professor at Harvard for 30 years, she has turned her
focus to politics and economics. She is widely known for her financial expertise and strong
endorsements of federal oversight in banking (“Biography”, n.d.). Despite her short tenure as
senator she is considered a possible candidate for the 2016 presidential race. She has been
named one of the most influential lawyers of the decade, and has been proclaimed the voice of
the people (“Biography”, n.d.). Recently, the Democratic Party attempted to capitalize on the
success of Warren and utilized her during the midterm campaigns to energize base voters.
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!10
Elizabeth Warrens’ 2014 midterm speech is one of the newly emerging invitational rhetoric
pieces in politics. Within the context of the speech she utilizes feminist invitational rhetoric to
connect and dialogue with her audience. Rather than presenting a speech that tells an audience
what to do or attempts to persuade them to take a position, the speech is designed to celebrate
understanding and uniqueness. Through this, Elizabeth Warren’s speech may create a template
for further political dialogue and healing within the political divide.
Warren’s speech is created primarily with usage of inclusive language and references to
the audiences choices. Rarely does Warren celebrate her own achievements. Instead, she
focuses on the process of dialogue and speaks of herself as an equal. “You wrote opinion pieces.
You organized petitions” Warren says to the audience (Rosenfeld, 2014). She values the
offerings that the audience makes and makes an effort to listen to them. This dialogue indicates
that she is not discarding offered perspectives, but instead values them and accepts that those in
the audience are masters of their own lives and experts in their own experiences. “These fights
really do matter.” she says to the onlookers (Rosenfeld, 2014). She reinforces the value of the
audience’s “fights,” or sentiments. As a populist, Warren frequently engages the working class
colloquialisms. She uses words familiar to her audience in such a way to relate and enable her to
see the world through their eyes.
Warren further engages with her audience as she calls on shared history. “A lot of us in
this room have a lot of history” (Rosenfeld, 2014). She recognizes the stories that these
individuals have and how they uniquely entwine with her own. The history she shares is
indicative of the lives shared, and thus an equality is present. In many ways Warren, a school
teacher by trade, is no different from the workers she addresses in the speech. She approaches
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!11
them as equals, and does not claim explicit authority or act in a “one-up” manner. Lines such as
“But we have united our voices…”, speak volumes regarding Warren’s commitment to dialogue
in an invitational manner (Rosenfeld, 2014). She advocates that the people are the agency by
which change can occur, but only through unity. The unity she speaks of is not one which she
suggests in the speech, or one she calls individuals to, rather it is a unity created by the people
out of their dialogue.
Unity through understanding is a main tenant of invitational rhetoric, however this does
not necessarily translate to agreement. Warren espouses this when she proclaims to the audience
that “We know that this country gets stronger when we invest in helping people succeed. We
know that our lives improve when we care for our neighbors and we help build a
future” (Rosenfeld, 2014). This offering of perspective encapsulates value and equality, not only
for her audience, but for those who she doesn’t agree with as well. Warren utilizes the speech to
create a space where the audience is valued and asked to value others. She sets aside a space
within the political sphere to interact with the audience as an equal, and allow them to guide
conversations.
There are times throughout the speech where Warren transitions into an impure form of
invitational rhetoric. Language such as “…we will fight for it” evokes images of violence and
suggests patriarchal domination and persuasion (Rosenfeld, 2014). While some may claim that
this invalidates Warren’s usage of invitational rhetoric, the broader theme within the context of
political discourse certainly shows that this speech is unique in its use of feminist concepts.
Small steps may give way to large strides that transform the political sphere. Other common
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!12
critiques of invitational rhetoric, such as the the role of invitational rhetoric in persuasion, could
be applied to Warren’s speech.
Critics of invitational rhetoric maintain that invitational rhetoric is merely classic
persuasion in disguise. Perhaps invitational rhetoric is more subtle than the patriarchal
persuasion that dominates the political and corporate spheres, but it is persuasion none-the-less.
Warren’s speech could potentially be viewed as persuasive, yet the goals of the speech are less
about changing the audiences goals and more about reaffirming the dialogue that has taken place
between Warren and the audience. This may result in some form of persuasion, but, persuasion
does not seem to be the intent of this speech. It is not possible to make value judgments on
rhetorical intent. Critics of the speech would not be in error to claim that this is not pure
invitational rhetoric, and that the steps taken towards invitation are small indeed.
A Future for Invitational Rhetoric
Classic persuasion has failed to create positive change within the country. Advertising
companies spend colossal amounts of capital to persuade an ever dwindling audience to buy
products or ideas. Increased messaging has not solved problems, and the political divide has
become a chasm. Invitational rhetoric provides respite from the violence of patriarchal
persuasion, and with champions like Elizabeth Warren, may become the new way in which
politicians engage with audiences. If the American political system chooses to utilize
invitational rhetoric studies should be conducted as to how invitational rhetoric affects both
progress and satisfaction with the political system. Research such as this would be both
enlightening, and provide potential incentive for more individuals to adopt this rhetoric style.
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!13
In the 2014 midterm campaign Elizabeth Warren ends her speech with the statement,
“And in this room, this is where it happens. This is 21st century democracy. This is the future of
America…” (Rosenfeld, 2014). Perhaps she is right in her statements. The future of America
and the healing of the political divide depends upon rejecting the failure of patriarchal
persuasion, and utilizing values prescribed by invitational rhetoric. Moving forward involves
creating safety, accepting offerings of perspective, and attempting to achieve equality between
the rhetor and audience. The government could function “for the people by the people” in such a
way that has yet to be fully realized. Invitational rhetoric could facilitate a paradigm shift from
an antagonistic to cooperative political philosophy. While Elizabeth Warren’s speech represents
small steps taken in engaging invitational rhetoric in the political landscape. It remains to be
seen whether this usage of invitational rhetoric is a blip on the radar screen of politics, or the
beginning of a movement which will transcend gender, class, and power differentials. While it
may not be entirely pure, even small uses of invitational rhetoric contain potential for large
healing and positive societal change.
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!14
References
Atkin, C., & Heald, G. (1976). Effects of political advertising. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40,
216-228. doi: 10.1086/268289
Biography. (n.d.). In Elizabeth Warren U.S. Senator for Massachusetts. Retrieved from
http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=biography
Cobb, M. D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1997). Changing minds: Political arguments and political
persuasion American Journal of Political Science, 41, 88-121. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/2111710
Clemons, E., Barnett, S., & Appadurai, A. (2007). “The Future of Advertising and the Value of
Social Network Websites: Some Preliminary Examinations." Proceedings of the Ninth
International Conference on Electronic Commerce (pp. 267-76). AMC New York.
Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1282153
Desilver, D. (September, 2014). “Congress Still on Track to Be among Least Productive in
Recent History." Pew Research Center RSS. Web. http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2014/09/23/congress-still-on-track-to-be-among-least-productive-in-recent-history/.
Foss, S. K., & Griffin, C. L. (1995). Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational
rhetoric. Communications Monographs, 62, 2-18. doi: 10.1080/03637759509376345
Glassner, B. (2004). Narrative techniques of fear mongering. Social Research, 71, 819-826.
Retrieved from http://penelopeironstone.com/GlassnerFearMongering.pdf
Lozano-Reich, N., & Cloud, D. (2009). The uncivil tongue: Invitational rhetoric and the
problem of inequality. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 220-26. do
10.1080/10570310902856105
INVITATIONAL RHETORIC
!15
Mcrae, H. (2014, October 28). US midterm elections: Political gridlock will continue, but the
economy recovers nonetheless. Retrieved December 16, 2014, from http://
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hamish-mcrae/american-politics-maybe-as-dysfunctional-as-ever-but-not-its-economy-9824340.html
Pfua, M., & Burgoon, M. (1989). The efficacy of issue and character attack message strategies
in political campaign communication. Communication Reports, 2, 53-61. Retrieved
from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0b46f581c742-44ab-9c75-c427301c50c0@sessionmgr111&vid=0&hid=128
Rosenfeld, S. (2014, July 18) Progressive values are America's values, Sen. Elizabeth Warren
tells Netroots Nation in keynote speech. Alternet. 25 Nov. 2014. Retrieved from http://
www.alternet.org/activism/progressive-values-are-americas-values-sen-elizabeth-warrentells-netroots-nation-keynote.