Rhetoric for Direct Practice

Abstract

A recent article in Social Work titled Advocacy and Argumentation in Public Arena: A Guide for Social Workers by Vicki Lens (July 2005, pp. 231-238) provided valuable beginning exploration of uses of in fields of social policy and policymaking. I argue that activity called rhetoric is also predominant in direct social work practice and is therefore worth further examination in broader practice context. THE REJECTION OF RHETORIC Rhetoric, or the art of using language effectively (Brooks & Warren, 1979, p. 5), has fallen on hard times. Commonly dismissed in ordinary speech and media as mere, typically connotes phony speech. This accusation is hardly new. As far back as Petronius (circa 27-66 AD), noted Roman writer and satirist and courtier emperor Nero, public speakers (or rhetors, as they were called in Roman times) were being accused of using an empty discord of and windy and high-sounding bombast (Petronius, 1966, pp. 1-2). Mackin (1969) offered several other reasons for general public's current low opinion of rhetoric. Because of its misuse centuries, is generally viewed as means sway crowd and gain power, faulty method of seeking truth and understanding (the implication being that it is better use science), or vehicle for deception and opportunism. Despite its disparaged reputation, seems be getting increased attention today, even in social work practice. An interest in appears be particularly present in works by advocates of critical thinking in social work (Gambrill, 1997). Interest in also appears be reviving in social work because of growing interest in subject of persuasion. Persuasion, or act of winning over others to certain course of has always held prominent place in field of rhetoric, as is basically speech or words designed persuade (Burke, 1962, p. 573). However, idea of persuasion, although once respectable in social work, has until recently been out of favor in field. To many social workers, especially in 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s, term carried unpleasant connotations of coercion and manipulation. However, because it was eventually recognized that many clients were not immediately cooperative with worker but at times needed be motivated, idea of persuasion eventually crept back into social work arsenal of approaches but under different titles, such influence, trust building, advocacy, and even empowerment (Hollis & Woods, 1981; Jansson, 2002; Patel, 2005). With interest in methods of persuasion gaining new ground, is now topic ripe for reexamination by social workers. In what follows, I briefly consider some of elements of and how these elements affect and structure direct social work practice for both clients and practitioners. An exploration of will require that social workers begin consider using some familiar terms in new and unaccustomed ways. ARGUMENT Historically, field of has been chiefly concerned with presentation and analysis of arguments, both spoken and written. Because social workers have always been enjoined argue but rather discuss topics calmly and rationally, focus on arguments might seem antithetical traditional social work practice. However, as used in rhetorical context, term argument does not mean contentious debate and disagreement but instead refers a form of inquiry (Gambrill, 1997, p. 133), in which actions, beliefs, and plans are discussed and decisions are made about which course of action take. As applied direct social work practice, argument can refer statements by client and practitioner that advance, support, and justify suggestions, plans, and decisions (Crusius & Channell, 2000; Gibelman, 1995; LeCroy, 1992; Moore & Parker, 1995). …