Language & Literature as "Equipment for Living"

Tilly Warnock defends the writing process as a means for expression, and she argues that the progression of the writing process is an extension of our daily lives. Warnock uses the academic environment as an example of how we are first taught that writing should "yield [a] product" (36), and that whatever we may write is unimportant until we arrive at something profound. She suggests that daily writing is essential-- though while not everything we write may be profound-- it is simply the act and craft of writing that helps us cope and strategically communicate with people on a daily basis. This communication that is practiced through writing can help us articulate our opinions and be more persuasive in our arguments-- which as a result helps us get along with others and to consider how they will interpret what we have to say. Warnock finds this level of communication important because when focusing on the relationship between writers and readers it is commonly forgotten to recognize that writers and readers must come to terms on meaning (create meaning) because neither can be exactly certain of their claims since even evidence is inconclusive. I'm a little confused as to how she relates rhetorical proof back to every-day experiences. Sure, we argue, negotiate and converse on a daily basis, but writing allows us to revise and edit our arguments and personalities. Just because I practice persuasive writing does not mean that my spoken arguments are as accurately articulated as I would like them to be. 
Then again, as Warnock responds to Burke throughout the piece, she suggests "If getting along is our goal, as it is Burke's main motive, rather than dominating or defeating, then our rhetoric aims at identification rather than manipulation or coercion." This really makes me wonder about the intention behind rhetoric and the importance of every day writing to help shape our voice. How are we able to amplify our individual voices if we are constantly taking into consideration the interpretation of the reader? I'm not suggesting that we completely ignore how the reader will perceive our rhetoric, but it seems to me that Warnock is suggesting we write so that others can identify with our writing-- not a bad thing (in fact I think it's good), but just interesting when she is seemingly arguing against manipulation and coercion.