User:Kijeski/sandbox/Stasis Theory

Stasis theory is the name given to a series of a related systems designed to help rhetors more readily identify the point (or points) at which disagreement essentially lies in a given debate. Presumably, such identification will lead to more fruitful argumentation and debate, with parties less likely to waste time by “talking past each other.” Stasis theory should not be confused with social science theories, as it does not fulfill the requirements, nor is the discipline of Rhetoric considered a social science. Rather, the term “theory” is used in a broader sense as a way of conceptualizing the argumentation process by identifying—and focusing on—its essential breeches between the two (or more) sides involved in any argument.

HISTORY Credit for identifying the concepts associated with stasis theory is generally given to Hermagoras of Temnos (fl. c.150 BCE), though most historians of rhetoric acknowledge that the tenets of stasis theory were almost certainly employed by Roman and Greek rhetoricians dating back to the 4th century BCE (Nadeau, 1959). Some disagreement exists among rhetoricians as to how early rhetoricians were using the four primary stases – irrespective of whether they were using that monikor (see Dieter, 1950).

THE FOUR PRIMARY STASES Though rhetoricians have advanced various models over the years, the four primary stases put forth by Hermagoras have stood the test of time, and those four have served as the bases for the introductory explanation of stasis theory to a lay audience (see, e.g., Crowley & Hawhee, 2009).

Stasis of conjecture concerns whether something is or is not, whether an event occurred or did not occur. In a common explanatory trope (used by, among others, Dieter [1950] and Zarefsky [2008]), two friends are engaged in argument, with one of the friends accusing the other: “You stole my car.” Stasis of conjecture identifies solely the question of whether the car was taken, without the knowledge and consent of the owner, i.e., the other friend. Should the accused respond, “I did not steal your car—it was never in my possession,” then the matter is settled, provided that the car’s owner does not dispute his friend’s explanation.

Stasis of definition concerns how a given act should be defined. Returning to the dispute between the two friends, let us imagine that, rather than denying that the car was in the his possession at any time, the accused responds: “I did not steal your car; I only borrowed it.” In this case, the accused is not denying that he had possession of the car; rather, he is disputing that his temporary possession of the car constitutes theft.

Stasis of quality concerns the seriousness of the act. As such, it is highly relative to local standards of behavior—whether at the legal level or at the social level. If our accused car-thief responds to the accusation by stating, “Yes, I did steal your car—and it’s a good thing, too, because I used your car to take someone to the hospital who had slipped and fallen on the icy sidewalk in front of your house that you had failed to shovel,” then he is claiming that this special, emergency use of the vehicle benefit the owner to such an extent (i.e., mitigating the owner’s legal liability) that these extenuating circumstances transcend the normal interpretation of similar events as theft, and should be welcomed by the car’s owner.

Finally, Stasis of policy is something of an outlier, in that it usually concerns itself with legal procedure. As such, it is no less important than the other three stases. However, given the great variability of legal procedures from state to state, and from locality to locality, it is often considered separately from the other three. To illustrate, we return to our example of the “stolen” car. Imagine that, in response to the accusation, “You stole my car,” the accused friend replies, “That’s a serious accusation. If you have a claim against me, then prosecute me. Making this accusation out here on the street is inappropriate. I’ll see you in court.” The accused is questioning the accusation on the basis that this is neither the correct venue, nor the correct procedure, in which to resolve such a controversy.

THE PLACE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF STASIS THEORY Cynical observers of the history of rhetoric might be tempted to say, “What place?” Since Otto Dieter’s 1950 article on stasis in Speech Monographs, there have been periodic attempts to re-discovery and re-invigorate the concept of stasis (for example, see Gross, 2004). Some consider the concept is radically under-utilized and fraught with potential for future research (e.g., Carroll, 2004).

References

Carroll, J. (2004). Essence, stasis, and dialectic: Ways that key terms can mean. Rhetoric Review, 23, 156–70.

Crowley, S., and Hawhee, D. (2009). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students. New York: Pearson.

Dieter, O. A. L. (1950). Stasis. Speech Monographs, 17, 345–69.

Gross, A. G. (2004). Why Hermagoras Still Matters: The Fourth Stasis and Interdisciplinarity. Rhetoric Review 23, 141–55.

Zarefsky, D. (2008). Public speaking: Strategies for success (5th edition). New York: Pearson.

External links

• www.example.com