Achieving Stasis by Asking the Right Questions

The theory of stasis is seemingly complex but this may be only because our language does not have a word for stasis. The stasis theory is employed to find arguments and responses to arguments based on a set of questions that rhetors must review systematically when preparing to speak or argue an issue. The stasis theory is also used in sorts to bring the two parties to a middle ground with which to argue out their issues.

Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students gives a great example of this in explaining the abortion debate. In this case stasis must not only mean to come to agreement about the terms of the argument but also in some cases to agree to disagree. The parties must be arguing on the same grounds which is actually the main problem in the abortion argument according to the reading. This is because the prolife side of the abortion argument argues that abortion is murder and the prochoice side argues that abortion is a choice up to the mother. That argument never states that abortion isn’t murder, it merely presumes that the mother has a right to choose. This whole inability to match up didn’t make sense to me until I read that parties in the abortion case should split the argument and agree to disagree. Which means that the issues need to be decided if abortion is murder or abortion is not murder. Additionally the issues need to be decided that women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies or that they don’t.(Crowley 59)  So upon agreeing to disagree knowing full well that they are arguing different points the parties in the abortion argument can achieve stasis.

My personal opinion about today’s contemporary issues that parties argue about is that stasis is not met very often. This is because in my opinion since everyone has a voice due to the media and since there are so many possible perspectives for one issue it is difficult to reach a point of stasis. For example, these days when two politicians debate they do not only prepare arguments and responses, but they prepare on issues that may be irrelevant but show their opponent in a bad light in order to refrain from shedding bad images upon themselves. This creates a sort of inability to argue on the same facts about the same points, rather it’s a lot like the abortion argument. However this is purely speculation on my part what do you guys think?

Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.