Summary:
One of the most efficient summaries of Statis theory I have seen. Excellently outlined, presented, defined, with wonderful examples. Professor Keith Grant-Davie of Utah State University's white paper on Stasis Theory is widely circulated among students of rhetoric and professional communication. Not only does it provide clarity in definition, it uses simple to complex practical examples for analysis and discussion. The paper can provide graduate seminars with the foundation for excellent classroom discussions.
Note: He also encouraged students to "Read more about stasis theory is this article: Fahnestock, Jeanne, and Marie Secor, “The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument.” Written Communication 5 (1988): 427-443."
Citation-worthy:
"First developed in classical times, stasis theory has been revived in various forms by a number of modern rhetoricians" (Grand-Davie, N.D., p. 1).
"The word “stasis” (plural “stases”) literally means a “slowing down” or a stopping point. In rhetoric, a stasis is an issue that may be contested or a question that needs to be resolved before the argument can proceed" (Grant-Davie, N.D., p. 1).
"The stases are expressed in the form of standard, recurrent kinds of question that arguments settle—questions that can be modified to apply to any given subject matter. Some theorists identify three stases (questions of fact, value, and policy). Others, including me, find it more useful to identify five stases at which disagreement may need to be resolved through argument. Examples in italics are typical questions raised in a court of law, where progression through the stases, in the classical sequence from fact to policy, is most commonly found:
Fact What happens or what happened? What are the facts of the subject? What happened on the night of July 6, 2005?"1st stasis: FACT: what happens or what happened? Note the difference between presenting already-established facts as supporting material in an argument and arguing about what the facts are. The difference is whether the facts are disputed or accepted by those involved" (Grant-Davie, N.D., p. 2).
Definition How should we name or classify the subject? Were the defendant’s actions illegal? Was the defendant legally sane during the shooting?
Cause/Effect What caused the subject? Or, what consequences may result from it? What motivated the defendant to commit the crime? What happened to the plaintiff as a result of the crime?
Value How good or bad is the subject? Is it right or wrong? How serious was the defendant’s offense? How bad were his or her actions?
Policy What action should be taken concerning the subject? Should the defendant be convicted or found not guilty? What sentence should the defendant receive?" (Grant-Davie, N.D., p. 1).
"2nd stasis: DEFINITION: how do we name or classify the subject? Arguments at this stasis often debate the meaning of terminology" (Grant-Davie, N.D., p. 2).
"3rd stasis: CAUSE/EFFECT: what caused the subject and what resulted from it? Arguments at this stasis can look back in time to establish causes" (Grant-Davie, N. D., p. 3).
"4th stasis: VALUE: how good or bad is the subject? Is it (or was it) right or wrong? Where would the subject be on a scale of morality? Arguments at earlier stasis tend to build towards this one" (Grant-Davie, N.D., p. 3).
"5th stasis: POLICY: what should be done about the subject? Arguments at this stasis always look to the future, considering what action or stance, out of the available alternatives, should be taken" (Grant-Davie, N.D., p. 3).
