Rhetoric A–Z / Persuasion / Stasis

Stasis στάσις

Stasis theory (Latin status) is a method for determining what a dispute is really about. By testing the question in four steps, fact, definition, quality and jurisdiction, the speaker can see where the argument has to begin and where the opponent is weakest.

Where does the dispute stand?

Stasis means “standpoint” or “position”, but in Greek also strife and revolt. The image is of two parties who stop and take a stand against each other. Anyone who is going to argue must first know where that point lies. Are we disputing what has happened, what it should be called, whether it was right or wrong, or who has the right to decide the matter?

The doctrine was developed by the Greek rhetorician Hermagoras of Temnos in the second century BCE and was passed on to posterity above all through Cicero and Quintilian. It belongs to inventio, the work of finding arguments.

The four questions

Cicero’s speeches against Catiline, who was accused of conspiring against the Roman Republic in 63 BCE, are a classic example. Each question can also be asked of a modern case, such as a company suspected of having sold its customers’ data.

Why the order matters

The questions build on each other. Someone who can deny that something happened does not need to discuss what it should be called. Someone who has to admit the facts can instead dispute the definition, and someone who has to accept the definition can try to show that the act was nevertheless defensible. That is why defence lawyers, press secretaries and communication directors so often change the words instead of denying: “It wasn’t a sale, it was a partnership.”

Stasis theory also distinguishes between general questions (theses), such as “should one always obey the law?”, and specific questions (hypotheses), such as “should this person be convicted of this crime?”. Rhetoric has traditionally been concerned mainly with the latter, and stasis decides where the argument should begin.

Stasis in analysis

Stasis theory is just as useful for someone analysing a debate. Many public conflicts seem to be about facts but are really about definitions: is it a war or a “special military operation”, a tax or a fee? Seeing at which level the parties stand helps us understand why they so often talk past each other.

Questions