The Rhetorical Plot Thickens

Just as rhetoric was beginning to make sense, enter Chapter 3 to complicate the issue. The first section of the reading where Crowley and Hawhee define stasis as “the place where opponents agree to disagree” (72) makes perfect sense. I found the systematic approach to questioning based on stasis theory to be interesting and useful in certain venues. However, what concerns me is appropriateness of the depth of questioning in everyday discourse. Certainly I would thoroughly research prepare my argument if I were debating an opponent or even writing a piece to support my point of view, which is, I believe, how and why the ancients created the theory in the first place. However, what about if I’m just trying to have an impromptu conversation with someone? Do I stop and say, “Hold on, I have to apply the stasis theory” before I can speak effectively? Of course not. But how, then, do we know if and when stasis occurs in an everyday discussion?

This lends itself to the authors’ point that “most people who are engaged in arguments want to advance their own position as quickly and forcefully as possible… and do not want to take time to find all the available arguments…” (72) How can you have an effective argument or discussion if both sides are not clear on what is being argued?

This seems to be the case in contemporary society, unfortunately on a large scale. The authors use the examples of abortion and hate speech, neither topic on which stasis has been achieved. This lack of general understanding on what parties disagree on brings to mind not only the issue of the proposed building of a Mosque near the Ground Zero site in New York, but also the issue of Pastor Jones and his church congregation planning a “Koran burning” party on September 11. The stasis theory applied to these two issues would comprise an endless list of questions. Would arguers make it through the questions on conjecture and definition, and get find stasis in quality?

And so the plot of rhetoric thickens. While I find a systematic approach to most situations is beneficial, including stasis theory when preparation time for an argument or debate is appropriate, I’m not sure how it would apply to general everyday discourse. Although it would be ideal to understand on or at exactly what point disagreement is taking place, our society rarely takes to time to figure it out.