Significance of Answers

The importance of the systematic approach to questioning was firmly established in this chapter. In which, I learned that it is not only the questions asked that matter, but also the timing, specificity, and type that play an important role in serving the rhetor’s argument and really the discussion as a whole. However, the new understanding of the significance of questioning probed me to ask that, if questioning is so important, then do the answers generated even matter?

I say this not because the chapter left me with the impression that the questions were more important than the actual answers they received, but because this conflicted with the initial impression of rhetoric that I established from last week’s reading and class. I thought that rhetoric was the art (or science) of making meaning: “kairos requires that rhetors view writing and speaking as opportunities for exploring issues and making meaning” (48). I thought that the basis for this meaning came from discourse with other people on common topics through the process of invention. I thought that both people were speaking their way to a common understanding or acceptance of the other person’s opinions or even simply talking to solidify their own understanding.

This chapter elevated my original understanding and put it on steroids. I no longer envisioned two rhetors discussing their thoughts to come to an equal understanding, but rather I pictured a boxing ring in which the victor rhetor was the one who came with the most preparation. This preparation allows them to shuck and jive their way through their opponent’s arguments and propositions, essentially running circles around the unprepared logic of the other person.

Is then stasis elitist? Is stasis a method to prove that you are smarter, better, or more adapt than your opponent? Obviously, the answer is no. I understand that stasis can only work if both parties are prepared and have considered both sides to the issue, “seen from the point of two disputants, the stasis marks the place where two opposing forces come together, where they rest or stand in agreement on what is at issue” (72). I understand that stasis is a method to systematically level the playing field and make it so that both parties can approach a topic rationally.

But this then leads me to the question of the first two chapters, how does stasis factor in changing another person’s opinion? How is this possible if both rhetors approach an argument knowing all sides and counter arguments, and still they feel so strongly as to press on with their original position? How can a resolution ever be achieved?

Even in the case of the abortion example, if stasis is achieved and the place of “agreeing to disagree” is established (72), can people truly focus on the logical arguments that they have prepared?

This is where the different levels of stasis really synthesized my understanding of both this week’s reading and last week’s reading (at least I hope). Stasis is about the systematic way we go about making meaning for ourselves. It is essential to travel through the varying levels to stasis to more firmly understand ourselves and the world around us. I now believe I firmly understand the first chapter when it says that “the study of rhetoric was equivalent to the study of citizenship” (1). If more people engaged in stasis before engaging in an argument, perhaps more agreements would be reached, or at least more appreciation for the other side would be established.

I am left with the current Mosque conflict erupting across the nation. As I type the word citizenship, I can’t help but think of stasis in approaching this topic. Can stasis ever be reached when so much debate is lying simply on the definition of citizenship and civic duty? Is there emotion in stasis? (I am well aware that, in ending this post on a question, I seemingly refute the latter part of my post; however, it undeniably makes me look forward to hearing others’ thoughts in class tonight!)