Teaching stasis theory effectively

The rhetorical device that uses stasis questions to find the point of argument (disagreement) seems a useful tool, but its potential for adding complexity to the argumentative task also seems evident. Perhaps this is why many of the contemporary texts that I have seen that are used to teach argument and, more specifically, the concept of stasis, whittle the discussion and examples down to the just the four primary questions devised by ancient rhetors, typically presented in this way: fact (did something happen), definition (what is the nature of the thing/issue), quality (what is the quality of the thing/issue), and proposal (what should be done about the thing/issue).
One of the first problems that can occur when the stasis theory is given such a rudimentary explanation is student confusion over what is up for disagreement. Take, for example, the substitution of the word FACT for what the ancients termed conjecture, which connotes an uncertainty and thus establishes the presence of or at least potential for disagreement. For many students, even when the explanation of the stasis theory confirms a disagreement over facts, the term FACT, itself, suggests a certainty and, therefore, misleads students to assume that no disagreement can exist at this level. (Perhaps this relates to some of my comments in a previous blog regarding society’s reliance on facts.)
Beyond this, many of these texts do not pursue a discussion on the purpose of and need for elaboration of the four basic questions, leaving students shortchanged by the invention process. The stasis questions are presented as a way into argument rather than as a means toward digging deeper into an issue to see the many perspectives available and establishing one’s own position and the evidence and proofs available to support it.
When students begin to apply the four stasis questions in an effort to confirm the type of argument they have and the point of disagreement, they stop short of seeing the possibilities that exist within their argumentative stance. What often results then are arguments that merely revisit previous arguments, addressing the same points of contention that have been presented, chewed on and spit back out time and time again. Or, this elementary form of questioning gets students started on the right track with an issue, focusing on a specific point of contention, but then finds them branching out into other aspects of the issue because they’ve run out of things to say that expand on this point. This causes their argument to take a different direction altogether, resulting in an argument that attempts to do so much that it fails to really do anything. I guess what I am referring to is students not really being able to isolate clearly enough the thrust of their argument and then arguing an issue from such a broad stance that to do it justice would require a much lengthier discussion (I think points to what Crowley and Hawhee suggested can occur when the questions we generate about an issue are too general).
Perhaps this is why I appreciated Crowley and Hawhee’s discussion about the elaboration of the stasis questions. The authors make it clear in both explanation and examples that the questioning process is neither simple nor straightforward, although it is systematic, with each subsequent question relying on the answer to the previous question.
This chapter has made me stop to think about the importance of extending the discussion of stasis theory to include this more critical and generative questioning process, even if the current text in use does not.
Yet to do so presents new problems, which I alluded to in my opening thoughts—namely, how to teach students to question more deeply, more critically, and not get lost within the complexity of some of the issues they might choose to broach and then how to get them to actually engage in a process that does just this. Arguing effectively is difficult, time-consuming work, fraught with twists and turns and even changes in the direction of one’s thinking. Can I motivate the students to be willing to do this? How?
Another challenge is to get these students to ask not just more questions but the right questions and to be willing to open their minds to the possibility that by asking these questions they might be forced to change perspectives. Complex indeed, for both teacher and student.
And so I am left to ponder ways that I can approach teaching the concept of stasis theory more effectively. I look forward to our discussion of this chapter and hope it will elicit some possibilities.