In this week's reading in ARCS the stasis theory was explained in depth. I thought it was interesting to reflect on the differences between the mindset of arguers of our modern day as opposed to that of ancient rhetoricians. In a previous class discussion, we addressed the notion that argument was seen as an art form, and opinions were given far more credibility than they are now. This can relate to the stasis theory, because it evidences that the priorities have shifted over times. Where ancient rhetoricians took the issue as a mutual point to spur the argument, it can become, as the text mentions, an immovable point of contention from which no common ground can be established, thus leading to violence rather than spoken argument (ARCS 104). I feel that people are less likely to entertain the views of another side in present day because they are so fixed in their own views that they do not consider that other opinions are valid and focus entirely on making their side heard.
The example that ARCS uses in this chapter is the issue of abortion. The matter of abortion is certainly one that creates tension between opposing groups and paired with the stasis theory, it seems to me to be a formula for disaster. I do think that the stasis theory is useful in the sense that a rhetorician may fully establish their opinions through the implementation of questions that analyze their own positions as well as the points that the opposition might raise. However, in a public forum, with an issue such as abortion that has two polar sides and a lot of passion, I am not convinced that the stasis theory would be entirely successful because the emotion involved would decrease the amount of patience for the four questions. In other words, I think it is better to present a salient argument and be prepared to counter to the best of the rhetorician's abilities. The stasis theory, to me, is better suited to issues of policy or theory not as convoluted as high-tension issues such as abortion. To best apply the stasis theory to abortion, I think it would succeed better on paper, as denoted by the written example presented in the chapter, rather than orally.
Nice conclusion about people today and their need to validate their points. It's true that people would rather take time to research their side rather than the opposing, it creates an unfair bias in resources. Also, interesting point on abortion and the passion that seems to revolve around it. Your thought that the statis theory wouldn't hold in a public form makes sense, I can see where you're coming from saying that. And better on paper you say? Interesting, I don't think Plato would agree, but I understand certain circumstances where it might actually work better. It would be less threatening, taken mroe with ease i suppose.
ReplyDeleteThanks James, I'm sure Plato is rolling in his grave at the idea of the stasis theory translating better into written argument. But even after class today, I stand by that opinion. Professor Condon addressed the complications that arise when applying the stasis theory to abortion, and as I listened I thought that the altercations stem largely from the definition portion. Abortion is such a multi-faceted issue, and there are a variety of sides to take that in my mind, the lack of clarity when it comes to defining a position in concrete terms is where rhetoricians on the subject falter and cannot move on from the point of stasis.
ReplyDelete