A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO STASIS THEORY

Stasis theory is a tool for rhetorical analysis; knowledge of stasis theory can also be of strategic use for arguers. It was
originally developed in classical Rome by rhetorical theorists principally interested in courtroom debate. To ask what
the stasis (or status) of a debate is is to seek to discover and to classify what is at issue in the debate and what is not. In
other words, in order for two (or more) people to disagree about something, they must agree about what they’re
debating. According to Cicero, there are four kinds of stasis, each of which follows logically from the ones before it.

1. Stasis of fact: Did it happen? / Does it exist? Imagine that a man is accused with stealing his neighbor’s car. If
the man replies “Not only did I not steal your car, but the car was not stolen at all — I saw your husband drive off
to work in it this morning,” then what is at issue is a question of fact: The parties to the debate disagree about
whether the theft actually happened.

2. Stasis of definition: What kind of a thing/event is it? Now imagine a variation on the scenario above. The man is
accused of taking his neighbor’s car, but, rather than denying that, in point of fact, he took it, he says: “Well, yes, I
took your car, but I didn’t steal it; I just borrowed it; I was planning to return it to your driveway later today.” In
this example, what is at issue is a question of definition. Both parties agree that the car was taken, but one defines
that “taking” as theft; the other as “borrowing.”

3. Stasis of evaluation: What is the quality of the thing/event? E.g., how important is, how wise or unwise, how good
or bad,practical or impractical, beautiful or ugly, etc. Another variation: Imagine that the man admits to stealing
the car but adds, “I only stole your car because my infant daughter fell gravely ill, and I had to rush her to the
hospital, but my car is in the shop.” In this case, what is at issue is the question of how to evaluate the event. Both
parties agree that the event is properly defined as theft, a crime, but one contends that the magnitude of the crime is
insignificant compared to the necessity of saving a life.

4. Stasis of procedure: What should be done (and who should do it)? A final variation: Imagine that both parties
agree that the theft was a big deal, but while the man who stole the car contends that he owes his neighbor a new
car and an apology, the neighbor contends that she should call the police to have the thief arrested. Here, what is at
issue is a question of procedure: Both parties agree about the facts, how to define them, and how to evaluate, but
they differ as to what ought to be done.

A rhetorical analyst can use these questions to determine what is at issue and what not in a debate. It’s worth noting,
however, that while Cicero believed that a debate (at least a reasonable one) would stick to the logical order prescribed
above, in actual fact debaters will frequently shift stases at various points in the debate, often trying to bring the debate
around to the stasis most favorable them. A particularly rich strategy for rhetorical analysis, then, is to “track” the way
the stasis shifts throughout the debate and to gauge which party (if either) benefits from the movements and why.