Introduction to Stasis Theory
3 Stasis Theory
by John R. Edlund
In many ways, our world is utterly different from the civilizations of the ancient Greeks and Romans. We have vastly superior technology, different values and beliefs, art forms that no Roman ever imagined, and different ideas about gender roles and sexuality. However, our legislative and governing institutions have their roots in Greek and Roman ideas of democracy and civic life. Some aspects of human life haven’t changed much in the past 2,000 years. Because humans are still humans, some ancient techniques for discussing problems and arriving at solutions are still very useful for coming up with good arguments. Among them is a technique called “stasis theory.” Don’t be put off by the technical sounding name. It really isn’t that complicated.
Stasis theory was first developed by Hermagoras, a Greek rhetorician who taught in Rome during the first century B.C. The techniques were refined by Roman rhetoricians Cicero and Quintilian and used for many centuries to invent arguments for debates, persuasive speeches, and trials.
The first step in having a productive debate or discussion is to agree on the question being discussed. Quintilian says, “Every question is based on assertion by one party and denial by another” (III vi 6). However, a lot of questions are never resolved because the two sides are not asserting and denying the same question. For example, in the debate about abortion, the “pro-life” side generally asserts that “Abortion is murder,” while the “pro-choice” side argues that “Women have a right to choose what happens to their own bodies.” These parties cannot productively debate until they agree on what question they are debating. “Stasis” is a standpoint between two opposing views. “Achieving stasis” is when the parties reach agreement on exactly what the question or issue under discussion is.
The second step is to figure out where there is common ground and where there is disagreement about the issue. This is where the four stasis questions come into play. Do we disagree about the facts, the definition of the act (what to call it), the nature of the act (whether it was good or bad), or what to do about it? Once we figure out what the issue is and where we disagree, we can have an efficient and productive discussion about it. An unproductive discussion is often a lot of noise and shouting that doesn’t go anywhere. Thinking through the stasis process helps clarify the issues so that we can zero in on the real problem. More on this below.
Definite and Indefinite Questions
Quintilian says that questions are either definite or indefinite. Indefinite, or general, questions can be argued without reference to a particular person, time, or place. Definite questions, on the other hand, involve particular people, times, and places (Quintilian III v. 6-10).
A definite question is always encompassed by a larger indefinite question. For example, the Supreme Court case known as Brown v