Persuasive Figures: Harnessing Stasis Theory for Rhetorical Criticism

The theory of the stases is an established part of the rhetorical tradition. As such, most rhetoricians will recognize the fundamental categorization of the contestable issues of a case, not just as a historical phenomenon, but as a tool for rhetorical invention and practical argumentation (Fulkerson 1996; Jørgensen and Onsberg 1987; Kock 2011). Nevertheless, theoretical discussions of the stases are usually limited to the question of the proper interpretation of the classical texts, and stasis theory rarely appears in rhetorical criticism (but see, Fahnestock and Secor 1988; Gross 2004). In what follows, we will seek to demonstrate the critical potential of the stases, beginning with a discussion of their theoretical foundation. What is the underlying rationale of stasis theory? Is there one consensual interpretation of the stases or are there several competing definitions of them? And how do notions that are developed in the classical context of production apply to conceptually guided criticism today? In considering these questions, we arrive at the underlying argument of this chapter, namely that the rhetorical use of stases is shapes meaning formation and decision-making alike. Thus, understanding the stasis is not just an exercise in rhetorical classification, but practical prerequisite for advocacy – and a key crticial resource