Stasis theory and an example of noesis and poiesis

08 January 2013

Stasis derives from the Greek root STA (to stand). In modern day society, people in the field of medicine are accustom to the use of the term in their discourse, as it relates to variations of a state of biological equilibrium (Nadeau 1957). In rhetoric, there are different theories of stasis, but here are the four Hermagorean stases in their typical order of presentation:

1. Being–What action/thing, if any, can be considered? The contraries in this situation must reach a nominal conceptualization of the being prior to defining it.
2. Definition–Define the essential characteristics of the action/thing that are typically associated with it and widely known about it. By defining the essential characteristics of the being, the rhetor can potentially reveal the nature of any problems that may exist inherent in the action/thing itself.
3. Quality–Define the nuances of this particular action/thing, as it relates to this specific instance. After establishing the nature of the action/thing, the rhetor can attempt to uncover any issues or contradictions that exist on a more nuanced or complex level.
4. Objections–What reasons suggest that further deliberation should occur? Since Hermagoras modified the three main stases for students of the court, he included a fourth stasis that was embedded within the context of the court itself to help contest any potential issues of procedure (Nadeau 1957)

Within a momentary state such as stasis, a rhetor uses the rhetorical devices of noesis (investigation and analysis) and poiesis (argument or speech-making), both of which are a part of the canon of invention, to produce the subsequent move in an argument (Dieter 364). Poiesis, then, is the act in which a rhetor composes his/her position, which will logically changes the rhetor’s state from stasis to kinesis.

Here’s an example of how the two might operate together:

An old professional web developer examines the javascript code of a younger developer on the team project and sees that it, the code, is void of semicolons. Even though their developer company uses ASI (Automatic Semicolon Insertion) software, he finds this negligence will not only cause problems to the program in his mind, but also stirs up issues with too much variance in the style of the code. Yet, prior to sending an email to the young developer and the rest of the team, he wants to be sure that he has more valid concerns than simply one of style, so he investigates this problem further [noesis]. After reviewing some varying stances on the subject of the semicolon use in javascript, he finds a case of Twitter’s “Bootstrap” library that became broken after cycling it through the js code minimzer engine, due to the same lack of semicolons as his case, despite the use of ASI. After realizing that this problem goes deeper than one of style alone and more of functionality, he writes an email [poiesis] to his team of the importance of the semicolon use and that they cannot rely on the ASI, due to the potential issue of broken code as their program will also be run through the js code minimizer. Yet, before sending it, he realized that this is an issue that reaches beyond just his team, but it also may effect the entire company, so he decides to CC his supervisor and then revise the email to reflect the potential issues that could arise for the company as a whole.