Examples of Stasis in Action
A Silly Example of Stasis in Action
If you want to argue that the US government should devote $50 billion to developing defenses against the grave threats posed by werewolves, you have to first have some agreement that werewolves exist at all and are a threat to some degree, let alone a grave threat, or at least more serious than other threats. Otherwise, a policy argument of what to do about werewolves, including spending $50 billion, is going to lead to misunderstandings and be premature anyway.
A More Serious Example of Stasis in Action
The original application of stasis was in criminal cases: prosecuting and defending people accused of crimes, and it's still used today, even if it's not called "stasis." Here is an example:
Both sides are stuck with the incontestable facts that Smith is dead, that the cause of death was a bullet fired from Doe's gun, and that Doe fired the gun. But what might the prosecutor and defense attorney identify as issues and build their arguments around?
On the stasis of existence, the prosecution will emphasize that Smith is dead, that Doe fired the shot using her own gun, which she took out of its holster, aimed at him, and then squeezed the trigger. The defense might argue that Smith lunged first with a raised tire iron, and the shot discharged during a struggle.
On the stasis of procedure or jurisdiction, the prosecution will argue that its charging documents and procedures are correct and filed in the right court, which has the power to decide this case and is the best place to do so. The defense might argue that Doe's rights were violated by police errors or misconduct, or that the case should be tried elsewhere or by a different judge for various reasons.
On the stasis of definition, the prosecution will attempt to define the act as murder under the state penal code, e.g., intentional, unlawful killing of a human being with malice. The defense might argue that the act was justifiable homicide (self‑defense) or some form of manslaughter under the penal code, but not murder.
On the stasis of cause and effect, the prosecution will argue that the most direct cause was Doe’s voluntary squeezing of the trigger while pointing the gun at Smith, but also look for any contributing causes, such as ill will between her and Smith. The defense will argue that the most direct cause was Smith’s threatening Doe with a tire iron, forcing her to make an instinctive shot, with contributing causes of high stress, poor lighting in the parking lot, or whatever else the facts can support.
On the stasis of value, the prosecution will argue that Doe's deadly use of a gun was disproportional to any alleged threat by Smith, while the defense will argue that Smith was the aggressor, that Doe was scared for her own life, and that a tire iron is a deadly instrument. Essentially, the prosecution will try to portray the act in terms of morally and legally blameworthy mental states and the defense will try to resist those portrayals.
The stasis of comparison will likely be part of the arguments at trial about the act itself, comparing the behaviors and words of Smith and Doe to determine who was the aggressor and what Doe's mental state under the circumstances was. Such arguments are also likely to be used in terms of Doe's pretrial bail conditions and, if she is sentenced for a certain crime, in setting the conditions and length of her sentence.
On the stasis of policy, the prosecution will argue that what should be done about this act is that Doe should be convicted and imprisoned for a long time because that is the right thing to do and it is implied that the state has the ability to imprison Doe. The defense will argue that what should be done is that Doe should be acquitted, or at least to be convicted of a lesser offense. If Doe is convicted of anything, both sides will argue for that the court should sentence her for greater or lesser terms, i.e.., that such a sentence is the thing to do.
This does not mean that the parties necessarily will argue in all possible stases. Often, the audience will agree that certain issues need little elaboration or the arguer might choose to focus on one or more issues because they want to emphasize points of difference rather than what is uncontested. Understanding this choice, the power to frame and elaborate issues, lies at the heart of what it means to be a strong reader and writer.
Stasis is Used Everywhere
While stasis originated a long time ago in criminal cases, it is applicable to any argument and can help you become a better reader and writer. Let's practice on a non-academic text, and practice stasis from the perspective of a reader.
Example: In May 2025, in the music publication Pitchfork, Dash Lewis reviewed Snoop Dogg's 2025 album Iz It a Crime?. ❗ Read that review now, so you can understand the rest of this section. If you don't read that review, you will not get what you need from this section. Seriously, read the review. It's fun and lively; it makes arguments; it is not boring.
Lewis mixes various types of arguments, i.e., makes arguments using various stases, in what amounts to a mixed review of the album as mediocre (6.1 on a 10-point scale). But reading for the bottom line is superficial. Reading with the aid of stasis, though, can open up understanding.
How does Lewis use definitions? If you were to quote passages where he does so, which snippets would you quote and why? How do definitions set the scope of his arguments?
Where do you see Lewis making cause‑and‑effect arguments? (Hint: they are more implied than stated explicitly.)
Where exactly do you see Lewis using the comparison stasis—both in comparing this album to Snoop’s other work and in comparing it to other artists’ work?
Where do you see the precise language Lewis uses to signal his judgment of the album’s artistic merits (its value)? Identify exact phrasing rather than a summary like “he thinks the album is meh.”
Last updated