Skip to content
1981
Volume 15, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN: 1757-1952
  • E-ISSN: 1757-1960

Abstract

Despite their clear relationship, the classical rhetorical concept of stasis (or status) and the more contemporary notion of ‘framing’ have rarely been considered together, a situation that is made all the more surprising considering that the latter term can be argued as originating from a rhetorical context, namely, Kenneth Burke’s ‘acceptance frames’. This article seeks to examine the similarities between stasis theory and the various ways in which the trope of framing has come to be instantiated in argumentation in the social sciences, the humanities and select therapeutic modalities. While it is Goffman’s that is usually provided as the origin point for the adoption of the concept of framing into common intellectual parlance, Goffman himself credited Gregory Bateson’s formulation of ‘psychological frames’ as his source. Consequently, I will argue that it is the therapeutic-oriented work of Bateson (and its later development by Watzlawick) that represents the potential bridge between the current demotic understanding of framing, the introductory conceptualization of Burke and the classical stasis tradition. The uncovering and exploration of the relationships between the traditions of stasis, Goffman’s frame analysis, Burke’s acceptance frames and the Batesonian approach to therapeutic reframing will allow us to re-position stasis at the heart of modern rhetorical theory and, furthermore, advance a therapeutic understanding of rhetoric that both reconnects it to its deepest past while also preparing it for its future place in an increasingly disordered (even [dis]eased) environment of public address and interpersonal communication.

© 2024 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/ejpc_00065_1
2025-10-28
2026-04-13

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, W. (2018), ‘Solon and the rhetoric of stasis’, Mouseion, 15:1, pp. 113–29, https://doi.org/10.3138/mous.15.1.8.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ball, S., Hiscox, M. and Oliver, T. (2017), ‘Starting a behavioural insights team: Three lessons from the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government’, Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Special Issue, 1, pp. 21–26, https://sabeconomics.org/journal/RePEc/beh/JBEPv1/articles/JBEP-1-S-5.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2025.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bateson, G. (2000), Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berent, M. (1998), ‘Stasis, or the Greek invention of politics’, History of Political Thought, XIX:3, pp. 331–62, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26217488. Accessed 10 March 2025.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Burke, K. (1984), Attitudes Toward History, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Carroll, J. (2004), ‘Essence, stasis, and dialectic: Ways that key terms can mean’, Rhetoric Review, 23:2, pp. 156–70, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327981rr2302_4.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Charney, D. H. (2022), ‘Stasis: Moving people to action,’ in J. Fahnestock and R. A. Harris (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Persuasion, London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 78–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chenail, R. (1991), ‘Bradford Keeney’s cybernetic project and the creation of recursive frame analysis’, The Qualitative Report, 1:2, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/1995.2062.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Chenail, R. (1995), ‘Recursive frame analysis’, The Qualitative Report, 2:2, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/1991.2042.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Conley, T. (1990), Rhetoric in the European Tradition, London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cornelissen, J. P. and Werner, M. D. (2014), ‘Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature’, Academy of Management Annals, 8:1, pp. 181–235, https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.875669.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Entman, R. M. (1993), ‘Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm’, Journal of Communication, 43:4, pp. 51–58, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fahnestock, J. and Secor, M. (1988), ‘The stases in scientific and literary argument’, Written Communication, 5:4, pp. 427–43, https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088388005004002.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fleckenstein, K. (2017), ‘Minding mind: Kenneth Burke, Gregory Bateson, and posthuman rhetoric,’ in C. Mays, N. Rivers and K. Sharp-Hoskins (eds), Kenneth Burke + The Posthuman, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 23–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Foster, H. (2005), ‘Kairos and stasis revisited: Heuristics for the critically informed composition classroom’, Composition Forum, 14:2, pp. 1–8, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1082239. Accessed 10 March 2025.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Goffman, E. (1986), Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hawhee, D. (2004), Bodily Arts: Rhetoric and Athletics in Ancient Greece, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Herrick, J. (2021), The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoppmann, M. J. (2014), ‘A modern theory of stasis,’ Philosophy & Rhetoric, 47:3, pp. 273–96, https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.47.3.0273.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1984), ‘Choices, values, and frames,’ American Psychologist, 39:4, pp. 341–50, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Keeney, H. and Keeney, B. (2016), ‘Recursive frame analysis: Reflections on the development of a qualitative research method’, The Qualitative Report, 17:2, pp. 514–24, https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.2725.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Keeney, H., Kenney, B. and Chenail, R. (2016), Recursive Frame Analysis: A Qualitative Research Method for Mapping Change-Oriented Discourse, Morrisville, NC: Lulu.com.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kock, C. (2011), ‘Generalizing stasis theory for everyday use,’ in T. van Haaften, H. Jansen, J. de Jong and W. Koetsenruijter (eds), Bending Opinion: Essays on Persuasion in the Public Domain, Leiden: Leiden University Press, pp. 81–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Krippendorff, K. (2009), On Communicating Otherness, Meaning, and Information, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kuypers, J. A. (1997), Presidential Crisis Rhetoric and the Press in the Post-Cold War World, Westport, CT: Praeger.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kuypers, J. A. (2002), Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues, Westport, CT: Praeger.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kuypers, J. A. (2006), Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lodge, M. and Wegrich, K. (2016), ‘The rationality paradox of nudge: Rational tools of government in a world of bounded rationality’, Law & Policy, 38:3, pp. 250–67, https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12056.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lopes, L. (1991), ‘The rhetoric of irrationality’, Theory & Psychology, 1:1, pp. 65–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Maynard, D. C. (2019), ‘Engagement beyond fact-checking: Ciceronian Stasis theory as a response to fake news’, The Liminal: Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology in Education, 1:1 pp. 1–11, https://digitalcommons.du.edu/theliminal/vol1/iss1/8. Accessed 20 February 2025.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. McCloskey, D. (1985), The Rhetoric of Economics, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Nesta (2025), ‘Home page,’ https://www.nesta.org.uk/. Accessed 18 March 2025.
  33. Norholm Just, S. and Gabrielsen, J. (2023), ‘Persuasive figures: Harnessing stasis theory for rhetorical criticism,’ in C. Kock and M. Lantz (eds), Rhetorical Argumentation: The Copenhagen School, Windsor: University of Windsor Digital Press, pp. 270–305.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Oliver, A. (2013), ‘From nudging to budging: Using behavioural economics to inform public sector policy,’ Journal of Social Policy, 42:4, pp. 685–700, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279413000299.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Putnam, L. and Holmer, M. (1992), ‘Framing, reframing, and issue development,’ in M. E. Roloff and L. L. Putnam (eds), Communication and Negotiation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 128–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Quigley, M. and Farrell, A. M. (2019), ‘The politics of nudge and framing behaviour change in health’, in H. Straßheim and S. Beck (eds), Handbook of Behavioural Change and Public Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 195–208.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Raign, K. A. (1994), ‘Teaching stones to talk: Using stasis theory to teach students the art of dialectic’, Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 24:3–4, pp. 88–95, https://doi.org/10.1080/02773949409391020.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Singer, A. E., Lysonski, S., Singer, M. and Hayes, D. (1991), ‘Ethical myopia: The case of  “framing”  by framing,’ Journal of Business Ethics, 10:1, pp. 29–36, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00383690.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Slater, W. H. and Groff, J. A. (2017), ‘Tutoring in critical thinking: Using the stases to scaffold high school students’ reading and writing of persuasive text’, Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33:4, pp. 380–93, https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2017.1294516.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981), ‘The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice,’ Science, 211:4481, pp. 453–58, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Watzlawick, P. (1993), The Language of Change: Elements of Therapeutic Communication, New York: W.W. Norton.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. and Jackson, D. (1967), Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes, New York: W.W. Norton.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. and Fish, R. (2011), Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution, New York: W.W. Norton.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Whitehead, M., Jones, R. and Pykett, J. (2011), ‘Governing irrationality, or a more than rational government? Reflections on the rescientisation of decision making in British public policy,’ Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 43:12, pp. 2819–37, https://doi.org/10.1068/a43575.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Yuan, Y., Harris, R. A. and Jiang, Y. (2017), ‘Stasis salience and the enthymemic thesis,’ Language and Semiotic Studies, 3:3, pp. 103–24, https://doi.org/10.1515/lass-2017-030306.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/ejpc_00065_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): Bateson; critical thinking; dialogue; Goffman; reframing; rhetoric; therapeutic discourse

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test