Stasis theory has been mentioned a few times in class thus far and shall be discussed briefly on Tuesday. I have decided to give a brief explanation of the concept here as well. Stasis theory is first and foremost a way of looking at a conflict in an effort to figure out where the conflict is located, and ideally resolve said conflict. Typically, stasis theory is applied to debates or arguments that have become locked into a repetitive/inescapable loop in an effort to determine why the debate is no longer progressing and move the debate on to its next stage.
Stasis theory has several different iterations that one can find on the internet that go about the process in different specific steps. Here I shall present the version that Dr. Griffin has taught in some of her other classes which encapsulates what most of the versions I have found attempt.
There are five different stages to stasis theory. These stages are stasis of fact, stasis of definition, stasis of cause, stasis of quality, and stasis of procedure. Each of these stages are meant to represent different points in which an argument or debate can get stuck, and thus enter a repetitive loop.
Stasis of fact deals with the assumptions or "accepted" laws upon which the debate may be founded. This can include statistical data, research data, laws, physical properties, anything that can be founded as some sort of hard basis upon which the debate is taking place. How stasis theory works with this is when a debate gets derailed due to either the inability of the debaters to agree on the presented facts, or the debaters working on the basis of different facts (i.e. one thinks they are talking about the color green, and the other assumes they are talking about the color red). Stasis of fact allows for the debaters to take a step back and and look at the facts that are being assumed for the discussion, at which point any discrepancies can be identified and resolved thus allowing the discussion to proceed once again.
Each level of stasis functions in much the same way, identifying what the core issue is that has the discussion locked up and stepping aside to resolve that issue between the debaters before moving on with the debate. Stasis of definition pertains to making sure that the involved parties are using the same definitions for the words or concepts they are using in the debate (think Idol of the Marketplace, this is the level of stasis upon which the class was stuck during the superhero debate). The stasis of cause pertains to the cause behind whatever the discussion is about. This level of stasis is the least prevalent of the five. Stasis of quality is to identify issues in desired quality of whatever is being discussed (factor of safety, level of quality control needed, etc. fall under this category). The final stasis is stasis of procedure, which deals with confusion and problems arising from the steps behind (or to come from) the debate being held.
In general, stasis of fact and stasis of definition are the most common, and this is true of their representations in film as well. Stasis of fact is very common, with the most obvious example being the Sherlock Holmes films, in which the main character uses exclusively facts from his environments to solve the problem. This identification of utilization of facts is founded in stasis theory as much as the use of the discrepancies between facts (which Holmes also uses). Stasis of definition is probably the most common of all, as it is the basis for the question "Who/what am I?", which, as we have discussed in class, is a very common question in film, the debate of identity. The others are much harder to locate in film, though I do not doubt there is a case for each of them out there somewhere, I am just not thinking of any examples right now.
Finally, I would like to open this explanation of stasis theory to other members of the class that may have been introduced to it before to help flush out my definitions, and especially to Dr. Griffin to expound the topic as well. I hope this explanation will help with the understanding of stasis theory.
~ Brandon
This seems like an excellent introduction. I'd never heard of stasis theory before this class, so I started researching online after reading your post.
ReplyDeleteI think the stasis of quality is very often implied in film, if not openly stated. My first thought was of the movie "Blood Diamond" where a graphic depiction of the conditions in diamond mines was shown.
The film shows the viewer the horrible conditions in Sierra Leone, which affected millions of people. The movie clearly argues to the viewer that conflict diamonds are a serious issue. By purchasing conflict diamonds, a person supports not only the abuse and slavery that was used to obtain them, but also the war and atrocities funded by them. It attempts to visually depict the severity of the problem, helping the argument against conflict diamonds.
Thanks, Brandon, for taking time to post this information about stasis theory. I have found it to be ery useful in deconstructing arguments and disagreements and points of debate in many areas of life and work.
ReplyDeleteStasis refers to where an argument is "stuck", hence "stasis."
Film is a wonderful medium from which to explore stasis. here are some quick examples:
Stasis of facts--facts are in dispute. Many films use this stasis as the core of the plot: mysteries, Sherlock Holmes stories...Memonto (particularly this scene) is about stasis of facts--The main character has lost his memory after the death of his wife and cannot piece together the "facts" of her murder. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1nvvaWX4gk
Truman is another good example of stasis of fact--he knows something is not right but cannot settle on the facts (the fact that Seahaven is a tv set where he is the star). Once this "stasis" is resolved by Cristoff, the next level of stasis comes in: Definition. We will talk more about stasis theory in class--it is a great heuristic that I think is novel to the study of phil of film.
I’ve actually found that stasis theory as used in film tends to apply more to the audience than to the characters in the film. Any film writer worth their salt will oftentimes subject the audience to various elements of stasis theory to “draw them in” and keep them there. When used correctly, this type of filmmaking will make the audience want to know more. One need only watch an Alfred Hitchcock murder mystery to know what I mean (Psycho and Rear Window are both fantastic examples). Such films will give the audience information early on i.e. somebody’s dead, and we don’t know why. Over time, more information slowly emerges. We start to learn more bits and pieces as the film progresses (causes begin to emerge). Sooner or later, the climax of the film presents itself, and things “click” with the audience, and hopefully a key character or two. The focus then becomes “what to do?” (procedure, anyone?). Finally, the film’s conclusion is brought about as some character initiates some procedure to resolve any remaining plot (or, conversely to open a new plot altogether).
ReplyDelete