Lesson for Week 11: Day 2
11.2
Make an entry in the blog and to create a list that shows
the arguments being made by both sides.
Last time we had gotten as far as lining up the competing arguments across from one another like this:
|
Genetically modified wheat should be approved for general planting because . .
|
Genetically modified wheat should not be approved for general planting because
. . .
|
Stasis takes over at this stage, providing categories for classifying the arguments so that you can determine more effectively which arguments face off against which arguments. Review the stasis summary briefly. Sometimes using this system, you discover that one side is arguing at a certain point of stasis and the other isn't. In that case, they are arguing past each other. Sometimes you discover that neither side is arguing at a certain point of stasis. That is an indication that they share common ground there, even though they may not be aware of it.
Stasis works somewhat differently, depending on whether the situation is forensic or deliberative in nature. If the debate is about the justice or injustice of a past act (forensic rhetoric), then the four questions of stasis (fact, definition, quality, policy) follow one another naturally. Did she do the deed? How shall we define the action? Was the action justified or were there mitigating circumstances? Is this process of seeking justice being carried out fairly and according to law? The opposing sides may clash at any one of these points of stasis.
If the debate is about policy--what should we do--then the four questions of stasis can also be used: What are the facts that we know for sure about the outcomes of the possible courses of action? How shall we define the actions and outcomes? What are the relative risks and benefits of the courses of action (quality)? How shall we go about doing this? Debate may occur at any one of these points.
However, deliberative rhetoric is also dependent upon burden of proof and presumption. If a side has presumption, then most of the audience is predisposed to grant credence to this position. If it has burden of proof, then most of the audience is skeptical about this position. In the case of GM crops, burden of proof and presumption is quite different in the USA presently than it is in England. In England, the burden of proof is on the GM companies (based on the precautionary principle) to demonstrate that GM technology is absolutely safe to human health and the environment. In the USA, GM products became widespread without the public even being much aware of their spread. As a result, the burden of proof today is on those who wish to ban or restrict GM crops or on those who wish to force labeling.
Taking these two concepts into account, we see that stasis in deliberative discourse can be compared to two armies clashing, one in a castle, the other on the field. The army on the field is assaulting the castle of the status quo; the army in the castle is trying to ward off change.
Therefore, stasis theory suggests that the points of conflict will be as follows. First, there will be debate about the nature of the current situation. How shall we define the current situation? What is its quality? If the current situation is seen as a problem, then we need to change it; if it is seen as sustainable or harmonious, then we need to preserve it. This perspective can be very focused. For instance in Phil McClean's Power Point on the biotechnology process, we saw that rice can be defined as lacking vitamin A. This is a definition that says the current state of rice is not good enough. By defining naturally crops in this way, biologists are able to argue that improvements need to be made. The presentation defines biotechnology as "the application of technology to improve a biological organism."
Second, supposing that the army on the field persuades the rhetorical audience that the present situation should be defined as a problem, it needs to assault the next barrier to change. That barrier is showing that the proposed course of action will solve the problem. If the proposed course of action won't solve the problem, then it isn't efficacious. In McClean's power point, we see, from a wider angle, that 100 million children suffer from vitamin A deficiency (a problem). The question now becomes, "Will rice genetically modiefied to produce vitamin A solve the problem?"
Third, supposing the argument is persuasive that such a product will solve the problem, then the question becomes, "Is it feasible?" This question may include considerations about scientific processes (can we produce such a plant?), finances (are the costs worth the benefits?), and distribution (will people adopt?)
Fourth, questions of risk and benefit can be a point of contention. Will the benefits of vitamin A enhanced rice be great? How great? Are the benefits worth any unforeseen risks to health or environment? How great are those risks?
Finally, debate can focus on policy. Who should do this? How should it be done? Who should profit?
Notice that I have used a situation in which the GM advocates have the burden of proof. They pretty much need to win all of the arguments in order to overcome the burden. In a situation in which they do not have burden of proof, they may be able to introduce change without winning all the arguments or even addressing all the issues. And in a situation in which those who would reverse GM approval, then presumption rather than burden of prood is likely to be with the GM advocates.
To sum up, there are two systems of stasis: (1) stasis can focus on fact, definition, quality, and policy, or (2) it can focus on the present situation, the proposed change, the feasibility of the change, the risks and benefits of the change, or the procedure for carrying out change.
For next time, use one of these two systems of stasis to line up the arguments of the oppsing sides. List the stasis category and then list the arguments being made on that pont by the two sides (see pattern below). Send it to me by email.
Question of fact
Question of Definition