Stases Patterns and Scientific Discourse

Fahnestock and Secor’s article on Stasis patterns aims to inform readers on the construction of arguments. They claim that “the stases tell the writer where to think, not “what to think.” As writers it is useful to study how to effectively construct an argument. Much like Grant- Davie’s idea of exigence, Fahnestock and Secor synthesize stasis into a formulaic pattern that assesses the purpose and timeliness of arguments. Questions of causes are similar to exigence in that they define “what the discourse is a bout, why it is needed, and what it should accomplish (Grant Davie 266). Last class my group examined a sci/tech article on binge drinking. The stasis was clear in that unexpected facts were presented to break down barriers of assumption. We have all heard about binge drinking problems in universities and amongst the youth. The article took a unique stance and informed the reader via age groups and sex (male/female). Surprising facts insinuated that the article was not intended for current binge drinkers, but for individuals in positions that have the capability of making changes. The stasis patterns in scientific discourse and literary criticism both take predisposed assumptions on a topic and try to change that discipline in a new direction. I find it interesting that science arguments are conducted in lower stases. This is probably due to the fact that science results are less philosophical and more concrete.

Killingsworth and Palmer explore the concepts of news and common interest. “To be considered news it must tell readers something they don’t already know, something they haven’t already heard or become accustomed to.” Common interest revolves more around “taking an unusual approach to an old problem” (Killingsworth and Palmer 134). An interesting point arises in the application of common interest to scientific rhetoric. Common interest encompasses social aspects in that it takes a socially rooted problem, such as binge drinking, and uses statistical data to analyze the situation. It is important to build discourse in our highly mediated society because it is naïve to only look at scientific studies through the eyes of “numbers”. At this point in time scientists need to be thinking outside of the box to reach new conclusions. For example, the genetic predisposition of alcohol abuse has been circling the media for a while now. A scientific study is more likely to be effective and useful if it attaches socially constructed paradigms. Killingsworth and Palmer’s discussion of community formation clarify Fahnestock and Secor’s stasis levels in that a clear and leveled audience helps deliver messages to a broader spectrum. The reader of a scientific article does not have to be an expert on the topic to understand what the discourse is. This is achieved through the stasis patterns that help us (the reader) organize and analyze statements. The shift from “news” to “public” involvement is depicted in Time magazines coverage on environmentalism. I believe the best depiction of this shift is their 1988 issue. Placing the article The Shift toward Environmental Awareness  in the “Nation” section as opposed to the “Environment” section instantly changes the predisposed opinions of the reader. Public awareness arises by categorizing the issue on a national level as opposed to an environmental one. The discourse hints that the nation needs to make a change, not the environment.