Rhetorical Judo

Sometimes agreeing with your opponent is the best way to win

Hello Gorgias! is a weekly newsletter devoted to writing, rhetoric, and long-form argument. If you’re enjoying my posts, consider becoming a subscriber.

In my last post, I described a seminal debate between the rhetoricians Lloyd Bitzer and Richard E. Vatz about “the rhetorical situation,” the context in which communication occurs.

The rhetorical situation is comprised of three parts: the exigence, the audience, and the constraints.

• The exigence is an “imperfection marked by urgency,” an issue that can only be addressed or modified through an act of communication.

• The audience is any group of people that can be persuaded by discourse.

• The constraints are the limits imposed on the speaker by the audience, the genre, the forum, or other elements of the situation.

Bitzer argues rhetoric responds to specific problems within a given context, while Vatz counters that rhetoric shapes the situation by selectively emphasizing certain details. At the heart of this debate is the question of rhetorical agency: are speakers reacting to situations, or are they actively creating them?

Today, I’ll use the Bitzer/Vatz debate as a springboard for a deeper look at stasis theory, a classical heuristic for identifying levels of consensus where productive disagreement can occur. I want to show how stasis theory can be leveraged strategically to capture the best parts of someone else’s argument.

Finding Stasis

Traditionally, there are four level of potential stasis:

• Questions of fact: can we agree on what happened?

• Questions of definition: are we using the same terms to describe it?

• Questions of quality: are we evaluating the situation the same way?

• Questions of action: do we both agree on a course of action?

Since Vatz is responding to Bitzer, he gets to choose the initial level of stasis. Vatz could contest Bitzer at the level of fact. That is, he could say there’s no such thing as a rhetorical situation. But that wouldn’t be very smart. To generate clash at that level of stasis, Bitzer would have to argue:

1. That context doesn’t matter or

2. That situations aren’t “rhetorical.”

Neither of these arguments would be persuasive to the audience of rhetoricians they’re both writing for.¹ Vatz takes a more strategic route by offering a competing definition of the rhetorical situation that is mutually exclusive with Bitzer’s.

Vatz is making a concession at the level of fact —acknowledging something called the “rhetorical situation” exists — to shift the dispute to the level of definition: is the rhetorical situation defined objectively? Or is it defined through selection and salience?

Shifting Burdens

If we think of Bitzer’s definition of the rhetorical situation as his advocacy, or the position he’s defending, then Vatz is introducing a counter-advocacy, or mutually exclusive alternative.

But if both parties are advancing mutually exclusive positions, who has the burden of proof? Who has the burden of rejoinder?

In those situations, the burden of proof (and the corresponding burden of rejoinder) shift back and forth between parties, according to who is speaking and whether they’re advancing their own position or responding to someone else’s.

This means both parties shoulder the burden of proof and the burden of rejoinder at the same time. They need to support their position with evidence, but they also need to respond to the claims, warrants, or evidence supporting the other side.

This is where stasis theory becomes useful. Like judo, stasis theory lets you take the force of your opponent’s argument and flip it to your advantage, redirecting the energy of their critique to strengthen your own position.

As soon as Vatz introduces a counter-advocacy, the locus of the debate shifts. Strategically, Vatz now has two priorities:

1. He has to meet the burden of rejoinder by proving his counter-advocacy is not just an extension or misinterpretation of something Bitzer has said. To do this, he has to argue his definition of the rhetorical situation is incompatible with Bitzer’s.

2. He has to uphold the burden of proof by establishing that his counter-advocacy is is actually better than Bitzer’s. It needs to offer some advantage or benefit that Bitzer’s advocacy doesn’t.

And we actually see Vatz doing both of these things in his of critique Bitzer. First he explains why a rhetorical situation can’t be objective and discursive at the same time. Then he argues that Bitzer’s definition of the rhetorical situation can’t account for salience, the level of significance or weight people give something by deciding to pay attention to it.

Permutations

What could Bitzer do to successfully refute Vatz’s critique?

Like Vatz, he has a few different options. The most obvious strategy is to flat-out reject the counter-advocacy by arguing Vatz’s definition of the rhetorical situation is bad or untrue.

However, Bitzer also has a much more strategic option: he can argue that Vatz has failed to meet the burden of rejoinder. Put differently, Bitzer could claim that Vatz’s counter-advocacy isn’t actually mutually exclusive with his own position.

If Bitzer can show that the counter-advocacy is merely an extension of his original argument, he can capture Vatz’s point about salience and turn the critique against its author.

Advanced Stasis Theory

All of this means Bitzer and Vatz have different strategic priorities. Vatz is conceding questions of fact to establish the exclusivity and superiority of his counter-advocacy at the level of definition. He chose that level of stasis and needs to keep the debate there by continually reasserting that his definition of the rhetorical situation is incompatible with Bitzer’s.

Bitzer, on the other hand, has to shift the debate back down to the level of stasis that Vatz has already conceded, because that’s where the natural overlap between his advocacy and Vatz’s counter-advocacy occurs. They both agree the rhetorical situation exists, that it’s linked to persuasion, and that speakers and audiences have some control over what they say and how they act.

If Bitzer can prove Vatz’s counter-advocacy is an extension of his original argument, he doesn’t have to wade into the messy debate around which position is actually better. Why choose between two options when you can have both?

Obviously, this is easier said than done, because Vatz is always going to be pushing back by reasserting that these positions are mutually exclusive.

Conclusion

There are a couple of key takeaways:

1. Attacking what the other party says isn’t the only way to advance your position. In many instances, it’s not even the most strategic option. If you can find a way to capture something about the other party’s counter-advocacy by clarifying or expanding your position, you can enlist their arguments in the service of your cause.

2. Shifting between different levels of stasis to find or neutralize clash makes arguments generative. Clash is an important mechanism for the evolution of an argument. It’s one of the ways arguments grow and become more complex.

Good luck with your writing!

1. Besides, Vatz himself is a rhetorician. It’s hard to see him endorsing this position, even if it were somehow strategic.