The Stasis Model, Part 1: Different Types of Claims

Consider these statements:

• It is snowing outside.
• Snow is white, cold, and falls from clouds under the right conditions.
• It is snowing really bad.
• We should dig the car out of the snow.

Each of these statements says something about snow, but each one says something different about it, and in doing so, makes different types of claims. When doing more serious writing or research, types of claims convey different information and refer to the stances we take on issues and topics. The Stasis Model is a way to help us know what kinds of claims we’re making and their relationship to one another by identifying four different types of claims. They are:

• Fact: Claims about the existence of something.
• Definition: Claims about the traits, characteristics, and attributes of something.
• Value: Claims about the superiority or inferiority of something.
• Policy: Claims about the action to be taken about something.

You can identify the type of claim something is by asking the following questions:

• Does it exist? Is it a thing?
• What's it like?
• How good/bad/important/unimportant/useful/useless/etc. is it?
• What should be done about/because of it?

So let’s apply these questions to the above claims:

Fact Claim: It is snowing outside.

• Does snow exist? Yes, and for the sake of discussion, let's say there is in fact snow outside, so still yes. Fact claims almost always boil down to either “yes it is” or “no it isn't”. If there was no snow outside, the claim would be false, because there's no snow outside. If the claim was “snow doesn’t exist”, it would still be a Fact claim, and false.
• This does not deal with what snow is like (Definition) or the severity of the snow (Value).

Definition Claim: Snow is white, cold, and falls from clouds under the right conditions.

• What is snow like? Even though the description is vague, it's accurate because these are some of snow’s attributes. Just because it doesn't describe the geometric patterns snow forms, the chemical composition, etc., does not make it an inaccurate description or any other type of claim.
• Fact claims just say whether or not something is. Definition goes into more detail to describe whatever it is. This doesn’t deal with the quality of the snow, just what snow is like.

Value Claim: It is snowing really bad.

• How good is the snow? Apparently, it's bad. This implies degrees of quality: good or bad, better or worse, etc. In our example, the snow is bad (snow that decreases visibility, takes out power, etc) as opposed to snow that is good (creates a snow pack for farmers, good skiing and snowboarding conditions, etc).
• Value claims require Definition and Fact claims; you can't claim snow is good or bad if you don't know what snow is, and you'd have to define just what constitutes good or bad snow.

Policy Claim: We should dig the car out of the snow.

• What should be done about the snow? This goes beyond describing something or judging its quality. Policy addresses the action that should be taken. In this situation, it's digging the car out of the snow.
• We can arrive at this claim because of the corresponding Value claim the snow is “really bad”. Once we determine the Value of something we can act based on the Value we claim it to have. If it's a good or important thing, we should promote, protect, and enable it. If it's a bad thing, we should deter and prevent it.

The Stasis Model gives us tools to better understand and break down our arguments by helping trace our ideas and make sure we understand them. We like to argue Policy and Value all the time, but we can't properly make these claims without understanding the Definition or even the Fact levels of the issue we’re making claims about.

Move on to Policy

Imagine looking at what’s playing at a movie theater with some friends. You have a friendly discussion about which movie is worth seeing, discussing the different styles of different directors and actors, maybe even deriding some of the movies and questioning whether or not some of the worst ones can really be called “movies”. Within this discussion, you and your friends will have hit on the first 3 levels of Stasis:

• Fact: Whether or not what’s playing at the theaters can really be called “movies.”
• Definition: Discussing actor and director style.
• Value: Which movie is the best or worth seeing.

And then none of you go see the movie.

This would mean the discussion never rose to Policy because no action was taken: the discussion ended at Value, merely deciding which is best. While there’s nothing wrong with having Fact, Definition, or Value level arguments, there’s only so much these arguments can do. Because they’re not Policy arguments, by definition, very little or nothing at all directly happens because of them.

Policy deals with what to do. Fact, Definition, and Value deal with what or how something is. It's fairly easy to argue these points because we can easily pick them up and leave them behind. Think about an art exhibition:

• Fact: Do I consider what is being exhibited art?
• Definition: What makes it art or not art? Just what is art?
• Value: Is it good art? Which pieces are better or more important?

And these are arguments you could easily have with anyone: friends, family, curators, artists, and even complete strangers. Some discussions may become heated or deeply philosophical, but if they never go beyond Value, it is very easy to just go on as if nothing has happened.

This is where Policy comes in. A Policy level argument focuses on action and change, which requires more attention to audience, implementation, and even considering the repercussions of your actions.

For example, at the art gallery, you have a friendly argument with someone you met and you convince them of the transcendence of a certain piece. Congratulations on your Value level argument. This person then turns to you and asks you to sell them the artwork. But you're in the same position they're in: an observer who came to see the exhibit. If you collect this person's money for this artwork, you'll be guilty of fraud. Instead, you'd have to find out who can sell the artwork (studio or artist) and then purchase it. There could even be a competition for it: a museum could be vying for it, but you want it for your private collection: you have to convince the owner, who may be the studio or the artist but likely not both, that their work is better suited in your collection than in a museum (a Value level argument) so they should sell it to you (Policy level).

Ultimately, this is about recognizing that our decisions, even if they are purely abstract or philosophical, like what constitutes “art” or what art is superior, will reflect itself in our actions and we need to consider the implementation and consequences of those actions. You may decide Artwork A is better than Artwork B, but how could you buy Artwork A? And from there, what happens when you buy Artwork A? Or if you buy Artwork B? How will it impact your life, your home, your social standing? What will happen because other places, like the museum and by extension the general public, won't have access to it?

Policy level arguments require more attention to audience, implementation and repercussions and, whether implicitly or explicitly, involve Fact, Definition and Value level arguments. This is all because Policy focuses on bringing about action. Fact, Definition, and Value level arguments are merely Policy Level arguments waiting to be acted on.

What makes it Argumentative? An Overview

I want to start this post off by saying the words argument and persuasion have very close definitions, but can be interpreted quite differently. I try to avoid any confusion by using them interchangeably. My interest here, however, is not to draw distinctions between being argumentative and persuasive, but between being argumentative and informative.

Most of us are familiar with informative writing. We encounter it all the time in textbooks, news sources, blogs, documentaries, etc. This causes problems when students need to move to argumentative writing.

I’ve had students insist they will argue by merely being informative. I take this to mean they haven’t caught on to the issues regarding argumentation I’ve covered in class. The distinction is as follows:

Informative writing just gives information: facts, details, observations, research, etc.

Argumentation makes recommendations and proposals about what to do with that information.

To further describe the difference between informative and argumentative is to use the Stasis Model, which is a kind of hierarchy of argumentation. Each aspect must be addressed, or at least clear, before moving to the next:

• Fact: Determining whether or not something exists, did or did not happen, could or could not happen, etc. This is generally a yes or no question. Sometimes called “Conjecture.”
• Definition: Describing characteristics and attributes of the Facts.
• Value: Determining the quality or severity of the issue or topic – if what has been defined is good or bad, better or worse, etc. Sometimes called “Quality.”
• Policy: Proposing active change based on the discussion of the Values: if a better option exists and its implementation is feasible, then recommendations how to pursue it should be made.

Argumentation address all of these: Facts are considered, defined, and weighted against actual and hypothetical situations, culminating in the proposed change. 

Informative writing stops anywhere before Policy: a proposal isn't made, a plan of action isn't discussed, plans aren't made for improvement.

While the Stasis Model is the first step in differentiating between informative and argumentative writing, argumentative writing also necessitates a number of considerations:

• Take a stance: Perhaps the most important. Being argumentative requires a clear stance on the issue.
• Rhetorical Situation: Aristotle broke rhetoric down into a number of different aspects. These are, primarily:
• Ethos: Author's authority; how does the author demonstrate their credibility.
• Pathos: Audience awareness; how is the piece written for its audience.
• Logos: Logic; the structure and coherence of the argument itself.
• Audience Specificity: Not exactly the same as pathos. Audience is always important. In Argumentation it is very important. Argumentative writing necessitates writing not just for an audience, but an audience, people, persons, or groups, that can enact the recommended change.
• Opposing viewpoints: Others will recommend different policies, interpret the research or situation differently, or think nothing needs changing. Acknowledging opposing viewpoints and countering them can strengthen arguments.
• Advocating active change: By “active” I mean it should be more than just “people need to know.” Knowing something is being informative. Argumentation entails making recommendations about the action that specific (see “Audience Awareness” above) people need to do. Best case scenario, if the proposal were accepted, there should be observable, measurable changes.

These may still be present in informative writing, but sometimes informative writing just weighs the sides of an issue without taking a stance or proposing a change. Just as the Stasis Model becomes more and more argumentative as it goes from Facts to Policy, informative essays may adopt some aspects of argumentation. There isn't anything wrong with that. The important thing is an argumentative essay does significantly more, regarding audience, opposition, and proposing than an informative piece.