|
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
The Syllogism of Apologia:
Rhetorical Stasis Theory and Crisis Communication
Charles Marsh
William Allen White Foundation Professor
Associate Professor
William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications
University of Kansas
3309 Riverview Rd.
Lawrence, KS 66049
(785) 864-7642
[log in to unmask]
No AV Needs
The Syllogism of Apologia:
Rhetorical Stasis Theory and Crisis Communication
Abstract
Rhetorical stasis theory the process of identifying a debate's
core issue can provide a hierarchical structure for crisis response
strategies. The author proposes that the accusation in a crisis
situation the kategoria -- has a syllogistic form, allowing crisis
managers to decide whether to attack an accusation at its minor
premise level, major premise level or conclusion. Stasis theory
posits three content-related issues categories. This paper connects
current crisis communication options to those three staseis.
The Syllogism of Apologia:
Rhetorical Stasis Theory and Crisis Communication
I. Introduction
For approximately 20 years, scholars of crisis communication have
called for additional research into "the dynamics of the crisis
response process the factors that shape the selection of the crisis
response" (Coombs & Holladay, 2001, p. 321). In Accounts, Excuses and
Apologies (1995), Benoit recalls Ryan's (1982) earlier exploration of
stasis theory, from classical rhetoric, and concludes, "Surely this
cannot be considered to be an exhaustive analysis of this phenomenon"
(p. 167). This paper, while not purporting to be exhaustive, seeks to
increase the application of rhetorical stasis theory to modern crisis
communication, particularly to the concept of "corporate apologia"
(Hearit, 2001). Ideally, the application of stasis theory to
corporate apologia would help a crisis manager select the most
effective response strategy as well as identify specific
communication options within that strategy.
II. Definition of Terms
Public relations scholars' increasing interest in methods of
rhetorical analysis (Toth & Heath, 1992; Elwood 1995; Toth, 2000) has
led to the importation of terms from classical Greek that no doubt
function better in scholarship with some front-end definitions. This
section will as concisely as possible review the concepts of
stasis, apologia, kategoria and related terms.
Stasis Theory
In the first century BCE, the Greek rhetorician Hermagoras proposed
a system of stasis of issue identification in a debate that has
endured for millennia. Though Hermagoras' work on stasis is lost,
Cicero (first century BCE) discusses it extensively in De Inventione
as do Quintilian (first century CE) in Institutio Oratoria and an
author termed Pseudo Augustine in a seventh century manuscript called
De Rhetorica, the original of which may have been much earlier
(Dieter & Kurth).
Stasis is part of the invention phase of rhetoric. Rhetoric,
according to Aristotle, is "the faculty of observing in any given
case the available means of persuasion" (1355b). Cicero, Quintilian
and the unknown author Ad Herennium, a first century BCE rhetoric
handbook, agree that rhetoric has five parts: invention, arrangement,
expression, memory, and delivery. Invention is the art of discovering
the content of a forthcoming oration not the words but the ideas.
When the rhetorical act involves a debate and an eventual judgment by
an audience of one or many, stasis theory helps identify the core
issue the key question or source of disagreement upon which
judgment must be rendered. With a debate's stasis established, an
orator could move deeper into the invention phase, seeking and
refining the ideas that would develop his or her side of the issue.
Hubbell (1976), M. Heath (1995, p. 19) and Russell (1983, p. 40)
join others in simply defining stasis as issue. "The 'issue," Cicero
writes in De Inventione, "is the first conflict of pleas which arises
from the defense or answer to our accusation, in this way: 'You did
it'; 'I did not do it,' or 'I was justified in doing it'" (I.vii.10).
Braet (1987) notes that stasis generally is established by the party
on the defensive, the party that replies to the initial charge. From
analyses in Cicero, Quintilian and Pseudo Augustine, we can say with
some certainty that Hermagoras established four possible staseis, the
first three of which are clearly hierarchical (M. Heath, 1995):
" the stasis of stochasmos, or fact: Ulysses, you killed Teucer I
did not. The stasis would involve the question Did he do it? (If the
defense cannot deny the action, it falls back to the next level of
stasis: horos.)
" the stasis of horos, or definition: Orestes, you murdered your
mother Yes, but not all murder can be defined as unlawful; some
murders can be justified. The stasis would involve the question Was
this murder unlawful? (If the defense cannot contest the definition,
it falls back to the next level of stasis: poiotes.)
" the stasis of poiotes, or quality: You committed sacrilege Yes, I
did, but there are extenuating circumstances that tend to excuse me.
The stasis would involve the question How guilty is he/she? To what
extent can we excuse this act?
" the stasis of metalepsis, or jurisdiction: You committed sacrilege
You have no right to try me; this is not the proper venue for such
charges. The stasis would involve the question Do we have the right
to render judgment, or are we not the proper judges?
Significantly, stasis theory also identifies specific communication
options substaseis under each stasis.
The original charge, from an accuser, was known as the kataphasis.
The response was the apophasis, and the resulting question was the
zetema. If true difference of opinion centers on the zetema, it
becomes the stasis the issue (Braet, 1987).
As in the examples above, stasis almost always is described as a
judicial function. However, Cicero (II.iv.12), Quintilian (III.vi.1)
and Pseudo Augustine (p. 97) are adamant that stasis applies in each
of the three realms of rhetoric described by Aristotle (1358b):
forensic/judicial; deliberative/political; and epideictic/praise/blame.
More than one modern scholar of crisis communication has discussed
the concept of stasis without using that name. R. Heath and Millar,
for example, note that each crisis is a narrative with a theme
(conceivably, a stasis) and a contested plot (conceivably, a
kataphasis, apophasis and related evidence) (Miller & Heath, 2004, p.
12). Benoit maintains that when a crisis emerges, managers must
understand not only the nature of the crisis but also the relevant
accusations (what stasis theory terms kataphaseis) (Benoit, 2004).
Apologia and Kategoria
The concept of apologia is no doubt more familiar to scholars of
crisis communication than is stasis. Ware and Linkugel (1973) define
apologia as "the speech of self-defense" (p. 273), and Hearit (1994)
adds the caveat that it should not be confused with apology: "An
'apologia' is not an apology (although it may contain one), but a
defense that seeks to present a compelling counter description of
organizational actions" (p. 115). Benoit and Brinson (1994) define
apologia as "a recurring type of discourse designed to restore face,
image, or reputation after alleged or suspected wrong-doing" (p. 75).
To link apologia to stasis theory, we could note that apologia is a
specialized form of apophasis, one that responds to an accusation.
Scholars tend to see apologia as a distinct rhetorical genre (Ware &
Linkugel, 1973; Ryan, 1982; Huxman & Bruce, 1995). "The genre's
overarching goal is one of image repair or policy restoration," write
Huxman and Bruce (1995). "Specifically, apologists
seek to redefine
the reality portrayed by their accusers" (p. 59). Apologia situations
are crisis situations, and they seem to be increasing with the growth
of organizations, institutions and modern media (Hearit, 1994; Huxman
& Bruce, 1995).
In discussing judicial oratory in his Rhetoric, Aristotle contrasts
apologia with kategoria, an accusation (1358b). Traditionally, an
apologia would not exist without a provoking, instigating kategoria
(which was a specific, judicial accusatory form of kataphasis). Ryan
(1982) adopted the term for contrast with modern apologia, and it has
been taken up by Hearit and others to signify the accusation that
provokes an apologia. As R. Heath and Millar (2004) note, a crisis is
a rhetorical struggle for control. The opposed intentions inherent in
kategoria and apologia illustrate that struggle.
III. Review of Literature
A review of scholarship on the role of apologia in crisis
communication reveals three trends of relevance to this paper: the
evolution of apologia research; calls for integration of diverse
theories; and the use and misuse of stasis theory.
The Evolution of Apologia Research
Much of the evolution of apologia deals with what Ware and Linkugel
(1973) termed the "subgenres" (p. 274) or "postures" (p. 274) of
apologia. Acknowledging the work of Abelson (1959), Ware and Linkugel
identify four "factors" (p. 274) that shape the subgenres:
" denial: directly challenging the facts of the accusation.
" bolstering: evading the charge by identifying oneself with
something of which the judging audience approves.
" differentiation: separating an action or attribute from a larger
context in which a judging audience views it.
" transcendence: incorporating an action or attribute into a context
in which a judging audience had not previously included it.
Ware and Linkugel then identify four factor-influenced subgenres of apologia:
" absolutive, which uses denial and differentiation to seek acquittal
" vindicative, which uses transcendence to "go beyond the specifics
of a given charge" (p. 283)
" explanative, which uses bolstering and differentiation in the
belief that if the judges understand the surrounding circumstances,
they will not condemn
" justificative, which uses bolstering and transcendence to justify actions.
Hearit (1997) maintains that Ware and Linkugel's factor-based
subgenres "directed the development of study for the next twenty
years" (p. 219)
Ryan (1982) attempts with some success to link Ware and Linkugel's
four postures to the four staseis. However, in striving to link their
vindicative posture to the stasis of jurisdiction, Ryan seems to
strain the comparison. He also echoes Kruse (1981) in holding that
kategoria and apologia apply only to individuals, not institutions
(p. 258n). Hearit (2001) later notes the influence of Cable, Sproule
and Cheney in extending the concept of apologia to organizations.
Throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century, Benoit has developed
his concept of Image Restoration Discourse, a system of "5 general
strategies and 14 total options" (2004, p. 65). Benoit's precisely
named five general strategies (what Ware and Linkugel would term
subgenres or postures) are denial; evasion of responsibility;
reducing offensiveness of event; corrective action; and mortification
(confessing and begging for forgiveness). Benoit presents his
typology as a resource for crisis managers as much as an analysis:
"The theory of image restoration focuses on message options" (1997,
p. 178). Lyon and Cameron (2004), among others, posit a difference
between image "how the company wants to be viewed" and
reputation, which "is owned by the publics" (p. 215).
Like Benoit, Coombs (often with Holladay) has worked over the past
decade to group potential "crisis response strategies" into three
"postures" (2004, p. 99): deny; diminish (by reframing the crisis
situation); and repair (by seeking "to improve the organization's
image in some way" [2004, p. 99]). Huxman links crisis response
strategies to Aristotle's three divisions of rhetoric:
forensic/judicial; deliberative/political; and
epideictic/praise/blame (2004, pp. 292-293). Hearit (2001) offers
five "postures" (p. 504): denial; counterattack (which includes a
denial of the kategoria); differentiation (in which organizations
often blame and punish supposedly rogue associates); apology (not to
be confused with apologia); and legal (involving denial and/or
silence for legal reasons).
Richer, more detailed analyses of the evolution of apologia theory
appear in Benoit's Accounts, Excuses and Apologies (1995) and Millar
and R. Heath's Responding to a Crisis: A Rhetorical Approach to
Crisis Communication (2004).
Calls for Integration of Diverse Theories
As scholars continue to introduce more postures/subgenres as well as
more communication options within each posture and more analyses of
various crisis situations, many have called for an integration of
theories an overarching view of crisis situations, postures and
specific communication options (Huxman & Bruce, 1995; Coombs &
Holladay, 2001; Ihlen, 2002; Lyon & Cameron, 2004). Coombs and
Holladay's Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), for
example, is an attempt to bridge the gap between studies of crisis
situations and crisis response (2002, 2004).
The Use and Misuse of Stasis Theory
Even with their focus on denial, justification and other elements of
stasis, Ware and Linkugel (1973) do not mention that rhetorical
theory. Ryan (1982) offers the first extensive application of stasis
theory to apologia. That laudable effort is occasionally hampered by
seeming misinterpretations of the theory, which Ryan attributes to
Cicero (pp. 256, 257), though Cicero himself in De Inventione refers
to Hermagoras' text (I.8 and I.16). Ryan also posits that a stasis
can be established in the kategoria alone (256), rather than from the
clash of accusation and response, as Hermagoras (Braet, 1987) and
Cicero maintain (I.vii.10). Finally, Ryan suggests that the kategoria
can contain multiple staseis (256, 259, 260); the article offers no
indication of the hierarchical nature of the staseis of fact,
definition and quality.
Huxman and Bruce (1995) identify different staseis in the evolving
debate regarding Dow Chemical's production of napalm. However, they
cite Ryan in maintaining that "apologists will choose one or more of
these levels of stasis" (p. 64) without noting that, within classical
stasis theory, these would be presented hierarchically. In classical
theory, a defendant would not offer a response to a stasis of
quality, for example, until responses to staseis of fact and
definition had been decided against or exhausted. Huxman and Bruce
also hold that Hermagoras influenced Aristotle (p. 60). However,
Aristotle lived approximately 300 years before Hermagoras.
In their analysis of stasis and apologia in the Monica Lewinsky
scandal, Kramer and Olson (2002) present a solid view of how a
defendant in this case, Bill Clinton can move from the stasis of
fact to those of definition and quality (in that hierarchical order)
as accusations evolve. Kramer and Olson introduce the useful term
progressive apologia (p. 347) to denote changes in apologia as a
crisis situation evolves.
IV. The Syllogism of Apologia
Hermagoras' first three staseis the three that address the
potential content of the argument form a perfect syllogism, as
Aristotle presents that device in Prior Analytics and Posterior
Analytics, works that predate Hermagoras.[1] By way of illustration,
the following syllogism lists each premise as an assertion, a
kataphasis or kategoria, and shows what a corresponding retort, an
apophasis or apologia, might be. (Significantly, a true debate
probably would start with the minor premise rather than the major
premise, a point to which this paper will return below.)
Major premise: Companies that damage the environment are socially
irresponsible companies.
To economically supply life-saving products to consumers, a company
must sometimes do some environmental damage a stasis of definition.
Minor premise: Exxon is a company that damaged the environment (of
Prince William Sound).
We did not damage the environment (of
Prince William Sound) a stasis of fact.
Conclusion: Exxon is a socially irresponsible company.
We did act somewhat irresponsibly, but we need to make you aware of
certain extenuating, exculpatory circumstances. They show our wrong
was not so great a stasis of quality.
One difficulty, however, may seem to undermine the notion that the
syllogism is the source of Hermagoras' four staseis: a syllogism has
only three propositions, and Hermagoras has four staseis. But this
may be easily set aside: Unlike the first three staseis, Hermagoras'
fourth stasis (jurisdiction) is more a legal maneuver than a
debate-based response in that it challenges only the circumstances of
judging, not the truth of the accusation, the kataphasis or
kategoria. In fact, Quintilian, after long consideration, rejected
metalepsis (jurisdiction) as a fourth stasis, keeping only stochasmos
(fact), horos (definition) and poiotes (quality) (III.vi.66-67).
Though we will stick with the more familiar term syllogism, this
paper contends that the enthymeme (which Aristotle called "a
rhetorical syllogism" [1356b]) provides the foundation of Hermagoras'
staseis.[2] As Kennedy (1991, xii) notes, an Aristotelian enthymeme
often was a syllogism (based on probability, not scientific
certainty) that often suppressed one premise, usually the major
premise. For example, an enthymeme would be "Exxon damaged the
environment (of Prince William Sound) and is, therefore, socially
irresponsible." The implied major premise, supplied by a
knowledgeable audience, is "Companies that damage the environment are
socially irresponsible."
For the following explanation, this diagram of Aristotelian
terminology applied to our earlier syllogism may be useful. (A copy
of this is attached as a final page to this paper; it can be removed
to avoid paging back to this diagram.)
Major Premise
Companies that damage the environment
are socially irresponsible.
Middle term Major Term
Minor Premise
Exxon
is a company that damaged the environment (of Prince William Sound).
Minor term Middle Term
Conclusion
Exxon
is socially irresponsible.
Minor term Major Term
Stasis of Fact
In a rhetorical syllogism (an enthymeme), the speaker can begin with
the minor premise; indeed, the major premise of the syllogism in all
likelihood would not be stated, being, supposedly, conventional
wisdom and left to the audience to supply (Cicero, I.xl.76; Corbett,
49). Significantly, in the minor premise, we attach the middle term
(companies that damage the environment) to our subject (Exxon). An
accuser would support the attachment of the middle term to the
subject; a defendant would deny the attachment, if possible. If the
defendant organization does attack the attachment of the middle term
to the subject if it attacks the minor premise the
question/zetema becomes "Did Exxon damage the environment?" and we
have a stasis of fact.
Modern critics note that contesting a kategoria (and thus
establishing a stasis of fact) can be difficult because in crisis
situations kategoriae can be vague or ambiguous (Huxman & Bruce,
1995; Kramer and Olson, 2002). But refusing to respond to an
"unfolding kategoria" (Kramer and Olson, p. 350) is not an option
(Hearit, 1994; Ihlen, 2002). In holding that an attack has two
components "the accused is held responsible for an action" and
"that act is considered offensive" Benoit (1997, p. 178) shows how
a kategoria can connect first to a stasis of fact ("responsible") and
then, if necessary, to a stasis of definition ("offensive").
The stasis of fact can be seen in Hearit's notion of dissociation
(1994, 1997, 2004): "The organization engages in dissociation to
remove the linkage of the organization with the wrongdoing" (1994, p.
115). In other words, the organization dissociates itself (minor
term) from a particular action (middle term). If it cannot do that,
it could attempt to dissociate the action (middle term) from a
negative characterization (major term), which would be a stasis of
definition. A classic example of a modern stasis of fact is GM's
denial of Dateline NBC's charges regarding design flaws in GM pickup
trucks (Hearit, 1996).
The Stasis of Definition
If the defendant organization cannot establish a stasis of fact if
Exxon did indeed damage the environment that organization must next
consider the major premise, which links the middle term to a
characterization, a definition (the major term). In the case of our
Exxon syllogism, the middle term ("companies that damage the
environment") is linked to social irresponsibility, known generically
as the major term. (The minor term is the subject of the minor
premise in this case, Exxon.) This terminology is important because
it clarifies the function of a syllogism. Through the middle term, we
attach the major term to the minor term in our conclusion; through
the middle term, we logically attach a characterization to our
subject. If we are the defendant, if we can disrupt the middle term
we can escape judgment.
This paper contends that the major term (the term of
characterization or definition) in a Hermagorean enthymeme would grow
out of the purpose of the involved speeches. Cicero (II.iv.12),
Quintilian (III.iv), and Pseudo Augustine (p. 97) echo Aristotle's
assertion (1358b) that three kinds of rhetorical speeches exist, each
with its own broad purpose. Forensic/judicial speeches address what
is just/unjust, legal/illegal or right/wrong. Deliberative/political
speeches address what is advantageous/disadvantageous.
Epideictic/praise/blame speeches address what is
honorable/dishonorable.[3] With such unanimity of opinion on this
point, it seems inescapable the middle term must attach our subject,
the minor term, to the purpose of the speech (the major term). In the
major premise, we define (thus the stasis of definition) the middle
term by linking it to a characterization, classifying it as either
good or bad. The goal of a rhetorical speech is to win a desired
judgment on our subject to attach (or destroy the attachment of)
the major term to the minor term through the middle term. This is a
long way of saying that the predicate of our major premise, our
defining premise, must focus on justice, advantage or honor
(individually or in combination) or the reverse of those qualities.
In the case of the Exxon syllogism, we focus on a mixture of
injustice and dishonor: social irresponsibility.
In the stasis of definition, a defendant must attack the attachment
of the middle term to a negative characterization (the major term):
Because Exxon probably could not deny that it damaged the environment
of Prince William Sound, it could consider attacking the premise that
all companies that damage the environment are socially irresponsible.
The stasis now would involve the question/zetema "Are all such
companies socially irresponsible?" If so, Exxon is guilty. If not, it
may escape condemnation. Defendants can attack the major premise by
establishing a syllogistic flaw known as "the fallacy of the
undistributed middle." In brief, for a syllogism to be logical, the
middle term at some point must be distributed meaning that the
middle term in at least one of its appearances must apply to
everything that it conveys: not some companies that damage the
environment, but all companies that damage the environment. If the
defendant can show that the middle term has not been distributed
that some companies can damage the environment without being socially
irresponsible the syllogism is fatally damaged, and the defendant
could escape negative judgment. The major premise cannot logically
attach to the minor premise through a damaged middle term.
A second, less likely defense strategy would be to deny the
attachment of the distributed middle term to the negative
characterization (major term) to say, for example, that damaging
the environment is not socially irresponsible. In rhetorical
syllogisms (enthymemes), the major premise is usually unstated
because it represents conventional wisdom. It represents the unstated
truism that automatically leads a judging public to connect the minor
premise to the conclusion. Denying the entire truth of the major
premise would be a radical strategy.
If the defendant organization does attack the attachment of the
middle term to the major term if it attacks the major premise the
question/zetema becomes "Can some environmentally damaging acts be
socially responsible? (Was Exxon's one of them?)," and we have a
stasis of definition.
Differentiation, as developed by Ware and Linkugel, approaches a
definition-related apologia. Differentiation, again, involves
separating an action or attribute from a larger context such as the
major term in which a judging audience views it. Hearit (1997, p.
220) and Benoit (1995, pp. 77-78) both note that transcendence
(incorporating an action or attribute into a context in which a
judging audience had not previously included it) can involve
redefining an act by appealing to higher values. A related concept is
Hearit's contention that crises often are "terminological" events "in
which crisis managers attempt to control the terms used to describe
corporate actions" (1994, p. 122). In our syllogism of apologia, we
might say that in the stasis of definition managers attempt to break
the connection of the middle term to the major term.
A modern example of the stasis of definition is Huxman and Bruce's
analysis of Dow Chemical's defense of napalm production: "At the
stasis of definition, the debate pivoted around two questions: 'Is
napalm a hideous weapon of war or a needed chemical to help America
win the war?' and 'Is Dow a war profiteer or a dutiful supplier of
goods to the government?'" (1995, p. 66).
The Stasis of Quality
Defendants who cannot contest the facts of the accusation (the stasis
of fact) nor the definitional attachment of the fact to a
characterization (the stasis of definition) must retreat to the
stasis of quality if they still wish to contest the conclusion of the
rhetorical syllogism. Through the middle term, the major term
(characterization) has attached to the defendant organization (the
minor term). Now that organization can only show why that attachment,
though true, is weak. For example, if Exxon did damage the
environment of Prince William Sound (minor premise) and does agree
that companies that damage the environment are socially irresponsible
(major premise), then its only defense is to present extenuating
and/or exculpatory circumstances that lessen the connection of the
major term (social irresponsibility) to the minor term (Exxon).
If the defendant organization accepts but wishes to weaken the
attachment of the major term ("socially irresponsible") to the minor
term (Exxon) through the middle term, the question/zetema becomes "Do
these circumstances warrant a lessening of the attachment of the
negative characterization to the defendant?" In that case, we have a
stasis of quality.
Kruse's "non-denial apologia" (1977, p. 13) seems an apt term for a
defendant's speech in a stasis of quality. In a stasis of quality, we
have conceded the attachment of the negative characterization (major
term) to our organization (minor term) through the middle term. Lyon
and Cameron (2004) and Benoit (2004) are among the scholars who
believe that guilty organizations fare best by moving straight to an
acknowledgment of guilt bypassing, in other words, the staseis of
fact and definition.
In a stasis of quality, a defendant's best hope is to somehow lessen
the degree of guilt. A modern example of the stasis of quality
involves Food Lion grocery chain's counterattack against ABC News
(Hearit, 2001). Food Lion representatives did not deny the charges of
selling substandard products; instead, they attacked ABC's tactics in
gathering the evidence for its report.
This, then, is the form of the rhetorical syllogism that this paper
contends shaped the first three staseis of Hermagoras:
" a stated minor premise that makes a specific claim, attaching the
minor term to the middle term the stasis of fact
" a major premise, stated only if the defendant cannot refute the
minor premise, that attaches the middle term to a characterization
(major term) the stasis of definition
" a conclusion that attaches the characterization (major term) to our
original subject, the minor term the stasis of quality.
Hermagoras' fourth stasis jurisdiction moves beyond this
syllogism, beyond the details of the crisis situation, to challenge
the legitimacy of the judges, official or unofficial. Kramer and
Olson (2002) describe Bill Clinton's establishment of a stasis of
jurisdiction during the Monica Lewinsky scandal: "The president
suggested that the American public [not the courts] should be the
ultimate judge of the matter" (p. 361).
V. The Place of Stasis Theory and the Syllogism of Apologia
in Current Criticism
Both Ilhen (2002) and Benoit (2004) speculate that specific crisis
response strategies (Ware and Linkugel's subgenres or postures) might
be stations in a hierarchical spectrum of possible responses.
Envisioning the concept of stasis as a syllogism helps show how such
strategies can indeed be hierarchical. Table 1 (below) places the
specific crisis response strategies of Coombs and Holladay within the
three main staseis. Table 2 (below) does the same for Benoit's Image
Restoration Discourse strategies. Significantly, both charts show a
preponderance of options under the stasis of quality as well as a
relative lack of options for the stasis of definition. Both charts
also indicate an absence of jurisdiction-related strategies such as
suggesting that the accuser has no right to bring the charges or that
the judges have no right to render judgment.
Table 1: The Crisis Response Strategies of Coombs and Holladay (2004)
A. Stasis of fact
1. Clarification denies crisis happened
2. Shifting blame acknowledges crisis; rejects responsibility
3. Attack levels charges against accusers[4]
B. Stasis of definition
1. Big picture (actually a substrategy under "justification");
places crisis in a larger,
absolving context
C. Stasis of quality
1. Excuse minimizes responsibility for crisis
2. Justification accepts responsibility but limits negativity
3. Suffering shows that organization is also a victim
4. Bolstering reminds stakeholders of previous good deeds
5. Praising others flatters judging stakeholders
6. Compensation offers gifts to counterbalance the crisis
7. Corrective action restores order and promises to avoid similar crises
8. Apology accepts responsibility and asks for forgiveness
Table 2: Benoit's Image Restoration Discourse Strategies
A. Stasis of fact
1. Simple denial
2. Shift the blame defendant attributes act to another
3. Attack accuser[5]
B. Stasis of definition
1. Differentiation defendant defines act as less offensive than
similar occurrences
2. Transcendence defendant had to honor more important considerations
C. Stasis of quality
1. Provocation defendant responded to act of another (could be
definition if this
response honors a higher value)
2. Defeasibility extenuating circumstances lessen guilt (could be
denial if circumstances
absolve the defendant)
3. Accident defendant was victim of mishap
4. Good intentions defendant meant well
5. Bolstering defendant stresses good traits
6. Minimization defendant minimizes act
7. Compensation defendant reimburses victims
8. Corrective action defendant fixes problem, works to prevent repeats
9. Mortification defendant apologizes
Coombs and Holladay (2004) note that by understanding how response
strategies relate to different crisis situations, a crisis manager is
better prepared to respond effectively. By positing a hierarchical
system of staseis, stasis theory and its related syllogism help the
manager identify the core issue of the forthcoming debate. And as the
above reconfigurations of the Coombs/Holladay and Benoit strategies
show, once the crisis manager identifies the stasis, he or she can
then identify the possible response strategies.
VI. Limitations of Stasis Theory and the Syllogism of Apologia
As noted earlier, scholars of crisis communication have called for
an integration of theories an overarching view of crisis
situations, postures and specific communication options. Stasis
theory and the related syllogism of apologia are a step in that
direction: By envisioning the debate within the crisis situation as a
syllogism, crisis managers can identify the contested issue and can
envision the range of relevant response strategies. However, the
establishment of the stasis is not the only variable in crafting an
effective crisis response. Coombs and Holladay (2001) note that an
organization's relationship histories and crisis histories are key
variables that affect crisis response. Lyon and Cameron (2004) show
that the organization's reputation is another important variable.
Huxman (2004) lists nine variables, including the extent of the
crisis, the power of the accusers and the visual dimension of the
crisis. Hearit (2001) maintains that issues of legal liability
receive insufficient attention in studies of crisis response.
A limitation of this paper, due to length, is the absence of the
classical substaseis the response strategies crafted under each
stasis by centuries of commentators. A future direction for stasis
theory research could involve comparing and contrasting those
strategies with the response strategies of Benoit, Coombs and
Holladay and others.
VII. Conclusion
In Millar and R. Heath's Responding to a Crisis: A Rhetorical
Approach to Crisis Communication, Huxman (2004) recommends that "we
emulate the drive of the Ancients for a systematic, coherent body of
thought" in regard to apologia. In a sense, this paper proposes a
much lazier alternative. Rather than emulate the drive of the
Ancients, perhaps we should thoroughly explore their theories
applied in the very real rough-and-tumble beginnings of modern
judicial systems and democracies and see if the Ancients, by
chance, have done our work for us. Though rhetorical stasis theory,
with its syllogistic structure, does not (yet) incorporate all the
variables of the crisis situation, it does offer crisis managers a
logical template for examining the range of crisis response strategies.
References
Aristotle, (1954). The Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. (New York: The Modern
Library).
Aristotle, (1960). Posterior Analytics. Trans. Hugh Tredennick.
(Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press).
Aristotle, (1991). Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic
Discourse. (New York:
Oxford University Press).
Aristotle, (1993). Posterior Analytics, 2nd ed. Trans. Jonathan
Barnes. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press).
Benoit, William L., and Brinson, S.L., (1994). "AT&T: Apologies Are
not Enough."
Communication Quarterly 2, 75-88.
Benoit, William L., (1997). "Image Repair Discourse and Crisis
Communication." Public
Relations Review 23, 177-186.
Benoit, William L., (2004). "Image Repair Discourse and Crisis
Communication." In
Responding to a Crisis: A Rhetorical Approach to Crisis
Communication, eds. Dan P. Millar and Robert L. Heath (Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 263-280.
Braet, Antoine, (1987). "The Classical Doctrine of Status and the
Rhetorical Theory of
Argumentation." Philosophy and Rhetoric 20, 79-93.
Cicero, (1970). On Oratory and Orators. Trans. J.S. Watson. (Carbondale and
Edwardsville, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press).
Cicero, (1976). De Inventione. Trans. H.M. Hubbell. (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press).
Coombs, W. Timothy, and Holladay, Sherry J., (2001). "An Extended
Examination of the
Crisis Situations: A Fusion of the Relational Management and Symbolic
Approaches." Journal of Public Relations Research 13, 321-40.
Coombs, W. Timothy, and Holladay, Sherry J., (2004). "Reasoned Action
in Crisis
Communication: An Attribution Theory-Based Approach to Crisis Management."
In Responding to a Crisis: A Rhetorical Approach to Crisis Communication, eds.
Dan P. Millar and Robert L. Heath (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates), 95-115.
Corbett, Edward P.J., (1990). Classical Rhetoric for the Modern
Student, 3rd ed. (New
York: Oxford University Press).
Dieter, Otto Alvin Loeb, and Kurth, William Charles, (1968). "The De
Rhetorica of
Aurelius Augustine." Speech Monographs 35, 90-108).
Elwood, W.N., (1995). Public Relations Inquiry as Rhetorical
Criticism: Case Studies of
Corporate Discourse and Social Influence (Westport, Conn.: Praeger).
Fortenbaugh, William W. (2005) "Cicero as a Reporter of Aristotelian
and Theophrastean
Rhetorical Doctrine." Rhetorica 23, 37-64.
Hearit, Keith Michael, (1994). "Apologies and Public Relations Crises
at Chrysler,
Toshiba, and Volvo." Public Relations Review 20, 113-125.
Hearit, Keith Michael, (1997). "On the Use of Transcendence as an
Apologia Strategy:
The Case of Johnson Controls and Its Fetal Protection Policy." Public
Relations Review 23, 217-232.
Hearit, Keith Michael, (2001). "Corporate Apologia: When an
Organization Speaks in
Defense of Itself." In Handbook of Public Relations, ed. Robert L. Heath
(Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications), 501-511.
Hearit, Keith Michael, (2004). "Merrill Lynch, Corporate Apologia and
Business Fraud."
Public Relations Review 30, 459-466.
Heath, Malcolm (1995). Hermogenes on Issues: Strategies of Argument
in Later Greek
Rhetoric (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Heath, Robert L., and Millar, Dan P., (2004). "A Rhetorical Approach to Crisis
Communication: Management, Communication Processes, and Strategic
Responses." In Responding to a Crisis: A Rhetorical Approach to Crisis
Communication, eds. Dan P. Millar and Robert L. Heath (Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 1-17.
Huxman, Susan Schultz, and Bruce, Denise Beatty. "Toward a Dynamic Generic
Framework of Apologia: A Case Study of Dow Chemical, Vietnam, and the
Napalm Controversy." Communication Studies 46, 57-72.
Huxman, Susan Schultz, (2004). "Exigencies, Explanations, and
Executions: Toward a
Dynamic Theory of the Crisis Communication Genre." In Responding to a Crisis:
A Rhetorical Approach to Crisis Communication, eds. Dan P. Millar and Robert
L. Heath (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 281-297.
Ihlen, Ψvind, (2002). "Defending the Mercedes A-Class: Combining and
Changing Crisis
Response Strategies." Journal of Public Relations Research 14, 185-206.
Kennedy, George A., (1963). The Art of Persuasion in Greece. (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press).
Kennedy, George A., (1991). "Prooemion." In Aristotle on Rhetoric: A
Theory of Civic
Discourse, ed. George Kennedy. (New York: Oxford University Press), vii-xiii.
Kennedy, George A., (1994). A New History of Classical Rhetoric.
(Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press).
Kramer, Michael R., and Olson, Kathryn M., (2002). "The Strategic Potential of
Sequencing Apologia Stasis: President Clinton's Self-Defense in the
Monica Lewinsky Scandal." Western Journal of Communication 66, 347-369.
Kruse, Noreen W., (1977). "Motivational Factors in Non-Denial
Apologia." Central
States Speech Journal 28, 13-23.
Kruse, Noreen W., (1981). "The Scope of Apologetic Discourse:
Establishing Generic
Parameters." Southern Speech Communication Journal 46, 278-291.
Lyon, Lisa, and Cameron, Glen T., (2004). "A Relational Approach Examining the
Interplay of Prior Reputation and Immediate Response to a Crisis." Journal of
Public Relations Research 16, 213-241.
Millar, Dan P., and Heath, Robert L., eds., (2004). Responding to a
Crisis: A Rhetorical
Approach to Crisis Communication (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates)
Quintilian, (1980). Institutio Oratoria. Trans. H.E. Butler.
(Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press).
Russell, D.A., (1983). Greek Declamation. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Ryan, Halford Ross, (1982). "Kategoria and Apologia: On Their
Rhetorical Criticism as a
Speech Set." Quarterly Journal of Speech 68, 254-261.
Toth, Elizabeth L., and Heath, Robert L. (1992). Rhetorical and
Critical Approaches to
Public Relations (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Toth, Elizabeth L., (2000). "Public Relations and Rhetoric: History,
Concepts and
Future." In Perspectives on Public Relations Research (London: Routledge), 121-
144.
Wallace, William A., (1986). "Aitia: Causal Reasoning in Composition
and Rhetoric." In
Rhetoric and Praxis, ed. Jean Dietz Moss. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic
University of America Press), 107-133.
Ware, B.L., and Linkugel, Wil A., (1973). "They Spoke in Defense of
Themselves: On
the Generic Criticism of Apologia." Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 273-283.
The Syllogism
Major Premise
Companies that damage the environment
are socially irresponsible.
Middle term Major Term
Minor Premise
Exxon
is a company that damaged the environment (of Prince William Sound).
Minor term Middle Term
Conclusion
Exxon
is socially irresponsible.
Minor term Major Term
[1] The author(s) of this paper develop his/her/their theory of the
syllogistic origins of stasis more fully in a paper presented to the
2005 conference of the International Society for the History of
Rhetoric: Of all the evidence suggesting that Hermagoras knowingly
based his theory of stasis on the syllogism, the most persuasive
comes from Cicero, Quintilian, and Pseudo Augustine, three teachers
of rhetoric who had read Hermagoras. Each notes the connection of
three of Aristotle's epistemological questions to Hermagoras' theory
of stasis (Cicero, De Oratore, II.xxxvi; Quintilian, III.vi.44 and
III.vi.80; Pseudo Augustine, p. 100): whether it is (fact); what it
is (definition); and of what kind it is (quality) (Quintilian,
III.vi.44). Aristotle introduced his four epistemological questions
(does it exist? what is it? what are its attributes? why does it have
those attributes?) in Posterior Analytics at the beginning Book II
in the middle of a discussion of syllogisms. Jonathan Barnes, a
translator of Posterior Analytics, notes the direct connection of the
questions to the syllogism: "[Aristotle's four questions] do indeed
cover all the questions which a demonstrator might ask in connection
with any given syllogistic proposition
. And [Book II, Chapter 2, of
Posterior Analytics] makes it clear that only syllogistic
propositions are in question" (p. 203). Near the beginning of Book II
of Posterior Analytics, Aristotle ties the four questions to a
syllogism's middle term the term that appears in both premises but
not the conclusion: "It follows, then, that in all these questions we
are asking either 'Is there a middle term?' or 'What is the middle
term?'" (90a). Therefore, if Hermagoras wrote of the epistemological
questions, which seems likely, and if he read of them in Aristotle,
with whose work he was familiar (Kennedy, 1963, p. 304), Hermagoras
would have read of the four questions within the context of the syllogism.
[2] Hermagoras' probable familiarity with Aristotle (Kennedy, 1963,
304) offers another reason to believe that the syllogism may have
shaped his theory of stasis. In Rhetoric, which contains numerous
passages that foreshadow Hermagorean stasis (e.g. 1358b and 1374a),
Aristotle speaks repeatedly of the centrality of the enthymeme, or
the rhetorical proof: "[E]nthymemes
are the substance of rhetorical
persuasion" (1354a). In his introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric,
Kennedy writes, "A major doctrine of the Rhetoric is the use of the
enthymeme, or rhetorical syllogism" (xii). Hermagoras could not have
read Aristotle's Rhetoric without being exposed to the enthymeme.
This paper contends that he observed the similarity of the enthymeme
to a kataphasis or kategoria.
[3] Fortenbaugh (2005) notes that Aristotle allows the possibility
of combining purposes: For example, a deliberative speech could
address what is both advantageous and honorable (p. 41).
[4] Attack would help establish a stasis of fact if, as Hearit
(2001) believes, it includes a denial of the kategoria. If not, this
strategy might be seen as asystatic not part of a true stasis debate.
[5] Again, attack would help establish a stasis of fact if, as
Hearit (2001) believes, it includes a denial of the kategoria. If
not, this strategy might be seen as asystatic not part of a true
stasis debate.
|
