Symbolic convergence theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Symbolic Convergence Theory)
Jump to: navigation, search
Symbolic convergence theory (SCT) is a general communication theory that offers an explanation for the appearance of a groups cohesiveness, consisting of shared emotions, motives, and meanings. Symbolic convergence theory provides a description of the dynamic tendencies within systems of social interaction that cause communicative practices and forms to evolve. This theory allows theorists and practitioners to anticipate or predict what will happen and explain what did happen. One thing SCT does not do is allow for prediction and control of human communication.[1]
To foster this cohesiveness, dramatizing or using fantasy stories are significant types of communication involved in SCT. SCT explains that meanings, emotions, values, and the motives for action are in the communication contexts by people trying to make sense out of a common experience.[2] It explores the human tendency of trying to understand events in terms of the people involved, who have certain personality traits and motivations, and have agency over how the events unfold.[3] SCT was first proposed by Ernest Bormann in the Quarterly Journal of Speech in 1972.[4]
Symbolic convergence is related to attribution theory in that it deals with the human tendency to attribute meaning to signs and objects in order to make sense of them.[5] The process of symbolic convergence resembles empathic communication.[5]
SCT has a three-part structure: 1. elucidation of the recurring forms of communication involved in a shared group consciousness 2. illustration of why group consciousness begins, rises, and is maintained 3. explanation of the process of how an individual begins to share (or stops sharing) a common symbolic reality [5] |
Anatomy of SCT[edit]
Basic concepts[edit]
Fantasy themes[edit]
Fantasy themes are used to construct a rhetorical vision or to dramatize messages embraced by the whole group. They are the means through which interpretation is accomplished through communication. SCT isn't concerned with finding truth, but the reaction from the group when these fantasies are shared.[6] Fantasy themes exist in the form of a word, a phrase, or a statement, which attempt to define past events, predict future events, or illustrate present events that are chronologically or spatially removed from the actual activities of the group. Most of the time, these fantasies trigger a chain reaction within the group where they will contribute more and more to the conversation or fantasy.[6] Bormann sees these fantasy themes fulfilling a psychological or rhetorical need through creative and organized interpretations of events.[7] Fantasy theme analysis is a humanistic method of rhetorical criticism.[8]
Fantasy themes are broken down into the following three forms:[6] 1. Setting themes depicting where either the action takes place or where the characters act out their roles 2. Character themes describing the agents or actors in the drama, assigning qualities and motives to them, implying that they have certain characteristics 3. Action themes or plot lines dealing with the action of the drama
Symbolic cues[edit]
A symbolic cue is a word, phrase, slogan, or a nonverbal sign or gesture that works to trigger previously shared fantasies and emotions.[9] An example of a symbolic cue would be a bumper sticker, which actuates the observer into a larger shared reality.[9] Symbolic cues can also heighten a group's cohesiveness.
Fantasy types[edit]
A fantasy type is a fantasy theme that has currency across a large number of rhetorical visions. By providing known references they help make sense out of a new phenomena.[9]
An example of a fantasy type would be when Richard Nixon was campaigning through his home state of California in 1952. A fund was put together by some wealthy Southern California businessman on behalf of Nixon. The newspapers picked this up and ran headlines like, J"Secret Rich Men's Trust Fund Keeps Nixon in Style Far Beyond His Salary." The purpose of this fund was to help Nixon pay for expenses that he could not otherwise pay for out of his income. National newspaper were two to one in the favor of dropping Nixon from the ticket after this and his only hope was to find a way to regain public trust and support. Six days after the crisis, Nixon address the public by radio to respond to the charges against him. A fantasy theme emerging from this story would be Nixon presenting himself as the American dream. During his speech over the radio, he emphasized how he made his own way in the world and has had to work for living. He also said, "How does a candidate pay for political expenses not covered by the government? First, is to be a rich man, which I am not. I feel that it is essential in this country of ours that a man of modest means can run for President." He offers autobiographical references which allows him to appear as the average man. This is an appropriate fantasy theme because it developed a response to the allegations that he is not a rich man who is getting money from everyone, but a hard working man who started from the ground and worked upwards.[10]
Saga[edit]
A saga is the telling and re-telling of the accomplishments and events in the life of an individual, group, organization, or larger entity such as a nation.[9] For instance, examples of American sagas include "the spirit of entrepreneurship" and "the power of the ballot box."[9] Symbolic convergence theorists argue that the Soviet Union had difficulty maintaining cohesion of the fifteen republics due to the weakening of the communist rhetorical vision and dwindling sagas.[9]
Structural Concepts[edit]
Rhetorical vision[edit]
A rhetorical vision is a composite drama that unifies people in a common symbolic reality.[9]
A rhetorical vision has five elements: 1. Dramatis personae – the actors and players who give life to the rhetorical vision 2. Plotline – provides the action of the rhetorical vision 3. Scene – details the location of the rhetorical vision 4. Sanctioning agent – legitimizes the rhetorical vision 5. Master analogue – the reflection of a deeper structure within the rhetorical vision
Critical evaluation concepts[edit]
Shared group consciousness[edit]
A shared group consciousness must exist within a rhetorical community in order for a fantasy theme to chain out, a rhetorical vision to develop, a saga to exist, or a symbolic cue to imbue meaning.[9] Some terms that portray a shared group consciousness are a common ground, mutual understanding, created social reality, meeting of minds and empathic communication. Once a group has reached shared group consciousness, they no longer think in terms of "I" or "me" but in terms of "us" and "we." After all, communication is the drive that allows groups of people to move towards their goal. A shared group consciousness also reduces uncertainty by allowing groups to develop an identity that shapes their culture. By shaping their own culture, this can influence norms, roles and even decision making.[11]
Rhetorical vision reality link[edit]
A rhetorical vision reality link allows for a viable rhetorical vision that chronicles an authentic account of the phenomena along with tangible evidence.[9] The lack of a rhetorical vision reality link, with no clear observational impressions of the facts, may lead to disprovable fantasies, characterized by rumor, innuendo, gossip, and even paranoia.[9]
Fantasy theme artistry[edit]
Fantasy theme artistry is the rhetorical ability to present situations in a form that appears attractive to people so that they will share them.[9] By presenting situations in a form that appears attractive to an audience, or showing that you have an understanding of the stories that group shares, you can speak to their stories and turn their opinions into your favor.[12]
Life cycle of SCT[edit]
Stage 1: Emergence or Creation[edit]
A dramatic event or series of events leads to uncertainty and a need to develop rhetoric to explain the current state of reality. In the case of the Cold War, the emergence of a fantasy-vision was necessary after Stalin's speech made clear his belief that capitalism and communism were incompatible and that war was inevitable. With the Truman Doctrine speech, emerging fantasies of Red Fascism (e.g., communism vs. democracy), Power Politics (e.g., containment strategy), and the Hot War vision (e.g., make the world safe for democracy), crystallized into the yet unknown concept of "the Cold War."[13]
Stage 2: Consciousness-raising[edit]
Fantasies begin to chain out among a collectivity of people over a common interest. As they co-create a new vision, their lives take on new meaning and emotion and their behavior changes. The principle of critical mass, when a rhetorical vision begins a period of rapid growth, is central to consciousness-raising. Also key to this stage is the principle of dedication, which asserts that when planned events inspire individuals to act according to the key emotions present in the rhetorical vision their consciousness is raised.[13]
Stage 3: Consciousness-sustaining[edit]
At this stage, communication is focused on maintaining the commitment of people who have shared the rhetorical vision. The principle of shielding asserts that visions often remain fundamentally unchanged by containing motivation to quash counter messages.[13] The principle of rededication asserts that visions may be sustained through severe criticism of counter-rhetoric and strategic positive dramatizations to maintain the visions vitality.[14] The principle of reiteration asserts that rhetorical visions may be sustained by restating the key fantasy themes and types in new manners that fit within the dramatic structure of the vision, along with framing new information within the old rhetorical forms to maintain explanatory power.[15]
Stage 4: Vision-declining[edit]
Situations in a rhetorical community can change so rapidly that the vision cannot adapt successfully. The principle of explanatory deficiency assert that when a rhetorical vision loses its explanatory power, it begins to decline. Another possible reason for decline is explained by the principle of exploding free speech, where a significant period of censorship is followed by a deluge of counter-rhetoric. Along similar lines, the principle of resurfacing competitive rhetorical visions asserts that with opened channels of communication, competition from alternate rhetorical visions increases.[13]
Stage 5: Terminus[edit]
The end of a rhetorical vision. The principle of rapid implosion asserts that an inflexible rhetorical vision will not decline incrementally, but will implode on itself when the combination of problems, inability to explain rapid change, and contradictory motives become too much for the vision to deal with.[13]
Real World Uses of SCT[edit]
SCT has been used to study movements such as the Puritans,[16] the Knights of Columbus,[17] American communism, and the Women's movement.[18] It has been used to study political visions such as the Cold War,[13] the New South,[19] and Vietnam war decision making,[20] amongst others.
Criticism of SCT[edit]
Bormann, the theorist behind SCT, a past professor of communication at University Minnesota, claimed that SCT is both objective and interpretive theory. SCT is often praised and even considered a bit unusual because it meets both criteria for being both objective and interpretive.[21]
This theory is objective because it focuses on sharing group fantasies that create symbolic convergence which is framed as a universal principle that holds true for all people regardless of the time, culture, and communication context. Below are four of the tests that can be interpreted for SCT on an objective side.
1. A good objective theory explains what occurs and why it happens. This theory give a great explanation of what makes sense to a group discussion and how. It can help us make sense of a chaotic group discussion when group members speak at one time or go off on verbal tangents.However, Boston College communication professor James Olufowote doesnt believe Bormann's explanation goes far enough. In a sympathetic critique aimed at making the theory better, he contends that "SCT does not sufficiently explain why humans are predisposed to dramatizing reality and sharing fantasy in the first place.[22] Although SCT covers most of this critique, Bormann says, "SCT does not sufficiently explain why humans are predisposed to dramatizing reality and sharing fantasy in the first place.".[22]
2. A good objective theory predict what's going to happen. SCT clearly achieves this portion of qualifying to be an objective theory. SCT can predict that when a fantasy chain erupts among members, symbolic convergence will occurs as well. Without this chain eruption, there will no be cohesiveness within the group. Although SCT can predict a fantasies will happen, it cannot predict when dramatizing message will trigger a chain reaction. Bormann compared SCT as similar to Darwin's biological theory of evolution in that respect.The theory even suggests that without shared fantasies, there will be no cohesiveness. An evolutionary theory can explain the way modern humans evolved but cannot predict the further path of evolution. SCT involves a group consciousness through time and include a description of the dynamic forces that provide an explanation to discovered communication patterns but not when they will happen.[22]
3. A good interpretive theory clarifies people's values. SCT highlights the values of rhetorical community by creating a common ground, meeting of minds and empathic communication. This theory does not explain what happens when someone that is ignored is left out or excluded from the group because people don't mesh well when they are ignored.[22]
4. A good interpretive theory offers a new understanding of people. The SCT method does a great job of directing rhetorical critics to focus on symbolic language. Fantasy theme analyst focus on the rhetorical visions within varied communities such as a feminist critique looking for patterns of male dominance and how pro-eating disorder messages influence those in that community.[22]
The methods of determining fantasy themes, types, and visions create a humanistic approach that is interpretive.
One point that SCT lacks is to allow for predication and control of human communication.[5]
Why SCT is useful[edit]
These stories, or fantasies, can help businesses, corporations or politicians guide the positive and negative feedback directly back to those in power. Because SCT is a general theory built on the method of natural sciences, it can be applied to many different cultures and timelines.[23] It has been used to account for the communicative processes, created by a group, used to foster the creation and sustenance of the group's so-called "consciousness." [24] Below are a few points of how and why SCT can be useful in everyday situations.
Determining communication malfunctions A question that happens a lot within SCT is, "Why do some fantasy themes spark a chain of sharing while other fail?" Groups fate as a part of a group have common experiences that predispose them to share fantasies which relate to their concerns. Therefor, these groups will have successful fantasy chains because they have more in common and are able to share more. When issues of power, sexism, role conflict, social rejection and other touchy topics come into play, groups members often find the direct confrontation of such issues to be unsettling. These fantasy chains may begin, but often do not last very long.
Assessing communication efforts and persuasive campaigns This theory can provide insight within small groups, meetings, lectures and speeches, but it provides a greater use of assessing effects within the media. It is most heavily used within political campaigns. In the 1976 campaign, the investigators included the relationship between the media messages and the audience effects in their study. These studies analyzed the extent to which actual voting behavior can be anticipated by participation. By being able to predict the voting behaviors, political representatives could carefully craft their messages for different groups of people before giving their speeches and lectures to best benefit themselves.
The role of consciousness Within fantasy chains, there are three phases that keep the chains going. They are consciousness creating, consciousness raising and consciousness sustaining. In the first phase, people to come to create a commonality among their group. If the groups shares this common fantasy, consciousness raising will often fall in line next. And lastly, the two first points combined will create a sustaining fantasy chain that will last.[

Symbolic Convergence Theory
Symbolic Convergence Theory studies the sensemaking function of communication. "Symbolic" refers to verbal and nonverbal messages and "convergence" refers to shared understanding and meaning. In small groups, members develop private code words and signals that only those inside the group understand. When groups achieve symbolic convergence, they have a sense of community based on common experiences and understandings.

Central to this theory is the idea that group members share fantasies that serve as critical communication episodes, forming the basis for members' sensemaking. Sharing fantasies helps group members create a social reality that indicates who is part of the group and who is not. Sharing fantasy themes increases group cohesiveness as members develop a common interpretation of their experiences. Fantasy themes are stories or narratives that help group members interpret group interactions and their surrounding environment. Fantasy themes develop when group members actively engage in dramatizing, elaborating on, and modifying a story. In this way, the story becomes publicly shared within the group as well as privately shared by each group member. Fantasy themes are related to small group culture in that the stories reveal the group's identity and underlying values (see the Culture module for more information on small group culture).

Researchers have observed group members "chaining out" fantasy themes. In chaining out, group members tell a story in a collaborative manner. Often, no single narrator can be identified. A group meeting may start out in a rational, predictable manner, but when someone begins to tell a story, the others will start to help dramatize the message. As group members come to share fantasy themes, a simple word, phrase, or gesture can take participants back to that drama. By using a symbolic cue that triggers a recall of the fantasy, group members are participating in an inside joke known only to the group. Thus the word "magnolia" may send group members into peels of laughter as they recall a shared fantasy theme, yet outsiders would wonder why they were laughing.

As group members come to share a number of fantasies, and thereby acquire similar understandings of their experiences, participants will begin to develop a rhetorical vision of themselves and the group. The rhetorical vision is often symbolized by an image or slogan, as with Apple's "Think Different" and Ford Motor Company's "Better Ideas." The image or slogan calls up a whole host of associations and shared narratives for group members. The rhetorical vision summoned by the slogan frames the way the group members interpret their actions and imagine their future.

Symbolic Convergence Theory is very different from the Functional Theory of group communication. One strength of symbolic convergence theory is the focus on group identity and the development of group consciousness. This theory is descriptive rather than predictive. Symbolic Convergence Theory helps us understand how group members interact and provides a way of examining small group culture. We can also determine who is a group member and who isn't depending on whether they are familiar with the group's fantasy themes, inside jokes, and rhetorical vision. Finally, Symbolic Convergence Theory is useful for examining groups in organizations because is provides a useful way to compare them; similarities and differences in the rhetorical visions and fantasies of small groups are often significant.

Like Functional Theory, Symbolic Convergence Theory has its critics. First, some people believe the theory is not useful because it is not predictive or evaluative. That is, we can't make predictions about group outcomes based on fantasy themes, nor have researchers evaluated the quality of fantasy themes and the contributions they make to the group's task accomplishment. Second, researchers who apply Symbolic Convergence Theory to small groups tend to assume that fantasies themes and rhetorical visions have singular meanings for all group members. It may be the case that stories and images have many different meanings for group members, even though participants might believe they have a shared understanding of their experiences. Last, Symbolic Convergence Theory assumes that all group members have equal influence in creating fantasy themes and rhetorical visions. This is hard to believe, since nearly all groups have power imbalances based on formal and/or informal roles. Thus, some group members' voices rise above the others in group interactions.