"Symbolic Convergence Theory" in

Symbolic Convergence Theory JAMES OLUMIDE OLUFOWOTE University of Oklahoma, USA

Symbolic convergence theory (SCT) was introduced in the 1970s by Ernest Bormann and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota. SCT was developed to identify instances of convergence on consciousness and meanings by interacting members of small groups (e.g., increased laughter and excitement) and to explain the constitutive communication processes and consequences of such convergence both within and beyond the small group. This entry contextualizes SCT in the broader history of communication studies, remembers SCT’s central ideas, explains SCT’s resonance with organizational communication studies, identifies organizational communication criticisms of SCT, discusses how organizational communication theories can bolster SCT, examines how a reformulated SCT has begun to influence organizational communication theory and research, and considers future directions for SCT based works in organizational communication. SCT holds a significant place in the history of communication studies. It was developed at a time when the field was using theories – developed in disciplines such as psychology and sociology – that paid marginal attention to the role of communication. SCT was not only developed by Ernest Bormann, a communication-trained researcher and scholar, it offered a communication centered explanation for the sharing of consciousness and meaning. Moreover, because the field is fragmented into (1) different subfields organized largely by levels of analysis (e.g., interpersonal, small group, organizational, and mass communication) and (2) different research paradigms (e.g., normative, interpretive), SCT arose as one of the early forces to unite a fragmented field. SCT united the field by recognizing communication as both creative and discursive logic. Stated differently, SCT recognized that communication creatively constructs, and is constrained by, reality. SCT served as a unifying force because it was relevant to communication processes that transcended levels (e.g., group, sociohistorical), and it appealed to researchers and scholars trained in interpretive, normative, or rhetorical approaches. SCT also served as a unifying force because it was amenable to idiographic analyses of context-bound meanings and broader communication phenomena that transcended time and space.

Remembering SCT SCT is perhaps best recognized by a set of defining elements. The stage is set when a few interacting individuals dramatize events or incidents set in the past. Dramatizing The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication. Craig R. Scott and Laurie Lewis (Editors-in-Chief), James R. Barker, Joann Keyton, Timothy Kuhn, and Paaige K. Turner (Associate Editors). © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc202

2

SY M B O L I C C O N V E R G E N C E TH E O R Y

can be of either fictitious or real events and can include narrative elements such as heroes and heroines, plots, scenes, and villains. As individuals exchange dramas, a drama may resonate so strongly with listeners that a symbolic explosion takes place both within the group and beyond the group into public consciousness. Symbolic explosions are usually accompanied by increases in the communion, excitement, and laughter of individuals in the originating context. Through the sharing of fantasy themes and fantasy types, the symbolic explosion of a drama can chain into public consciousness. Fantasy themes and types are recurring stories with similar orientations toward dramas that are chaining (or spreading) among people within and beyond an originating context. Fantasy themes are recurring stories that are recounted in detail in communication contexts where shared meaning is nascent. Fantasy types, on the other hand, are recurring stories, told at greater levels of abstraction, in communication contexts where shared meaning is taken for granted. Fantasy types are also stories that conform to a popular story structure or archetype in society (e.g., David vs. Goliath; from rags to riches) and can incorporate several fantasy themes. Rhetorical visions emerge through the chaining of fantasy themes and fantasy types. Rhetorical visions are ideological symbolic systems that unify communities and societies and imbue collective action. Rhetorical visions are more abstract than fantasy themes and types and have greater time–space depth, stronger systems of shared meaning, and sociohistorical permeation. Cragan and Shields (1981) identified three rhetorical visions grounded in the consciousness of communities: pragmatic, social, and righteous. The pragmatic rhetorical vision is shared by those of a scientific bent who seek practical and utilitarian goals. The social rhetorical vision shares consciousness grounded in relationships and seeks unity and peace. The righteous rhetorical vision is grounded in high morals and opposition to evil. A rhetorical community is caught up in a rhetorical vision and is united by collective consciousness and meanings that inspire collective action. Membership in a rhetorical community can be either formalized through acts such as payment of dues and member ceremonies or can remain largely ideological and unobservable.

Resonance of SCT in organizational communication studies SCT resonates with organizational communication because of its interrelated foci on subjects such as narrative and storytelling, rhetoric, shared meanings, and the relationship between little “d” and big “D” discourse. As a communication centered formulation, SCT attends to the elements of narratives (e.g., plot, scene, saga, heroines, villains) and the storytelling processes by which narratives infiltrate public consciousness. Such foci have had an enduring legacy in organizational communication studies, particularly in the study of organizational culture. For example, Bormann (1988) used SCT to reinterpret Pacanowsky’s (1988) findings of W. L. Gore & Associates’ organizational culture as consisting of fantasy themes about the leader asking employees if they had fun and made money, and in employees’ references to the lattice organizational


3

structure. In another example, Bormann, Pratt, and Putnam’s (1978) study of a zerohistory organization discovered fantasy themes such as the “black widow spider” and “the Godfather.” The black widow drama featured a male spider fertilizing a female spider and then being killed shortly after walking away. The Godfather story was about dictatorial rule by men. Bormann, Pratt, and Putnam (1978) argued that these and other fantasy themes of the zero-history organization culminated in a rhetorical vision of “battle of the sexes.” SCT resonates with organizational communication and lays further claim to being a communication centered theory because of its attention to rhetoric. Rhetorical approaches to organizational communication have been particularly influential in research on organizational identification and unobtrusive and concertive control. In SCT, the symbolic explosion of a drama can be partly explained by the rhetorical skill of a speaker (Bormann, 1985). Furthermore, rhetorical visions are not strictly ideological but persuade audiences into taking particular action. For example, Bormann’s (2001) study of rhetoric by New England Puritan ministers discovered fantasy themes of salvation and damnation, the pilgrim’s holy war as involving trials and tribulations, and the Christian as soldier overcoming trials to do God’s will. SCT further resonates with organizational communication because it prefigured and was part and parcel of the interpretive turn in organizational communication studies (Bormann, 1983a; Putnam & Pacanowsky, 1983). The interpretive turn ushered in an understanding of communication as the intersubjective property of shared and collective meanings. SCT was largely preoccupied with discovering the process by which social actors within and beyond the small group converged on meanings and consciousness (in the form of dramas). Bormann (1983b) wrote: “[S]ymbolic convergence creates, maintains, and allows people to achieve empathic communion as well as meeting of the minds” (p. 102). SCT also resonates with organizational communication because it can be regarded as one of the very first formulations to introduce communication from both the perspective of little “d” and big “D” discourse. The initial exchange of dramas within a small group can be understood as little “d” discourse that is largely concerned with conversation and talk-in-interaction. Rhetorical visions or abstract dramas that encapsulate communities and societies are akin to big “D” discourse that is concerned with reigning systems of thought or ideas in a specific historical era. For example, Kroll’s (1983) study showed how the dramatic orientations in the initiating small group context of a woman’s movement (e.g., woman as known sufferer and victim) chained into the public consciousness of a midwestern US metropolis. In another example, Bormann (1973) tracked the spread of fantasy about a presidential candidate’s fitness for office, when it was discovered that he was receiving electric shock treatment, from the small-group setting of the network newsroom, to the media, and then to public consciousness.

4


Rousing and redirecting SCT: Organizational communication criticisms of SCT Despite SCT’s early popularity in communication studies, Olufowote (2006) pointed to a noticeable decline in its uses by organizational communication researchers and scholars. To improve SCT’s viability and subsequent uses in organizational communication studies, Olufowote identified problems with SCT – explanatory weaknesses and overly restrictive assumptions – that prevented its applicability to complexities in the communicative constitution of organizations. Moreover, Olufowote argued that organizational communication theories were uniquely capable of improving SCT’s usefulness, thereby positioning a reformulated SCT for greater relevance to more complex organizational communication processes. Olufowote (2006) uncovered three major problems with SCT: insufficient explanations for why humans dramatize and share fantasy, a restrictive convergence ideology, and restrictive characterizations of membership in rhetorical communities. First, although Olufowote applauded SCT based works for discovering factors that facilitated the sharing of fantasy, he argued SCT did not sufficiently explain why humans dramatize the past and coalesce around particular dramas. Second, Olufowote suggested SCT’s convergence ideology created blind spots that prevented analysts from fully considering complexities in the communicative constitution of organizations. He unpacked SCT’s convergence ideology by revealing several problematic assumptions: an implicit prosocial bias, egalitarian assumptions, and a conflict-free characterization of rhetorical visions. Olufowote argued that a prosocial bias in SCT, which celebrated processes of convergence, was problematic in instances of antisocial symbolizing (malicious and vicious stories). He also suggested the assumption that initiates into a drama gain equal benefits is erroneous when the speaker and the storyteller (such as a cult leader) benefit more from listeners being caught up in a particular drama. He further contended that SCT’s characterization of rhetorical visions as coherent and unified elided deep-structure ideological struggles within visions and related processes of ideological domination and marginalization. Third, Olufowote (2006) contended that SCT’s characterization of membership in rhetorical communities failed to capture the dynamic nature of membership. He pointed out that SCT’s assumption of homogenous member identities in rhetorical communities failed to acknowledge heterogeneity created by members’ multiple identities and the ensuing identity and relational conflicts members of rhetorical communities may experience.

Rousing and redirecting SCT: Bolstering by organizational communication theories To address SCT’s problems and position it to capture complexities in the communicative constitution of organizations, Olufowote (2006) recommended SCT incorporate ideas from Karl Weick’s model of sensemaking, critical organizational communication


5

theory, the bona fide group perspective, and advances in organizational identification research. To develop SCT’s explanation for why humans share fantasy and why people participate in dramas, Olufowote (2006) suggested a sensemaking explanation. Weick’s (1995) model of sensemaking, which depicts the social actor as immersed in equivocality (multiplicity of meanings), is essentially concerned with how social actors create reality (out of equivocality) and achieve an understanding of lived experience. Weick wrote that sensemaking is triggered when the social actor’s experience of shock or novelty demands he or she step out of the stream of lived experience and become reflexive about past and passing experiences. The actor brackets cues from past and passing experiences and constructs particular meanings of them. In so doing, the social actor manages equivocality and achieves a particular understanding of lived experience. Drawing on Weick’s model of sensemaking, Olufowote argued that human sharing of fantasy is essentially an artistic verbal articulation of sensemaking processes designed to manage equivocality. People coalesce around, and participate in, dramas in order to reach shared meanings of an equivocal past and a collective understanding of lived experience. The symbolic explosion of drama represents initial collective agreement about an equivocal past. To relax and complement SCT’s convergence ideology, Olufowote (2006) suggested SCT recognize ideas from critical organizational communication theory (Mumby, 2001). This perspective suggests that socially constructed meanings are integral to the societal status quo and, as such, prevent us from thinking otherwise. Yet critical reflection on the status quo has the capacity to expose meaning formations and the formation of meaning as nonneutral in the sense that particular groups (e.g., race, class, gender), interests, and ideologies are dominant in ways that are antithetical to notions of democratic and egalitarian societies. Stated differently, meaning formations and the formation of meaning, through critical interrogation, can be understood politically as instantiating (and unfolding through) relations of power. These power relations tend to maintain a societal status quo that privileges (and marginalizes) groups and ideologies in undemocratic fashion. Analysts are to expose the power relations embedded in socially constructed meanings and to advocate for social change and alternative arrangements. In adapting ideas from critical organizational communication theory, Olufowote argued that SCT’s restrictive convergence ideology can be relaxed by acknowledging antisocial dramas (malicious and vicious stories), speaker storytelling for self-benefit and control, obscured ideological struggle and ideological dominance in rhetorical visions, and member challenges to visions. To relax and complement SCT’s assumptions of homogeneous rhetorical communities, Olufowote (2006) turned to the bona fide group perspective (Putnam & Stohl, 1990) and advances in research on organizational identification (Scott et al., 1999). Putnam and Stohl encouraged researchers to move from studying zero-history groups in laboratories to naturalistic groups. They recommended this move be accompanied by revised assumptions about groups’ boundaries (fluidity and permeability), the importance of their social context, and their interdependence with social context. One important contribution of this perspective is members’ simultaneous membership in multiple groups or members’ multiple identity targets such as race, gender, team,

6


organization, and profession. Putnam and Stohl suggested that membership in multiple groups or members’ multiple targets of identity can create divided loyalties and identity conflicts. Olufowote wrote that the bona fide group perspective provided a more heterogeneous and dynamic understanding of rhetorical communities than SCT, demanding that analysts acknowledge commitment, identity, and relational conflicts in rhetorical communities.

Redirecting SCT: Inﬂuence in contemporary organizational communication studies Contemporary organizational communication theory and research has taken up SCT in a way that challenges its restrictive assumptions and ideas. For example, the theory of language convergence/meaning divergence (LC/MD) has appeared in multiple research reports in communication studies and has a promising future in organizational communication and the larger discipline. LC/MD furthers the agenda of challenging the overly restrictive assumptions of convergence in SCT (Dougherty et al., 2009). LC/MD is a grounded theory that was developed from research demonstrating that participants converging on the same or very similar language choice and word usage can diverge in important ways on the fundamental meanings of those terms such that an illusion of shared meaning is created among conversational partners when none really exists. Another challenge to SCT’s overly restrictive assumptions of convergence can be found in Broom and Avanzino’s (2010) study of a community coalition that was formed to combat neighborhood problems in Palermo, California. They discovered the presence of two rhetorical visions – “we can make a difference” and “failure is their fault.” In challenging the restrictive assumptions of convergence over the “failure is their fault” vision, the authors pointed to the antisocial nature of its fantasies, which vilified and scapegoated outsiders. The researchers wrote they were unable to find any coalition fantasies that cast community members positively. They also argued that the “failure is their fault” vision was grounded in an ideology that not only marginalized outsiders but hindered the coalition’s ability to recruit and retain newcomers.

Future directions SCT is unique as a communication centered framework in its focus on narratives and stories. Because narratives anchor the development of shared meanings and collective consciousness, future uses of SCT should continue to keep a focus on narratives (e.g., heroines, plot, scene, saga, villains), whether they are being exchanged in the initiating small-group context, whether they are chaining as fantasy themes and types, or whether they have matured into abstract and encompassing rhetorical visions. Besides a focus on narratives, SCT is particularly relevant to organizational communication studies because of its ability to transcend multiple levels of analysis. The analyst can simultaneously consider, for example, the form or structure of a particular narrative, individual-level factors that facilitated the sharing (or taking up) of fantasy, the


7

process of storytelling in small groups, the explosion of fantasy within organizations and between organizations and their publics, and rhetorical visions encompassing multiple organizations. In light of the prevalence of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, future uses of SCT may consider social media as initiating contexts for dramatizing the past, as a vehicle for the chaining of fantasy themes and types, and as sites that instantiate as well as preserve traces of broader cross-organizational rhetorical visions. In studying narratives in the form of fantasy and visions, analysts can continue to complement SCT’s convergence ideology by distinguishing between antisocial (malicious and vicious stories) and prosocial dramas. Further, narratives, understood as discursive artifacts of a societal status quo, can be interrogated for ideological struggles and dominance. Whether narratives are chaining as fantasy or have developed into visions, they have the capacity to privilege (and marginalize) particular groups (e.g., race, class, gender), interests, and ideologies. Moreover, fantasies and visions cannot only sustain an undemocratic status quo, they also have the capacity to resist and challenge such a status quo. Future uses of SCT can ascertain the degree to which fantasies and visions resist an undemocratic or problematic status quo. SEE ALSO: Critical Approaches; Groups and Teams in Organizations; Identification,

Organizational; Interpretive Approaches; Micro/Meso/Macrolevels of Analysis; Narrative and Storytelling; Rhetorical Approaches

References Bormann, E. G. (1973). The Eagleton affair: A fantasy theme analysis. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 143–159. doi:10.1080/00335637309383163 Bormann, E. G. (1983a). Symbolic convergence: Organizational communication and culture. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 99–122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bormann, E. G. (1983b). The symbolic convergence theory of communication and the creation, raising, and sustaining of public consciousness. In J. Sisco (Ed.), The Jensen lectures: Contemporary communication studies. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida. Bormann, E. G. (1985). Symbolic convergence theory: A communication formulation. Journal of Communication, 35, 128–138. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1985.tb02977.x Bormann, E. G. (1988). “Empowering” as a heuristic concept in organizational communication. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 11, pp. 391–404). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bormann, E. G. (2001). The force of fantasy: Restoring the American dream. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Bormann, E. G., Pratt, J., & Putnam, L. (1978). Power, authority, and sex: Male response to female leadership. Communication Monographs, 45, 119–155. doi:10.1080/03637757809375959 Broom, C., & Avanzino, S. (2010). The communication of community collaboration: When rhetorical visions collide. Communication Quarterly, 58, 480–501. doi:10.1080/01463373 .2010.525701 Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1981). Applied communication research: A dramatistic approach. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

8


Dougherty, D. S., Kramer, M. W., Klatzke, S. R., & Rogers, T. K. K. (2009). Language convergence and meaning divergence: A meaning-centered communication theory. Communication Monographs, 76, 20–46. doi:10.1080/03637750802378799 Kroll, B. S. (1983). From small group to public view: Mainstreaming the women’s movement. Communication Quarterly, 31, 139–147. doi:10.1080/01463378309369497 Mumby, D. K. (2001). Power and politics. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 585–623). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Olufowote, J. O. (2006). Rousing and redirecting a sleeping giant: Symbolic convergence theory and complexities in the communicative constitution of collective action. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 451–492. doi:10.1177/0893318905280326 Pacanowsky, M. E. (1988). Communication in the empowering organization. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 11, pp. 356–379). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Putnam, L. L. & Pacanowsky, M. E. (1983). Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248–265. doi:10.1080/10510979009368307 Scott, C. R., Connaughton, S. L., Diaz-Saenz, H. R., Maguire, K., Ramirez, R., Richardson, B., … Morgan, D. (1999). The impacts of communication and multiple identifications on intent to leave: A multimethodological exploration. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 400–435. doi:10.1177/0893318999123002 Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Further reading Bormann, E. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 396–407. doi:10.1080/00335637209383138 Coopman, S. J., & Meidlinger, K. B. (2000). Power, hierarchy, and change: The stories of a Catholic parish staff. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 567–625. doi:10.1177/ 0893318900134002 Duffy, M. E. (2003). Web of hate: A fantasy theme analysis of the rhetorical vision of hate groups online. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 27, 291–312. doi:10.1177/0196859903252850 Jackson, B. G. (2000). A fantasy theme analysis of Peter Senge’s learning organization. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 36(2), 191–207. doi:10.1177/0021886300362005 McKewon, E. (2012). Talking points ammo. Journalism Studies, 13, 277–297. doi:10.1080/ 1461670x.2011.646403

James Olumide Olufowote is assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma. His research at the intersection of health communication and organizational communication focuses on physician preparation and practice of ethical communication and communication by nonprofit organizations (such as faith based organizations and nongovernmental organizations) during public health crises. In a 2012 Management Communication Quarterly publication, he was recognized as one of eight “emerging scholars” in the field of organizational communication. Among his noteworthy publications is the 2016 Communication Quarterly article “Identity constructions and inter-organizational collaboration: Islamic faith-based organizations and the polio vaccination stoppage in Northern Nigeria.”