Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory

Research on Coordinated Management of Meaning

By: Kevin Huster

Griffin, Em. (1997). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Pearce, W. Barnett. (1989). Communication and the Human Condition. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press.

For further research on the Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory, I chose to research a few sections in Pearce's Communication and the Human Condition. In his book, Pearce goes into greater detail in the explanation of the theory. He provides helpful examples of how his theory applies in today's world.

Coordination refers to the process by which persons collaborate in an attempt to bring their visions of what is necessary, noble, and good, and to preclude the enactment of what they fear, hate, or despise. In other words, people will tend to coordinate their actions with what they feel is right and with people who act similar to how they would act. Also people will avoid or disassociate with those who act in such a way that they disapprove. Pearce claims that people are caught between two worlds. One world is a fantasy world, where the impossible is possible. The other world is the world we live. In this world we interact with others and occasionally steer away from what we want based on how others act or what others say. The human condition entails an environment that is constantly changing and environment that we as humans are constantly seeing, doing, and interacting with other things and people. Some characteristics of human coordination can be seen by comparing it to the way some nonhuman entities interact. Let's examine the interaction between wolves.

For many years wolves have been a symbol of fear for humans. Little do most of us know, wolves are much more than a simple symbol of fear. Wolves are a sophisticated communication machine. These creatures are very territorial and within their territory they build dens. They mark their territory with urine or feces and protect it with a vicious attitude. When an intruder enters their territory, a wolf is usually very aggressive. On the other hand, when intruding on another wolf's territory a wolf is relatively passive and avoids confrontation. This is a depiction of how wolves use coordinated meaning. In this case it says, "you don't bother me, and I won't bother you."

Coordination is much more difficult to achieve between humans than nonhumans. There are four different ways in which humans' communication system is more difficult than those of nonhumans: 1) the ability to combine messages into an infinitely large signaling system, 2) the ability to speak of and believe in counterfactual conditionals, 3)moral orders, 4) and the ability to be involved in more than one system at a time. The fact that humans have an infinitely extensive signaling system lends itself to be confusing. As we talked about in class, the differences between high and low context cultures can confuse strangers. What is said in a low-context culture is meant, whereas in a high-context culture the nonverbal message is more important than what is actually said. An example of the number 2 follows. Humans have the wonderful ability to lie. For example, humans can lie verbally and others might not catch on right away. Many animals make signs that deceive potential predators, but that is merely false signaling. Nonhumans cannot "lie" as humans do, technically speaking. The examples are endless in association with the complexity of the human communication system.

The information that I researched in Communication and the Human Condition was definitely very interesting. I will venture to say that the information that I found was significantly more interesting than the reading in the book concerning this topic. I found the reading in the book concerning this topic to be dry and somewhat confusing. The research that I found used examples that were easy to understand and enjoyable to read. The only problem that I found was the vocabulary. Some of the words used were sophisticated and at an elevated reading level, but nothing that could not be figured out through context. Pearce's approach of comparing human communication to that of nonhuman entities was very interesting and helpful. The book is without a doubt a wonderful supplement to the required coursework. The only problem I had in the research process was deciding what information applied and would be useful. This was difficult due the vast information that Pearce provided in his explanation of his theory.

Matt Weikert did an application of the Social Judgement Theory. In his application he used nonhuman entities, Bladerunners, as metaphors to make a point more clear. Pearce used the same attack with the above theory. See how Matt used Bladerunner's in his Application to make his point.

CMM Homepage

This page was last updated by Kevin Huster on February 22, 2000