Take Twister for an example. That group of people shared a common language between them and when they talked about past experiences they had had together everyone was able to follow the conversation because they all used the same imagery. They referred to tornadoes using feminine pronouns. The more destructive a tornado the more awesome it was, with one exception. They all even shared a common reaction to that exception. When one person spoke of an F5 there was a common drop in everyone's facial expression and excited tone.
Everyone who has seen the movie as many times as I have knows also, that there is a person at the breakfast table when this discussion is taking place that doesn't know all of these rules and doesn't share the vocabulary. Melissa was not there. She doesn't know squat about tornadoes, and does not feel very comfortable giving them affectionate pet names as do the rest of the tornado-chasers. She probably wouldn't see herself, or be considerred by others in the group to be a part of the group. No one treated her badly. She just isn't one of them and everyone knows it.
This supports Bormann's theory because he says it is the sharing of fantasies; of "creative and imaginative interpretation of events..." that makes people a cohesive group. She was not able to share these fantasies. She was not there when Bill offered a tornado a drink of Jack, and she didn't have any stake in the e xcitement about getting Dorothy up in the tornado. Thus she was not a cohesive part of the group as were the others.
See how easy it was to show how Bormann's theory works?!
You can do it just as easily for the Apollo 13 astronauts sharing fantasies about going home, the boys in Dead Poet's Society sharing fantasies about their parents, their dreams and "Oh Captain, My Captain".
Using Bormann's concept of rhetorical vision you can even see how all the men in the different counties of Scotland came together under William Wallace in Braveheart by sharing of a common fantasy.
