Coordinated Management of Meaning Critique
By Sara Anderson




Coordinated Management of Meaning by Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen is discussed in A First Look at Communication Theory Chapter Six. In the text, it discusses Pearce and Cronen's concept that communication is best looked at through first person experience. They call this concept "persons-in-conversation". "Persons-in-conversation is characterized by four points:

The experience of persons-in-conversations is the primary social process of human life.
Persons-in-conversation are engaged in language games.
Persons communicating are acting into a context, working out how to get on in life.
The actions of persons-in-conversation are reflexively reproduced as the dialogue continues.




The Whitewater Analogy




Pearce gives a wonderful example of the interconnected nature of communication and social interaction by likening it to a white water river:
to explain why the process of persons-in-conversation can't be reduced to individual variable like the number of "I"statements made during self-disclosure or how far appart friends sit when they[re talking. One could examine the temperature of the water, the size of the rocks, or the slope of the banks, but the analysis would miss the river's dynamic quality--the pace and pattern of the current or the configuration of the rapids. communication is a process, a flow. (Griffin 71)
This is possibly one of the most philosophically, artistical components of any of the many communication theories.



Now that I have discussed some basic issues of the text and theory, I will move on to the critique. Honestly it is very hard for me to say to many negative things about the ideas presented by the theory. I think that this is by far the most all-encompassing of the communication theories. However, upon closer inspection, I can see that this is a hinderance in some respects. Pearce and Cronen "freely borrowed concepts and terms from philosophy, linguistics, and interpretive psychology" (Griffin 69). Embracing too many ideas can keep a theory from clearly getting at the point.

On the more positive side, I would say that the "whitewater analogy" is one of the most right on parts of the theory. Personally, I can easily relate to the connectivity of many things. I see this happen in my everyday life and all of my relationships. Also, I fully agree with the reflexive nature that comes from communication...all I need to say about that one is Karma. Although for many people these things may seem wishy-washy, I think they are strongly proven throughout daily interaction of most humans.

Since Coordinated Management of Meaning is largely a humanistic theory, I will continue a more in-depth critique based on five specific criteria.



New Understanding of People

As stated in Em Griffin's text:
Pearce and Cronen describe CMM as a pratical theory. Throughout the project , understanding the world has seemed less important to them than "providing a way of intelligently joining into activity of the world so as to enrich it." (Griffin 79) As by their own admission CMM is does not particularly lead to understanding why we communicate the way we do with others. However, as you will see in a later criterion, this does not make the theory all together invalid.


Clarification of Values

Coordinated Magement of Meaning makes clear the values it espouses. In the practice of mediation three clear questions are asked:
Is he or she safe?

Is he or she competent?

Is he or she an artist?

I feel the first two questions lend themselves to an excellent clarification of the values of the theory. However, artistry can be a bit more vague. Overall, I think that the explicit statement of such criteria makes CMM work with this aspect of a humanistic theory.



Aesthetic Appeal

By looking at the Whitewater Analogy, I think it is apparent that Coordinated Management of Meaning indeed has aesthetic appeal. In fact, I think that this is probably one its strongest suits. Its form is quite intriguing. However, I cannot say in all certainty as I have not read the enitre theory in the words Pearce and Cronen. I would venture a guess that is every bit as pleasing as the other parts I have read.



A Community Agreement

This theory has had an especially unique impact on the communication community. It is its shear breadth that brings it under fire by many people in the community. However, whether intentionally or not, this theory has provided the ground for ongoing dialogue. In turn, this dialogue continues the further work of Pearce and Cronen.



Reform of Society

Pearce and Cronen have stated themselves that CMM is a practical theory. Therefore, it stands to reason that it does indeed help reform society. As society changes, the theory keeps up to offer new insight into the current situation. More specifically, this theory is the basis for many types of mediation. I think that mediation has definately helped society to better work out their own problems. Hence, I would give the theory high marks in this category as well.


If you check this out you might see how Symbolic Interactionism highly correlates with this page.


Return to CMM Homepage




This page was last updated on March 9, 2000