Summary
The following research report is based on John F., and Donald C. Shields.Symbolic Theories in Applied Communication Research: Bormann, Burke, and
Fisher, New Jersey:Hampton Press, 1995, chapter 2.
"Symbolic Convergence Theory is a general communication theory that explains how people collectively build a
common symbolic consciousness that provides meaning, emotion, and motive for action."(59)
"Symbolic Convergence Theory explains how humans come to share a common symbolic reality."(29)
The Symbolic Convergence Theory is composed of six assumptions that explain how we know
what we know when using Social Convergence Theory. There are:
"1. Meaning, emotion, and motive for action are in the manifest content of a message.
2. Reality is created symbolically.
3. Fantasy theme chaining creates symbolic convergence that is dramatic in form.
4. Fantasy theme analysis is the basic method to capture symbolic reality.
5. Fantasy themes occur in and chain out from all discourse.
6. At least three master analogues--righteous, social, and pragmatic compete as alternative
explanations of symbolic reality."(31-34)
Cragan and Shields identify four basic concepts of Social Convergence Theory:
Fantasy Theme is the main term of Social Convergence Theory. Fantasy theme acts as the distributor
of symbolic cues, fantasy types, and sagas.
Symbolic Cues are made up of a "code, word, phrase, slogan, of even nonverbal sign or gesture."(37)
Fantasy Type is a repeated fantasy theme.
Saga is "an oft-repeated telling of the achievements and events in the life of a person, group,
organization, community, or nation."(38)
These basic concepts can be found in the observable part of the message being evaluated.
Cragan and Shields also noted that there are eight structural terms of Social Convergence Theory. They are
rhetorical vision, dramatic personae, plot line, scene, sanctioning agent, and the righteous, social, and pragmatic
rhetorical vision master analogues. These eight terms give structure to communication when using
Social Convergence Theory. These terms are rather technical, and not necessarily common, so I am going to try to give you a better
handle on them by defining them in my own words.
Rhetorical Vision refers to an on going drama that groups people into a common symbolic reality
The rhetorical vision is considered a "composite vision" because it is created by the contribution
of many people.
Dramatis Personae consists of all the characters that are described in the message. These characters
give life to the rhetorical vision. Of course, everyone will have a somewhat different description
of the characters because each person will be receiving and interpreting the message in their own
frame of reference.
Plot line is the action of the rhetorical vision. I would describe the plot line as the
"verb" of rhetorical vision.
Scene is where the action is happening.
Sanctioning Agent gives a reality to the symbolic reality given in the rhetorical vision.
A sanctioning agent could be compared to a figure of authority, it justifies the acceptance
of a rhetorical vision.
Righteous Master Analogue is like a conscious. The righteous master analogue "stresses
the correct way of doing things."(42)
Social Master Analogue is the "care-taker". It is concerned with human relationships.
Pragmatic Master Analogue can be compared to a go-getter. Pragmatic Master Analogue focuses
on "expediency, efficiency, utility, practicality, cost effectiveness, and whatever it takes
to get the job done."(42)
These eight structural terms provide the blueprint of the symbolic messages.
Fantasy Theme
Symbolic Cue
Fantasy Type
Saga
What I thought about the article.
I thought Cragan and Shields did a great job of explaining Bormann's Symbolic Convergance Theory. The examples they used to explain the material were very helpful. I actually think they explain it better than Bormann himself, but that's just my opinion. One thing I would improve about this chapter was the use of figures. I think they could have used some great figures to help explain some parts of this theory, but they only included two figures. These figures were even more confusing to me than the actual text. Other than that I thought it was a well thought out chapter and that they did a great job of explaining a difficult theory.
John F., and Donald C. Shields.Symbolic Theories in Applied Communication Research: Bormann, Burke, and
Fisher, New Jersey:Hampton Press, 1995, chapter 2.
To return to the HomePage click here.