Paper Example on Symbolic-Convergence Theory

Introduction

There are various instances where people interact and initiate negotiation that is viewed in different levels of the society. From the corporate warriors who are competing for the next promotion to the high school girls frantically pursuing to be the cool kids in their schools, indeed almost every person has fantasized being a part of the "in crowd". There are methods whereby the barriers and bonds remain unbreakable. By sharing stories as well as arriving at the conclusions through discussion of those stories, members of the small groups tend to develop a common bond that influences their social reality such fantasies explains Symbolic-Convergence Theory. Symbolic-Convergence Theory is a phenomenon that was developed by Ernest Bormann. The theory demonstrates different levels of communication that are intended to promote the relationship among people. The symbolic-convergence theory is also commonly referred to as the fantasy-theme analysis, whereby, it can be developed in the small groups or relations between two persons, therefore creating a similar viewpoint. According to the theory, an individual is inclined to believe particular issues or think in a particular manner since the society has modified their perception. However, symbolic convergence theory has a diverse concept that can be applied successfully to produce articulated conversations. The theory looks at the methods of observing the group cohesiveness and interaction. The symbolic convergence theory is acclaimed and even viewed a bit unusual since it fulfils the criteria for both the humanistic and scientific standards. But, the two articles The use of symbolic convergence theory in corporate strategic planning by Cragan and Shields, (1992) and Communication and group decision making by Hirokawa and Poole, (Eds.) (1996) tend to analyze the theory of Symbolic-Convergence Theory, and through the analysis, there are some of the factors that can be identified that contradict with the nature of theory.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Cohesion within the parties is not an immediate style of action. A single fantasy chain event will not trigger about complete cohesion. The symbolic convergence theory is founded on the concept of the member on the group exchanging fantasies to create a cohesion group; although the fantasy does not necessarily refer to the factious stories or erotic discussion. Given that the members of the different cultural and ethnic background do not have children, and then they engage in the conversation among themselves or with a doctor. According to Hirokawa and Poole (Eds.) (1996) point of view, people from different cultural and ethnical background will have previously familiarize themselves with a particular topic, tend to bond quickly than when the counter was interacting with those from other cultural backgrounds. In this case, fantasies will not be demonstrated at the initial point; therefore the common ground will not be established among the members of the group. The fantasy applied in a situation will depend on the context of discussion; some of the fantasies will not apply immediately. The members of the group will take time to engage in the discussion and gradually develop cohesion and bond where they will be aroused with fantasies and make the symbolic Convergence Theory effective. In such an instance, this theory is being viewed as a good interpretive theory that clarifies people values. In this case, it highlights the values of the rhetorical community through the establishment of the common ground, empathic communication and meeting minds.

Although symbolic convergence theory recognizes the perception of reality that is changing and variable, intercultural communication it overstates the power of the people to develop their realities, overlooking the extent to which human inhabit the world, not of their own making. Hirokawa and Poole (Eds.) (1996) shows that people tend to be more exaggerative in such kind of communication so that none of them will tend to be the odd one out. In a case where people from the different cultural background are discussing topics that are based on social issues such as LGBT rights, the conversation will be exaggerated and go beyond reality. One's ethnic background and cultural perspective will influence the communication cues, and there will be less use of fantasies based on the topic of discussions as well as an individual's point of view on the social issue.

Even though symbolic convergence theory views humans as creative, active participants, who establish their social world rather than the passive, compliant object of socialization, but they ignore the emotional aspect of human conduct, precisely concentrating on the logical behaviour. Hirokawa and Poole (Eds.) (1996) states that symbols are developed and maintained in the society that we exist. They are intended for socialization and create culture possibility they are also the basis for ongoing cooperation as well as communication; then they make it successful for our ability to pass down knowledge from one generation to the other. However, society cannot exist without self. Through the interaction of self, we get the society; though, selves rise due to the society. This might be perceived as a conundrum, or structural symbolic theory, where the society is prevailing force from where our sense of self-grow. The structural symbolic theory, in this case, is based on their study of the present states of human affairs within the society, and through these existing societies, we have people who are born and nurture the sense of self. The society's attention inclines to lead to more examination of the social phenomena and how the phenomena influence the individuals. In focusing on the structural symbolic theory, society is to be understood about the people making it up, and the individuals are to be understood in regards to the society that they dwell.

The symbolic convergence theory is perceived to an objective theory due to its nature to explains what occurred and why it occurred, through the theory, further explanation is derived as to what makes sense to the group discussion and how. Cragan and Shields (1992) state that the theory is perceived as making sense of the chaotic group discussion when the individuals in the group go off on the verbal tangents or speak at one time. However, Cragan and Shields (1992) xxx does not agree that Bormann's explanation extents further enough. In a concerted critique that focused on making the theory better, he struggled that symbolic convergence theory fails to sufficiently explain why humans are subjected to dramatizing reality as well as sharing fantasy in their first place. However, symbolic convergence theory covers most of this assessment, Bormann (1985) states that symbolic convergence theory does lacks enough evidence to explain why humans are subjected to sharing fantasy and dramatizing reality in the first place.

The symbolic convergence theory offers some awareness into small-scale human interactions, and this achieved this portion to be an objective theory. The symbolic convergence theory predicts when fantasy chain vents among the members, symbolic convergence will take place. However, it is controversial when it is ascertained that fantasies will occur, it is not possible to predict when dramatizing message will arouse a chain reaction. Bormann views symbolic convergence theory by comparing symbolic convergence theory as the same as Darwin's biological theory of evolution. The theory further states that cohesiveness will lack when there is not shared fantasies. When the communication better symbolic convergence theory is similar to the evolutionary theory, such that it describes the way modern humans evolved but cannot give the further account of the dynamic forces that offers an explanation to discovered communication sequence rather than when they will occur.

People's expectation and the role that they play in the society will guide their behaviours. For instance, when one is raised in a particular strict religion, they tend to establish a religious character and attitude of considering how they would wish other people to be treated. The ability we have to develop and assume roles permit us to effectively embrace and interact with the roles that someone else plays. Cragan and Shields (1992) view that our generalized other is one tactic that society outspreads control over us and influence our thinking. The essential internalized rules together with the roles of social influence direct out, decisions, thoughts and behaviours. That means that our actions influence our reactions, behaviour and interpretation

Indeed the two scholars have done an eminent work by evaluating the detailed concept that characterizes symbolic convergence theory. Since the research done by Bormann failed at looking at some of the strengths and the weakness of the theories. In the two articles, the authors have illustrated the compelling elements that characterize the theory. The use of symbolic convergence theory in a conversation involving intercultural communication among the participants demonstrates some new elements during intercultural communication and ethnicity. Issues that arose in the communication in the group of people from different culture include lack of an immediate cohesion with the group of people; the overrated power of reality among the people; ignoring the emotional aspect of the human conduct and precisely concentrating on logical behaviour; as well as its objective nature. The fantasies in symbolic convergence theory take assumptions of any communication that focuses on what is going within the group.

References

Bormann, E. G. (1985). Symbolic convergence theory: A communication formulation. Journal of communication, 35(4), 128-138.

Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1992). The use of symbolic convergence theory in corporate strategic planning: A case study. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20(2), 199-218.

Hirokawa, R. Y., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.). (1996). Communication and group decision making (Vol. 77). Sage.