Coordinated+Management+of+Meaning

=**Summary**=

toc

Coordinated Management of Meaning is a theory that helps to explain how individuals co-create meaning in a conversation through the establishment of rules. It also explains how those rules are enmeshed in conversation where meaning is contantly being coordinated. Theorists W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen researched behavior during a conversation intensely and forged rules and patterns that govern interaction between individuals. This theory is important because it focusses on the relationship between an individual and his or her society.
 * Introduction:**

Assumptions about CMM include the following: human beings live in communication (social constructionism), human beings co-create a social reality, and information transactions depend on personal and interpersonal meaning. CMM theorists propose the idea that social situations are created by interactions. The belief that people in conversations co-construct their social reality is called social constructionism. Rather than the question "What did you mean by that?" the real questions to ask are "What are we making together?" How are we making it?" and "How can we make better social worlds?" The third assumption of CMM relates to the way in which people control conversation through personal and interpersonal meaning. Personal meaning is defined as meaning achieved when a person interacts with another and brings into the interaction his or her unique experiences while interpersonal meaning is said the be achieved when two people agree on each other's interpretation. Meaning in a conversation is reached without any thought what-so-ever. If no type of meaning is reached, there is a lack of communication.
 * Assumptions of Coordinated Management of Meaning:**

There is a hierarchical manner in which human beings organize meaning (see the graphic below to further understand this concept). They determine how much weight to give to a particular message they are trying to send. At the bottom of this hierarchy is content which specifies the first step of converting raw data into some meaning. This shows that the content does not have any inherent meaning until the human beings interpret it. The level above content is speech act. Speech acts are actions we perform by speaking such as promises, threats, insults, speculations, guesses and compliments. The level above speech act includes episodes, which are communication routines that have definable beginnings, middles, and endings. Relationship is the fourth level which describes two people recognizing their potential and limitations as relational partners. This level suggests boundaries for behavior and how two people should behave in front of each other. The fifth level consists of life scripts which are clusters of past and present episodes that help an individual create a sense of self that guides future forms of communication. The highest level of the hierarchy contains cultural patterns which consist of the values each of us were raised with and how we portray them through communication. This hierarchy acts in a loop (the reflexiveness of levels in the hierachy of meaning) because the lower levels can reflect back and affect the higher levels.
 * Hierachy of Organized Meaning:**

Individuals aim to achieve perfect coordination in meaning, but often achieve no coordination or partially achieved coordination because of different interpretations. Specific rules such as constitutive rules and regulative rules help guide communication and prevent unwanted repetitive patterns.
 * Closings:**


 * Problems/Critiques with Coordinated Management of Meaning:**

The theory is too broad and unclear in terms of definitions.

Works Cited: West, Richard L., and Lynn H. Turner. //Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and// //Application//. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Print.

=Key Terms and Definitions=

1. **personal meaning**- the meaning achieved when a person brings his or her unique experiences to an interaction 2. **interpersonal meaning**- the result when two people agree on each other's interpretation of an interaction 3. **content**- the conversion of raw data into meaning 4. **speech act**- action we perform by speaking (examples: questioning, threatening, complimenting, etc.) 5. **episodes**- communication routines that have recognized beginnings, middles, and endings 6. **relationship**- agreement and understanding between two people 7. **life** **scripts**- clusters of past or present episodes that create a system of manageable meanings with others 8. **cultural patterns**- images of the world and a person's relationship to it 9. **coordination**- trying to make sense of message sequencing what someone is saying to you 10. **unwanted repetitive patterns**- recurring, undesirable conflicts in a relationship

=Graphic=

**Hierarchy of Meaning** =Outside Research=

=Additional Material=

(JS)
 * Outside Research: **
 * __Extending the Theory of the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) Through a Community Dialogue Process __**
 * W.Barnett Pearce & Kimberly A. Pearce **

//What's this about? //

This scholarly text is within the field of Communication theory that extends on the preexisting notions of Coordinated Management theory. A group of communication scholars, all educated in the field of CMM, came together to form the Public Dialogue Consortium in order to build upon the areas of CMM that they believed were too limited. In particular the way the theory was studied and the problems associated this that. They deemed these problems to be that measurements were taken based on a one time encounter, only on location at college campuses, only framing two distinct sides of an argument, and the structure of the experiments themselves. So to gather some more information to base the concepts on, they were introduced to a community that was experiencing rapid ethnic change which in turn was concerning many of the residents. This was essentially a community dialogue project that attempted to work those of this city and normalize the idea of ethnic diversity.

//Some observations worth taking note. //

At the beginning of the project, the residents were describing ethnic diversity as ‘a powder keg, waiting to go off’ and “being unwilling to speak of it publically, fearful of providing a spark.” (Pierce. 407). Let’s keep in mind this was the late 90s, but they still seemed to have a somewhat negative or closed off to attitude towards ethnic diversity. Since this initial response, it turns out with the implement of the program, the city’s mental ability as a whole became much more able to deal and live within ethnicity through implemented programs and public group meetings. Some stats include: These results were interpreted as people rather seeing ethnic diversity as just a part of life.
 * 82% of the city felt the city was doing enough to make sure all members of the city felt welcome
 * *the largest change, from 28- 49%* 49% of people were said that “increase in ethnic diversity made ‘no change in how I feel toward people of ethnic diversity.

//So why did this happen? //

Through committee meetings the team set themselves as “architects” of conversation, in which they focused on “inclusivity and quality.” They focused fostering conversations that would have been avoided without their influence, and within so it began to normalize topics people feared to bring up.

They also “treated ‘talk’ as a form of action, not as a substitute for it.” So talking about it was enough for the time being. One individual expressed he was ready to act and that they were wasting time just talking about change. The team disagreed saying the “talk” was action in itself. These topics were topics that were totally avoided in the past, so even familiarizing people with the concept was regulating the change of opinion, or more so creating the social norm of ethnic diversity in this community. The team termed this as ‘public dialogue.’ Lastly, in accordance with all the implemented mental changes, the government of the city was inadvertently changed. The city accepted responsibly as future architects of the city’s sense of community through ethnic diversity in the future. So now the people in change will lead by example, instead of following the general feel of the city’s people.

//How was this done? Techniques and understanding extensions of CMM. //

Through the time spent work with this town, the team established that their "confidence in the central thesis of CMM increased," but why was that? What was is about the theory that support their actions and henceforth their results?

Well since this is so wonderfully written in the article: "CMM envisions persons as angaging in proactive and reactive actions intended to call into being conjoint performances of that which they dislike or fear." (Pierce, 410.)

In other words, introducing things that humans fear as a positive and forward thing, allows them to accept more fully that in which they are in opposition. Furthermore, CMM shows that meaning derives from taking in communication through multiple platforms and from multiple mental places at once, rather than in addition to the act. The figure below better explains this concept:

To work with the theory in real time, the team had to take on and exemplify the feeling of 'what are we making together.' (Pierce, 412). In this, there is an understanding that politics and dialogue are not one in the same. Dialogue requires an equal level of power, whereas politics does not.

Pearce also developed 'forms of communications,' where the team valued listening as much as they did speaking, to give those less heard a voice, to create a language of <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5;">appreciativeness within their meetings, and to look at disagreements as opportunities to find progress.

Key terms and concepts found throughout the text: Technique/strategy definitions applied throughout the project:
 * dialogue: "a noun naming a distinct communication episode that a group might 'do."
 * episode: "bounded sequences of acts with a beginning, middle, and end with a coherent narrative structure." Usually short in time, uninterrupted and require face-to-face interaction.
 * strategic process design: "the plan for a deliberately chosen sequence of events that respond to existing conditions and lead to a desired outcome."
 * event: sequences of activity that occur within a single meeting. can be short or last multiple days.
 * event design: deliberately scheduled events. ex: a meeting, study groups.
 * communication facilitation skills: the way to manufacture that success of an event. So within the project, the team would need to make sure that the conversations had adequate time, and that their in the moment response could be as candid as possible. This also includes making sure the conversation is moving and regulated. That there is people to coach and reflect with the participants.
 * logical force: the 'oughtness' of a situation that regulates what a person should or should not do.
 * the person-position of the facilitator and reliance on ordinary language: facilitators act to aid the episodic sequence of a conversation, to remain neutral in opinion to foster trust and respect, active listening, promoting self antidotes, providing helpful framing situations.
 * contextual reconstruction: work concepts in overtime with 'implicative force.'

(js)