Com310_Wk1_Dq2_Various_Responses

W1-DQ2 Compare and contrast Coordinated Management of Meaning and Symbolic Interactionism. Is there a relationship between these two theories' Do they stand in opposition to each other, or do they peacefully co-exist' There is a distinct relationship between these two theories. They are similar in some ways, but different in others. They both seem to be structured in the same way in regards to the rules, themes, and assumptions that surround how a person develops an understanding of themselves and others. The two theories are also alike because they both suggest that people behave in specific ways due to the knowledge and the beliefs that they have collected through interactions with others, however, they are based on different sets of analytical processes that people use to discover any meaning within those interactions. The Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory is specifically different from the Symbolic Interactionism Theory because it suggests that people have much more individual control over other people’s behaviors and feelings within their society. That difference exists because the Symbolic Interactionism Theory requires human interaction for meaning to be created, where as the Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory states that interpersonal interaction is also a route to meaning. I think that the two theories can co-exist peacefully because they both seem to capture the idea that people give and take information about themselves, others that they are communicating with and others who are not present; and then that information about other people is analyzed; and then through meaning, people are able to begin developing behaviors, feelings, and emotions. I think that the Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory takes human interaction and meaning one step further by including interpersonal interaction, but in my opinion, they are simply two “over-lapping” theories. * Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) helps explain how individuals co-create the meaning in a conversation. Coordinated Management of Meaning generally refers to how individuals establish rules for creating and interpreting meaning and how those rules are enmeshed in a conversation where meaning is constantly being coordinated (West & Turner, 2004). Symbolic Interactionism (SI) is based on the ideas about the self and its relationship to society (West & Turner, 2004). According to West and Turner, Symbolic Interaction Theory states that people construct meaning through the communication process because the meaning is not built into anything, and requires the interaction among people to make meaning. Assumptions are made during the communication process, and require the communicators and receivers to assume meanings of words or phrases, or ask additional questions to ensure understanding. The communicator can help facilitate conversation by creating examples and referencing other things that the receiver may be able to reference for example. * When we are comparing the two we see some similarities and we also see some major differences when we contrast both the meanings. Coordinated theory is a simple theory that sees communication as doing things fully as much as talking about them in life. Symbolic interactionism is in a way we learn to interpret and give all meaning to the world through personal interactions with others in life. When we compare them they both are all about how we deal with communicating with people either in small groups or big groups or even a one on one situation. They both help us describe which type of communicate we really are. When we look at Coordinated management we see this is the more conservative side of communicating and also the least likely to ever create issues or cause drama within a communication circle. Coordinated Management create there own quality of life and believe every form of communication can live in harmony. Symbolic interactionism really is the least conservative theory as when dealing with communicating its thrives off gestures and words and focuses on the social life aspect as coordinated Management sort of deals with more conservative communication and only keep it in smaller numbers when communicating. Symbolic interactionism and coordinated Management share something, but in reality they both carry a whole different theory and both view things differently. I do believe they can coexist in the same communication circle, but they will both cause a lot of problems with how people will understand each other as people are communicating in different ways and will not be on the same page. * When we talk about these two different theories of communication it stands to think that the two would have some sort of relationship to each other. Because these both are theories used to determine communication between humans in a real world setting. Coordinated Management of Meaning states that people live in communication (West, Turner ch.6 pg3).While Symbolic Interactionism says that humans use communication to construct meaning (West, Turner ch. 5 pg3). While these theories use different wordings through examples, you can see how they basically could mean the same thing. When we use Symbolic Interactionism to construct a meaning we are in turn living in our communication because we are using it to build meaning for who we are, what we see, why we say what we say etc. With the Coordinated Management of Meaning human beings attempt to control the conversation, while with Symbolic Interactionism we use the message we are receiving to as the basis for how we interact with the other person. The usage of the message to dictate our actions is also our way of controlling the communication. Even if we use tactics like sarcasm, we are still trying to get the reaction we want, even though our sarcastic retort was the result of the message we received from the other person. * The theory of Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) focuses on the self and its relationship to others (Chapter 6). The focus of this communication theory generally refers to interpersonal interaction and how people create rules of communication between one another and assign meaning to messages. Communication is based on personal meaning, such as bringing our own experiences to an interaction, and interpersonal meaning, which is when two people agree on how to interpret each other’s interactions. During interaction with others, we create our own messages and try to interpret the others’ messages. The person we are interacting with is doing the same. * The theory of Symbolic Interaction (SI) is centered on the relationship between symbols and interaction (Chapter 5). During social interaction, we apply meaning to symbols, but meaning can only exist when people share common interpretations of the symbols they exchange during interaction. It would not be possible for two people to communicate using symbols if the meaning of these symbols did not coordinate. According to Symbolic Interaction, the goal of interaction is to create shared meaning. These two theories peacefully co-exist. They both focus on the self as well as the relationship with others. The purpose of Symbolic Interaction is to create shared meaning; the purpose of Coordinated Management of Meaning is to co-create communication meaning. They are both focused on interpersonal as well as intrapersonal meaning, and learning how to understand communication rules in a social situation. By learning and applying each of these theories, we may be more capable of expressing ourselves and understanding the communication styles of those around us. * Coordinated Management of Meaning looks at how an individual places meaning to the topic they are speaking about. Whereas, Symbolic Interactionism based on the ideas about ourselves and our relationship to society. Both of these theories are looking at how words and situations can affect how we communicate with others, they are both different in the sense that one is looking at the relationship of a topic and the other is looking at how the topic relates to their environment. Coordinated Management of Meaning looks at how we should act in certain social situations and the way we want others to see us in those situations. Though we might have many different views on a topic we form to fit what those around us might think. With Symbolic Interactionism it looks at how important a situation is to someone and that is how they base their feelings and expressions when communicating on that topic. With both theories there are those who agree and find that research to be of great knowledge, there are those who question the findings. These two theories can co-exist but they are two different ways of communicating with others. A person that feels very strongly about a topic is going to stand out next to someone who says what feels right for the social surrounding. As long as we can all agree to disagree then everyone is entitled to their opinions on what is right. * I believe for the most part Coordinated Management of Meaning and Symbolic Interactionism can peacefully co-exist. The CMM theory examines how individuals assign meaning to messages and suggest that humans are capable of creating meaning. In comparison the SI theory states that meanings are not intrinsic, but are developed through the communication process. The goal of the SI theory is to create a shared meaning and I believe this concept is comparable to the CMM's concept that people co-create a social reality. I also believe that CMM's theory about personal and specifically interpersonal meaning relates to the SI's theory of creating a shared meaning as they both consist of people coming together to agree on the meaning of something or an interaction. Although I believe these two theories are very similar they also have their own unique concepts. The CMM theory states that human beings live in communication and the textbook explains this using a metaphor of people being actors without a script or an audience so to speak. The stage differs based on where you are and the conversation flow is a theatre production which is based on past acting experiences; although at times improv is necessary. The SI theory talks a lot about self-concept and how through contact with others, people develop their sense of self and how the meaning others have for them motivates their behavior. * Coordinated Management of Meaning is a method of how individuals assign and interpret a message from a sender to the receiver. We as individuals are constantly in communication mode, weather we realize it or not, communication is all around us, as we speak, listen and react to communications sent to us and others. These situations shape the surrounding of our reality. Our surroundings play an important role in how we interpret and assign meaning; various forms of noise within our surroundings determine how we will react to a message sent, for example a conversation with a coworker, you can see through their body language, frequent glances at their watch, quick responses to questions they are clearly in a hurry to exit the conversation, this type of body language noise hinders the message being sent and the interpretation of the message received. Symbolic interactionism which is the basis by which we communicate with each based on the relationship we have with them, the meaning they hold in our lives, and by which we interpret their words and actions during communication, for example, I am more likely to open up about a difficult situation with a best girlfriend, rather than a complete stranger. Why, because we are friends, she understands the language I am speaking and based on our relationship as best friends I am able to interpret her reaction through non verbal communication, body language and facial expressions. Both methods include interpersonal communication, although they do not peacefully coexist they both hold similarities, the contrast is they are complementary to each other. * The Symbolic Interaction Theory is a general concept of the relationship between self and our society. This theory identifies symbols and interactions as the basis for how people identify meaning. People are not born with meaning and a sense of self, but rather acquire or develop one through the exposure to symbols and interactions. The theory also indicates that self meaning can be modified based on interactions in society. Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) is also associated with self and meaning, but is more elaborate on how we communicate and the role communication plays in meaning. CMM is a hierarchical concept that proposes meaning at one level will determine meaning at another level depending on the source of the meaning. Sources are cultural patterns, life scripts, episodes, contract, speech acts, and content. I believe that the underlying concept of interaction and communication playing an important role in defining meaning is a common thread between both theories. I think that they peacefully co-exist with CMM providing more details of how communication by source influences and shapes our sense of self and meaning. At the very core of all meaning is determining what is important and our role in the world. This concept is heavily influence if not sole created by the interactions and society we live in. Both theories provide support in this concept and meaning has to have some sense of shared concepts and individuality. I think CMM elaborates a bit more on how individuality can exist and be of benefit. * Symbolic interactionism uses a collection of experiences to relate to the world. I because believe we are all products of our past experiences; it is those experiences that we go through that help us to shape the way in which we interact with society and or the world. According to Belgrave, L & Smith, K (1994) Symbolic interactionism argues that society is made real by the interactions of individuals who live and work to make life meaningful. In essence Symbolic Interactionism suggests that in order for the human experience to be relevant and or what we call real; humans need to have some sort of symbolic referrence in order to feel connected to what is happening to he or she as they progress through life. Coordinated management of meaning sets the guidelines or principles for defining what is acceptable for how we communicate with one another. Coordinated manage of meaning is similar to symbolic interactionism because in essence coordinated management of meaning relies of some type of symbol to make to communication meaningful to the person. Whether it be through past experiences, or through a specific type of guideline practiced to make communication more effective i believe these can all be forms of symbolism in order to make communication meaningful or relatable for an individual. According to Phillipson (1995) Coordinated management of meaning focuses on the relationship between an individual and his or her society. For me, this suggest that the relationship between these two theories allows for peaceful co-existence; however, because coordinated management of meaning tends to focus on the parameters or the principals of how communications happens there could be potential for the two the theories to counter act one another. Symbolic interactionism is more general and open ended; where as, coordinated management of meaning is more definable and takes place within some sort of structure. * The Coordinated Management of Meaning basically says that an individual interprets meaning of a message on their own during communication whereas in the Symbolic Interactionism says that people deal in the created messages of society in communication. I believe that they peacefully co-exist because each person has some things that they create on their own as a symbol or message but yet in still there are things that stay consistent in the messages of our society. I would say that it is almost impossible for someone to deal with one and not the other. An example of what I am saying would be that people have pet peeves that bother them because of their interpretation of the meaning but then there are things that universally bother people because of the meaning that accompany them. The relationship is that there are multiple reasons that we interpret meaning in verbal and non-verbal communication whether we recognize it or not. * In Coordinated Management of Meaning(CMM) two people who are interacting socially, construct the meaning of their conversation. “Each of the individuals is also comprised of an interpersonal system which helps explain their actions and reactions”. Pearce and Cronen (1980). The CMM theory is related to a number of theories: (e.g.) Speech Act, Symbolic Interaction and Systems Theory. The theory of CMM says basically that persons-in-conversation construct their own social realities. Pearce and Cronen (1980) believe that CMM is useful in our everyday lives. “People within a social situation first want to understand what is going on and apply rules to figure things out. They act on the basis of their understanding, employing rules to decide what kind of action is appropriate” Pearce and Cronen (1980). On the other hand SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM – This is an interpretation of a symbol that has shared meaning (e.g., the words in a language). It is a social, behavioral process in which the human being is capable of acting toward and even creating his or her environment, or objects in the environment. Symbolic Interactionism is based on three assumptions: 1. communication occurs through the creation of shared significant symbols, 2. the self is constructed through communication, and 3. social activity becomes possible through the role-taking process. The relationship I see between this two theories is that they are both a communicative means, We notice they are both addressing behavioral action in communication. Both are dealing with speech and language. I believe they both peacefully co-exist.