Question

Some critics dismiss SCT as a cookie-cutter approach to group analysis. Could this be said of most social science theories? Bormann regarded the charge as a compliment. Can you figure out why he was pleased rather than offended?

Answer 1

Sol. Critique: Judging SCT as both scientific and interpretive theory

Ernest Bormann claimed that symbolic convergence theory is both objective and interpretive. The theory's basic explanatory hypothesis sharing group fantasies create symbolic convergence is farmed as a universal principle that holds for all people, in any culture, at any time, in any communication context. Definitely objective. But the methodology of determining fantasy themes, fantasy types, and rhetorical visions is rhetorical criticism a humanistic approach that's undeniably interpretive. When the six standards for judging a social science theory and the six criteria for evaluating an interpretive theory are applied to SCT, the theory stacks up remarkably well. I will single out four of these benchmarks for further discussion.

• A good objective theory explains what occurs and why it happened: The concept of symbolic convergence can help us make sense of chaotic group discussions. Even though group leaders urge members to speak one at the time and stick to the point, participants often go off on verbal tangents. According to SCT, graphic digression and boisterous talk are not signs of the flawed process; rather they are sciousness. The explanation of how groups become cohesive is a strength of the theory. However, Boston College communication professor James Olufowote does not believe Bormann's explanation goes far enough. In a sympathetic critique aimed at making the theory better, he contends that "SCT does not sufficiently explain why humans are predisposed to dramatizing reality and sharing fantasy in the first place"
• A good objective theory predicts what's going to happen:  SCT clearly predicts that when a fantasy chain erupts among members, symbolic convergence will occur. The theory even suggests that without shared fantasies, there will be no cohesiveness. Bormann noted that uncertainty about the future is not bothersome in other scientific theories. He saw symbolic convergence theory as similar to Darwin's biological theory of evolution in that respect.
• A good interpretive theory clarifies people's values: There's no doubt that fantasy theme analysis uncovers the values of a rhetorical community. It does that well. But Olufowote is concerned about the unexamined values that undergird SCT. One concern is an ideology of convergence. The terms that describe its effects common ground, a meeting of the minds, empathic communion, etc. make it clear that the theory has a pro-social bias. Shall we look at the convergence of hate groups or pro-eating disorder websites as a positive outcome?

A second concern Olufowote express is an egalitarian assumption that ignores issues of power within groups. For example, do all members of a group benefit equally when fantasy chains out? Does an inside joke become a symbolic cue at the expanse of one of the members? A final concern is about the way members fo the rhetorical community are characterized. The communities described come across as conflict-free, differences among members are ignored, and there's little discussion of the inner tension a member feels when the multiple rhetorical vision he or she embraces do not mesh.

• A good interpretive theory offers a new understanding of people: SCT's method of fantasy theme analysis does this exceptionally well by directing rhetorical critics to focus on symbolic language. A Few scholars charge that the best fantasy theme analyses are the result of critics' astute perception or acumen rather than the method they use. Bormann acknowledged that some critics do it better than others. But he noted that regardless of how perceptive the critic, the method used makes a huge difference. For example, a Marxist critique looks for economic exploitation; a feminist critique looks for patterns for male dominance. Think how different the analyses of cigar store smokers or pro-eating disorder messageboard users would be if DeSantis or McCabe had not zeroed in on imaginative language. With that lens in place, fantasy theme analysts uncover rhetorical visions as varied as the communities they study, When I read a well-written fantasy theme analysis, I gain a greater appreciation for the fascinating diversity within the human race.