Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theory
of Ernest Bormann
groups in his lab, Bales discovered that dramatizing was a signifi cant type of
ing and undertook a more extensive study of newly formed groups to examine
Similar to Bales, Bormann and his team of colleagues observed that group
members often dramatized events happening outside the group, things that took
place at previous meetings, or what might possibly occur among them in the
future. Sometimes these stories fell fl at and the discussion moved in a different
on to the story or chiming in with their own matching narratives. When the drama
and drew closer together. On the basis of extensive case studies, Bormann set forth
When she read about Bormann’s theory, Maggie had no diffi culty illustrating
this core claim. Two weeks before my communication course began, she served
as a student leader in the “Wheaton Passage” program for new freshmen that’s
Cabin 8 was the rustic, run-down cabin that my group of Passage students was
assigned to live in for the week. My co-leader and I decked the cabin out with
decorations by hanging Christmas lights and origami doves, yet there was no
CHAPTER 19
escaping the massive holes in the screens, sticky messes in the drawers, and the
spiders residing in the rafters. The night students arrived, we walked our group of
girls past the brand new cabins, arrived at our old cabin, and presented Cabin 8—
their home for a week. Needless to say, they were less than pleased.
The next day as our group was trekking to our morning activity, one of the girls
brought up what she thought the perfect cabin would look like. Others jumped in
with their ideas. For 10 minutes, each girl contributed something to the discussion
of the fantasy cabin. Hot tubs, screened-in porches, soft carpet, lounge chairs, and a
glass roof for stargazing were all mentioned as features in their ideal cabin. Look-
ing back on this experience, I see how this shared fantasy played a role in our
cabin bonding. As the week went on, our dream cabin became a running joke
within our group that helped students develop a sense of closeness—what they
deemed “hardcoreness.” While living in the crummy cabin, they frequently revis-
ited the image of the ideal cabin they created in their conversation.
tual information, members’ opinions, and suggestions for how the group should
proceed. That’s the kind of member contribution Hirokawa and Gouran’s func-
joke, describes a movie, or starts talking about plans for the upcoming weekend.
Not so for Bormann. SCT classifi es these examples and many other forms of
outside of what’s going on right now can often serve the group well.
pun or other wordplay, double entendre, fi gure of speech (e.g., metaphor, simile,
expression of ideas. Whatever the form, the dramatizing message describes events
occurring somewhere else and/or at some time other than the here-and-now. 4
Notice fi rst that a group member’s words must paint a picture or call to
Dow Jones stock average rose 500 points can be important news for members,
but it’s not dramatizing in the way that Bormann used the term. Second, a vivid
the group or portrays an event that has happened within the group in the past
or might happen to the group in the future. Comments that have no imagery or
those that refer to what’s currently going on in the group make up the bulk of
When Maggie’s girls started to verbally construct their ideal cabin, they were
using imaginative language to talk about what they’d like to see in the future,
probably wishing it would magically appear that night. If in a darker tone one
of the girls expressed her hope that someone would set fi re to the cabin before
they returned, that message would also be dramatizing. But if the group of girls
sat around in the cabin grousing about the spiders, mosquitoes, and sticky goo
in the drawers, those comments would be about the here-and-now and wouldn’t
Dramatizing message
Imaginative language by
interpretations of there-
and-then.
cally organize what are usually more complex, ambiguous, and chaotic experi-
ences.” 5
They help the speaker, and sometimes the listeners, make sense out of
not other group members connect with their imagery, dramatizing messages are
creative interpretations of the there-and-then.
Some people use the term fantasy to refer to children’s literature, sexual desire,
or things “not true.” Bormann, however, reserved the term fantasy for dramatiz-
ing messages that are enthusiastically embraced by the whole group. Most dra-
matizing messages don’t get that kind of reaction. They often fall on deaf ears,
or group members listen but take a ho-hum attitude toward what was said. Of
that the dramatizing message has fallen fl at. There may even be group members
who openly oppose what was said. Yet as Bormann noted, “Some dramatizing
The tempo of the conversation would pick up. People would grow excited, inter-
rupt one another, blush, laugh, forget their self-consciousness. The tone of the
meeting, often quiet and tense immediately prior to the dramatizing, would
“Pardon us, Harrison, if the board fails to share your enthusiasm for the foliage up in Darien.”
become lively, animated, and boisterous, the chaining process, involving both the
A concrete example of a fantasy chain and its results may be helpful. Uni-
smoking hand-rolled imported cigars. As the topic shifts from college basketball
to the risk of smoking, the owner tells the story of a heart surgeon who came
into the shop after having been on duty for 36 hours. After lighting up, the doc-
tor blew out a big mouthful of smoke and said, “This is the most relaxed I have
Whether or not the doctor really said this isn’t the issue. Symbolic conver-
gence theory is concerned with the group’s response to the tale. In this case the
punctuate the narrative. Some vie to tell their own stories that dismiss the harm
of cigar smoking, a pastime that they consider a benign hobby. Bormann said
that we can spot a fantasy chain through a common response to the imagery.
lar customers, affi rms that the group’s response to the owner’s story paralleled
Bormann’s description above.
fantasy will ignite and trigger a chain reaction. They’ve found there’s a better
chance of a fantasy chaining out when the group is frustrated (as were Maggie’s
girls) or when they are bogged down in an effort to solve a thorny problem.
Also, members with rhetorical skill seem to have a better chance of providing
the spark, but there’s no guarantee that their words will ignite others. And even
when a skillful image-maker does spark a fantasy chain, he or she has little
control over where the conversation will go. Fantasy chains seem to have a life
of their own. But once a fantasy chain catches fi re, symbolic convergence theory
Fantasy chain
A symbolic explosion of
a group in response to a
member’s dramatizing
message.
Bormann’s technical defi nition of fantasy is “the creative and imaginative shared
Think of a fantasy theme as the content of the dramatizing message that suc-
cessfully sparks a fantasy chain. As such, it’s the theory’s basic unit of analysis.
Because fantasy themes refl ect and create a group’s culture, all SCT researchers
seek to identify the fantasy theme or themes that group members share. When
spotted, fantasy themes are consistently ordered and always interpretive, and
they inevitably put the group’s slant on things. That is, fantasy themes act as a
rhetorical means to sway doubters or naysayers.
When a fantasy chains out among core patrons in the cigar store, we would
expect to see that same theme run throughout multiple narratives—à la Seinfeld .
Perhaps the hero of every man’s account is a famous cigar smoker who lived
into old age without ill effects—George Burns, Winston Churchill, or Fidel Castro.
Or maybe each image refl ects a meddling government bureaucrat who wants
to limit their right to enjoy a cigar in a public place. Along with examples of
long-lived smokers, group fantasies might focus on the difference between cigars
Fantasy
a group’s psychological
or rhetorical needs.
Fantasy theme
cancer, the greater risks of everyday living, and the health benefi ts of relaxation
that come from smoking a good cigar. All of these fantasies have the same basic
DeSantis’ description of the angst that the core group of patrons experienced at
the premature death of their friend Greg. Like the rest of the store’s regulars who
sat around smoking, Greg had scoffed at the health risks of their practice. Now
they were confronted with the sobering fact of his fatal heart attack. Within a
week of the funeral, however, his smoking buddies had constructed a verbal
collage of images depicting Greg’s stressful lifestyle. The store owner voiced their
consensus: “Smoking had nothing to do with his death. He lived, drank and
played hard and it took a toll on him at the end.” 10 Meaning: Hard living killed
Greg. Emotion: Reduction of fear, relief. Motive: Desire to smoke with buddies.
Bormann and symbolic convergence theory advocates have found that many
fantasy themes are indexed by a symbolic cue . A symbolic cue is “an agreed-upon
trigger that sets off the group members to respond as they did when they fi rst
shared the fantasy.” 11 It could be a code word, nonverbal gesture, phrase, slogan,
inside joke, bumper sticker, or any shorthand way of re-establishing the full force
of shared fantasy. In the Kentucky smoke shop where these fantasy themes were
voiced, any mention of criticism of cigar smoking from family or friends was the
cue that set off a new round of protest among store regulars. Their emotional
reaction was captured on a T-shirt sold at the store that satirized the Surgeon
related fantasy themes sometimes surface again and again in different groups,
occurs. He used the term fantasy type to describe these well-worn symbolic paths.
themes” and they exist “when shared meaning is taken for granted.” 13 The cigar
store group’s fantasy theme of family and friends criticizing their smoking could
fantasy type that you and your friends have drawn upon when talking about
your lifestyle, even if you’ve never smoked a cigar. Or students at your school
may share stock fantasy types about Saturday night parties, the food on campus,
professors who never seem to be in their offi ces, or the guy who always bails
Symbolic cue
An agreed-upon trigger
Fantasy type
stractions incorporating
for granted.
The discussion of dramatizing messages, fantasy chains, and fantasy themes has
dealt with the fi rst part of SCT’s core principle: Sharing group fantasies creates
symbolic convergence. We’re now ready to look at what that sharing creates—
which “two or more private symbol worlds incline toward each other, come more
closely together, or even overlap.” 14 As those worlds intersect, group members
I, me, and mine. As symbolic overlap takes place, they begin to think and speak
that they do. Some limited commonality of words and images may naturally
occur when group members interact often enough over a long period of time.
But the process is accelerated and extended way beyond what otherwise might
happen when members participate in one or more fantasy chains that create joint
fantasy themes. Bormann used a variety of terms to portray the effect of group
name and recorded history ( saga ) that recalls moments when fantasies chained
out. He did that with his U of M colleagues who met in the Bormann home every
Wednesday night to discuss the ideas that make up symbolic convergence theory.
poster with the caption “Behold the turtle who makes progress only when he
sticks his neck out.” The image of a turtle race seemed doubly appropriate to
their history of theory building when Bormann described the work going for-
members attracted to each other and sticking together through thick and thin.
Groups that do little fantasizing are seldom highly attractive and cohesive. Such
groups tend to be boring and ordinary. The cohesive groups have usually done
considerable fantasizing, but not all groups that fantasize a lot are rewarding and
cohesive. The fantasies that chain may contribute to creating a social reality that is
warm, friendly and hard working, that provides the group with a strong identity
and self image, and that gives members a sense of purpose and meaning for their
group’s work. On the other hand, the fantasies may develop a group climate that
Bormann went on to say that fantasy themes in those negative groups are
riddled with confl ict and that the humor expressed tends to be satire, ridicule,
Symbolic convergence
sciousness, cohesiveness.
where SCT was spawned. But early in the theory’s development, the Turtle Rac-
ers discovered that shared fantasies weren’t confi ned to a small-group context.
As Bormann explained, “Fantasies that begin in small groups often are worked
into public speeches, become picked up by mass media and ‘spread out across
larger publics.’” 16 Once attuned to the basic concepts of SCT, these scholars spot-
ted swirling batches of related fantasy themes and types in all sorts of commu-
Rhetorical vision
symbolic reality.
composite drama that catches up large groups of people into a common symbolic
reality.” 17 He called the wide-ranging body of people who share that reality a
rhetorical community .
The majority of research conducted using SCT has been aimed at capturing
the rhetorical visions of dispersed rhetorical communities and fi guring out how
their communication created their unifi ed fantasies. Researchers don’t have the
benefi t of sitting in a room with the whole community while waiting for a fan-
tasy to chain out as evidence of a fantasy theme. So Bormann and his colleagues
developed a procedure called fantasy theme analysis to discover fantasy themes
Fantasy theme analysis is a specifi c type of rhetorical criticism that’s built on two
basic assumptions. First, people create their social reality—a premise shared by
many interpretive theorists (see Chapters 5, 6, 12, and 13). Second, people’s
meanings, motives, and emotions can be seen in their rhetoric. So when a dis-
persed community embraces the same rhetorical vision, that’s reality for them.
A rhetorical critic using fantasy theme analysis looks for recurring fantasy
themes in the text. If found, the critic should then discern if these shared fanta-
sies are woven together into a rhetorical vision. In addition to using the basic
SCT concepts already discussed, Bormann suggested that the critic look for at
2. Plot lines: Do characters act in a way consistent with the rhetorical vision?
impact?
I’ll describe a fantasy theme analysis of Internet websites to show how these
tools can reveal a rhetorical vision and show how it’s created and sustained
For those who are anorexic and/or bulimic, the world of face-to-face commu-
12-step programs extend social support to those who want to overcome their
disease, not all people with food disorders want to change. The Internet offers
hundreds of pro-eating disorder websites where those who resist recovery can
rejected by the cultural norm and what elements contribute to creating this
worldview.” 19 She chose the 12 most active pro-food disorder sites for her
analysis. The message boards on the three most popular sites—Blue Dragon
methodology of SCT.
Fantasy types are an SCT category midway between specifi c fantasy themes
and an overall rhetorical vision. McCabe found that two contrasting fantasy types
emerged in her analysis—a positive one and a negative one. She labeled the positive
fantasy type “The humorous world of Ana and Mia.” Within this world, fantasy
chains reinforce site users’ eating habits and shared reality. Across the message
Members depict their own goals, struggles, and emotions through the personifi ca-
tion of Ana and Mia. Anorexia and bulimia are given life and attributed human-
like emotions and qualities, which are justifi ed by the sanctioning agent, humor.
The most favorable depiction is a girl named Ana (anorexia), who represents the
goal of the group, the idolization of perfection in this reality. Perfection is about
having self-control and being thin. Personifi ed through Ana is a yearning for being
Message-board users write about Ana as their hero. (“Ana knows what to say to
make me feel better.” 21 ) They also confess lapses and seek her forgiveness. (“Dear
Ana, I am sorry that I failed you. . . . Not only did I fail you but I binged.”)
Unlike Ana, Mia (bulimia) isn’t seen as perfect. Her role in the drama is to
stir up the emotions users feel as they struggle to get down to the elusive perfect
weight. Site users rarely describe Mia in positive terms. One post complains,
“Mia is SO loud and annoying . . . my Mom heard Mia because she can’t keep
her [stinking] mouth shut!” Yet other messages reluctantly suggest Mia is needed.
“Sometimes she is all right . . . she lets me eat . . . keeps my body pure.” The
represents the social norm of moderation and recovery from addiction. McCabe
explains why he’s so feared: “Members not only try to avoid ED for fear of
recovery but the group knows that accepting ED means a loss of community and
where high-risk dieters aren’t hassled. Despite the lurking presence of ED, who
reminds everyone of another reality “out there,” this positive fantasy type is a
closed world where anorexics and bulimics feel safe. McCabe sees humor as the
sanctioning agent that makes this constructed reality legitimate for site users. The
that validates what these users are doing, saying, and living.
“Surviving encounters with The Real World,” a distressing place for those who
visit these websites. McCabe notes that almost all users log on to get tips on
“safe” foods and how to hide their eating habits and symptoms from friends and
family. The scene of the struggle in “the real world” is almost always part of this
I hate coming home at night. . . . I am with Ana all day and I cannot eat . . . but
when I get home Ana stays at the door and I just binge.
How can I live with Mia if we are sharing community bathrooms in our dorm?
McCabe doesn’t explicitly address plot lines in her fantasy theme analysis,
but from her rich description two plots seem paramount. The fi rst is acting in
plot is doing whatever one has to do to keep the extent of this obsession with
McCabe concludes that the rhetorical vision of the pro-eating disorder com-
munity is the uneasy coexistence of these two contrasting fantasy types— The
humorous world of Ana and Mia and Surviving encounters with The Real World. She
writes, “The rhetorical vision shared by this group is the effort to maintain a
disease within settings where their belief is challenged and get back to the state
probably thought about its implications for a group in which you take part. No
matter what your role in the group, Bormann offered the following advice: 24
• When the group begins to share a drama that in your opinion would con-
tribute to a healthy culture, you should pick up the drama and feed the
chain.
igniting a chain reaction, but the fantasy may take an unexpected turn.
Bormann and his followers have also used fantasy theme analysis to improve
ion. To illustrate the pragmatic value of the methodology, John Cragan (Illinois
students in their applied research classes to analyze the way that high school
seniors talk about college. They fi nd that most rhetorical visions employ one of
matic vision. 25
academic excellence, the reputation of its faculty, and special programs that it
offers. Those who adopt a social vision view college as a means of getting away
from home, meeting new friends, and joining others in a variety of social activi-
ties. High school seniors who buy into a pragmatic vision are looking for a mar-
ketable degree that will help them get a good job. (What was your vision when
you entered college?) Knowledge of these distinct visions could help admissions
offi cers at your school develop a strategy to appeal to high school students who
would most appreciate the character of their campus. That knowledge could also
help you fi gure out if you’re at a school that can best meet your needs.
Ernest Bormann claimed that symbolic convergence theory is both objective and
creates symbolic convergence— is framed as a universal principle that holds for all
people, in any culture, at any time, in any communication context. 26 Defi nitely
undeniably interpretive. Perhaps this unusual mix has stimulated many of the
1,000 original research studies that have examined and applied the theory over
the last 40 years. 27 Bormann wryly noted that one positive result from SCT has
empiricists.” 28 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’ll single out four of these benchmarks for
further discussion.
1. A good objective theory explains what occurs and why it happened. The concept
Even though group leaders urge members to speak one at a time and stick to the
digressions and boisterous talk aren’t signs of a fl awed process; rather, they are
evidence that the group is chaining out a fantasy and developing a group con-
aimed at making the theory better, he contends that “SCT does not suffi ciently
explain why humans are predisposed to dramatizing reality and sharing fantasy
2. 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 cohe-
siveness. But as discussed earlier in the chapter, SCT researchers have had little
Bormann noted that uncertainty about the future isn’t bothersome in other sci-
An evolutionary theory can explain the way modern humans evolved from earlier
humanoid individuals. But, such theories cannot predict the future path of evolu-
sary and suffi cient set of causes to explain the discovered communication patterns.
For an evolution theory the dynamic may be the survival of the fi ttest. For SCT the
3. A good interpretive theory clarifi es 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. 31
One concern is an ideology of convergence. The terms that describe its effects—
common ground, 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
ignores issues of power within groups. For example, do all members of a group
benefi t equally when a fantasy chains out? Does an inside joke become a symbolic
cue at the expense of one of the members? A fi nal concern is about the way
come across as confl ict-free, differences among members are ignored, and there’s
little discussion of the inner tension a member feels when the multiple rhetorical
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. 32 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 of male dominance. Think how
language. With that lens in place, fantasy theme analysts uncover rhetorical
fantasy theme analysis, I gain a greater appreciation for the fascinating diversity
1. As a rhetorically sensitive scholar, Bormann defi ned SCT terms carefully. Can
you distinguish the difference between dramatizing messages and fantasies? Do you
Could this be said of most social science theories? Bormann regarded the charge
as a compliment. 33 Can you fi gure out why he was pleased rather than offended?
3. Bormann insisted that SCT is an objective theory that’s valid any time and in
any culture, but that its methodology, fantasy theme analysis, is interpretive. Do
search for truth. Now I want to fi nd a good fantasy.” 34 Based on what you’ve
read, does this slogan refl ect the symbolic world of SCT advocates? Does it refl ect
yours?