Objective

CHAPTER

terpretive

Socio-cultural tradition
Phenomenological tradition

Coor dinated Management

tf Meaning rcM

of w, Bqrnett pearce r vernon Cronen

Barnett Pearce (The Fielding Graduate
University) and vernon Cronen
vrvtL.rt (Uni'ert-"tt*..
sity of Massachusetts) beriwe that communication
is
collectively create the events and objects of
our socia

:::ilr""*g.management
tn-conaersation

ofmean-giCMMy, starts

wit

the

0/7s_

co-construct their own social re:altties and

are simultaneousty shal:ei bt/
the worlds they create. stated another
way, every conversation has un oltrrtip',.
Tomorrow's social reality is the afterlife
of ho*'*. interact today. That,s wh1,
Pearce and Cronen find it useful to
ask, what are we making together? Hout nrc
iuc
making it? How can we make better social
worlds?
First introduced in 192g, cMM has evolved
in at least three distinct, yet
compatible, directions. pearce and Cronen
have always regu.i"J aMM-;, ."
interpretiae theory' In 1998.they also
began to refer to ii as a critical tlteory-or
at
least one with a critical edge. And since
the mid-1990s, pearce and Cronen have
emphasized that cMM is a practicnl theory.
Because *ori ..rrr.nt research and
writing about the theory focuses on its uiefulness
in analyzing and improving
communication, I'll start by describing its
pragmatic side.

CMM AS A PRACTICAL THEORY_STORIES

FROM THE FIETD
Pearce and Cronen prese
life better for real people
cation theory should offer
patterns of interaction,-ide
should suggest ways to
offers a wide array of
pists, mediators, social wo
as they seek to assist others.
of the theory in practice.

67

6B

INTERPERSONAt COMMUN/CATION

Cultural Belief:

Diagnosis is important; our behavior toward our son

should differ depending on whether he has Asperger,s
syndrome or not.

Diagnosis:

Son does not have

Asperger's syndrome.

\\

Relationship:

Demanding, impatient

Episode:

FICURE
Courtesy

+
6-1

oiW

Son's symptoms
increase.

A Strange Loop of Diagnosis and Behavior

Barnett Pearce

Family Therapy
From lohn Butnham, clnsulttnt
famity therapist, Parkaiew Clinic, Birmingham,
England

A father and mother came to me to talk about their 14-year-old son who was
diagnosed with Asperger's
the session it hit me that t
pattern of behavior that CM
accepted the diagnosis of A
sionate, patient, and forgivi
improved to such an extent
their altered belief they beg
deteriorated, which led them to think, This
strange toop
An unr,vanted repetitive \iVhen I described this never-ending loop,
communication pattern- turned on. As long as they treated the ques
"Darn, we did it again." the family continued to retrace the
closed-c
gram of the loop that they were in helped me suggest a different question: IMaf
ith your son? By focusing on what they were making
their son had or didn't have, their chances of escapin[
ased. This approach worked well for the parents and

t"l

with each other. Th",

th"r.,to
behaaior ns Asperger's, and wh

in my work with other fami

a specific mental disorder. I
labeling a disease has signi

Mediation
From lonathan Shailor, professor of communication, lJniaersity of Wisconsin-parl<side

In my mediation work, I act in the roles of practitioner,

researcher, and
trainer. In all of these roles I use the CMM concept bf levels of meaning to
tease
out disputants' and mediators' constructions of episodes, relationships, iientities,

CHAPTER 5: COORD/NATED MAN AGEMENT OF MEANING rcMM)

and cultural patterns. For example, what story does she tell about the episode
that answers the question, Why did we clme to mediation? What story does she
voice about her relationship wrlh the other disputant? How does she construct
her identity? Do cultural narratiaes come into play?
Peter and Anne were a young couple who fell into a pattern of angry fighting, which culminated with Anne obtaining a restraining order that forced
Peter to move out of the apartment. A judge approved the order on the condition that the couple participate in mediation and then return to court for further
review. In the mediation session, Peter framed this sequence as the story of
"Anne's betrayal," a detailed series of events in which Anne's actions were
interpreted as attacks and cold-blooded manipulations. Peter explained his
own actions as necessary acts of self-defense, ignoring all other aspects of their
relationship.
Anne constructed an autobiographical narratirre that linked her history of
family abuse with her sense of being "endangered" by Peter. In that context, a
continued relationship with Peter was seen as dangerous. For Anne, any agreement in mediation that might compromise her physical or economic security
would define her as a "victim."
Peter demanded that Arure pay for the rent during the two weeks that he was
prevented from living in the apartment. This demand made sense, of course,
within the subsystem of contextual meanings that Peter had assembled. But Anne
interpreted this demand within her own subsystem of meanings and was determined not to play the part of the victim. Her refusal to pay confirmed Peter's
construction of Anne as his persecutor and obligated him to press for retribution
by looking for concessions on other issues, which she then refused, and so on.
After the mediation was over, CMM helped me describe to the two mediators
the reflexive process of action and interpretation that they were co-constructing
with Peter and Anne. By focusing their attention on the disputants' enactments
of episodes, relationships, identities, and cultural patterns, I was able to help
them see how mediator communication can either open up or shut down opportunities for empowerment.4

Cupertino Community Project

From W. Barnett Pearce and Kimberly A, Pearce, Public Dialogue Consortiunt
In1996, the Public Dialogue Consortiums approached the city manager of
Cupertino, California, aqd offered to introduce a productive form of communication to discuss the most pressing issue within the community-etluilc diaersity. Many residents privately described race relations as a "powder keg
waiting to go of.f ," yet were unwilling to speak of it publicly for fear of providing the spark.
Our task was to change the form of communication, showing people that
they could hold onto and express their deeply held convictions in a form of
communication that promoted reciprocal understanding. The first phase of the
project consisted of structuring situations in which people with all sorts of
views could speak in a manner that made others want to listen, and listen in
a way that made others want to speak. We call thrs dialogic communication.When
key members of the community gained confidence in this type of communication, it was time to focus on specific issues. Working with the city government
and an independent crtizens' group, we invited all community members to a

70

INIERPE

R5

ON,4I COMM UNICATION

ity to discuss the way Cuper_

immersion program in the
multicultural Fourth of July
ed of numerous small_group discussions
Each facilitator received at ieast 10
hours

accomplish this task, we trained each f

cial event in which unusual forms of
neuhal by actively aligning oneself wit
Dialogic communication
Conversation in which
people speak in a manner that makes others
want to listen, and listen
in a ivay that rnakes oth_
crs want to speak.

m. The city manager interpreted

"working through. the issue and
fact of life.,,
rticularly well served by CMM,s insis_
rearfirmed that dialogue requires

'..,.ur,.,,I[

tTi^:?.T:'"f

;il'.".'i"i#*:']{:

open to others who are unlike us, and

les from professionals who use CMM
back to these stories throughout the
of the theory that anyone cin use to

CMM AS AN INTERPRETIVE THEORY_PICTURINC

PERSONS.IN.CONVERSATION
The cMM users who tell these stories
refer to themselves as social constructionists.
From their stories you can spot that
they share the core conviction that our
social
environment is not something we find
or discover. Instead, we create it.
Social constructionists
Language theorists who
believe that persons-inconversation coconstruct their own
social realities and are
si

nru I taneously shaoed

by the worlds ihey

create.

'

As was
stated at the start of the chapiea they're
convinced that persons-in-conversation
co-construct their own social realiiies
and are simultaneously shapea uy 1r.
worlds they create.
Figure 6-2 presents artist M. c. Escher,s
1955 lithog raph Bond of r.Jnion,
which strikingly illustrates cMM notions
about persons-in-conversation. The
unusual drawing ilrustrates the following
tenets oi the ti"ory,

The experience of persons-in_conversation

Ihuman
is
life.

Pearce says that this core concept

r
intellectual view of ,,communication
as an odorless,
that is interesting or important only when
it is
He sees the ribbon in Escher,s clrawin
It jsn't just oneli in. activiries
other end. on the contrary, their commr"i.uiio"
ilrrily forms who they are
and creates their relationship. In that
sense, commu rication is performative-it
does something to them qrrit. up^rt
from the issue *r*y,r" discussing. The

".;;j,s;T'JJ

,nf,#::j.T1ffi#::n

CH A PT E R 6: COORDIN,AT ED MAN AGEME NT oF MEANIN G

FIGURE
O 20l 0

6-2

rcMM)

71

M. C. Escherts Bond of lJnion

C. Escher Company,

Holland AIJ rights resen,ed.

r,r,n,r,r, escher

com

Cupertino Community Project radically altered the face of the communitv not
by changing what citizens wanted to talk about, but by changing the
fornt oi their
communication.

2. The way people communicate is often more important than the content of
what they say. The mood and manner that persons-in-conversation adopt plays
a large role in the social constructio.r p.o."si. Pearce points out that the faces irr
Bond of Union have no substance; they consist in the twists and turns of the
spiraling ribbon:
Were the ribbon straightened or tied in another shape, there would be no loss of
matter, but the faces would no longer exist. This image works for us as a model

of

the way the process of communication (the ribbon) creates the events and objc.cts
of our social worlds (the faces) not by its substance but bv iis forn.,.e

The parties in mediation, therapy, or ethnic disputes are often stuck in a

destructive pattern of interaction. They call each othei racists, liars, or jerks; they
describe the other person's actions as criminal, cruel, ot crazy. Since pearce
regards language as "the single most powerful tool that humans have ever
invented for the creation of social worlds,"lO he thinks it's tragic when people in
conflict are caught up in a language game that they are bound to lose. MRI'scans
show that interpersonai distress affects the brain tire same way as a punch in the
stomach.ll
CMM theorists speak of a logic of meaning and action that is made in thc
give-and-take of conversation. Consider this ali-too-familiar sequence: You say

72

/NTE RPERSONA L COMMLINICATION

e makes you feel that you must instruct

Logical force
The moral pressure or
sense of obligation a per-

son ieels to respond in a

given way to what someone else has just said or

clone-"1 had no
choice."

don't feel that I should take instruction

e not qualified to have an opinion on
cts with your self-concept as an intelligent, knowledgeable person, so you lash oui with a bitter insult.
In just
five turns, we've moved into an escalating pattern in which we are .o-p.ii.,g
to see who can say the most hurtful things to the other. By this time,
the
original topic of conversation is irrelevant, We can continue this feud forever,
fueled only by the logicat force of the int
that has us in its grip. When informecl
tants, and teachers become attuned to
ated by the way the turns ln a conve
understanding, they are equipped to intervene, breaking the
destructive cycle
and creating an oPPortunity for better patterns of comriunication
to emerge.

3'

Reflexivity
The process by which the
eifects of our words and
actions on others bounce
back and affect us.

The actions of persons-in-conversation are reflexively reproduced

as the
interaction continues. Refl
ctions have effects that bounce
back and affect us. "An ?
en also acts upon the person
who performed it."i2 The
of lJnion loops back to'reform
both people. If Escher's figures were in conflict, each person
would be wise to
ask, "rf I win this argument, what kind of person willi become?,,
Escher's spheres.suspended in space .u., b" seen as worlds
or planets of the
social universe that is also co-constructed by the intertwined
actors. ,,when we
communicate," writes Pearce, "we are not just talking about the
world, we are
literally participating in the creation of the social univJrse.,,l, Fo,
y"u.r,irrrriro.,
mentalists have stressed that we have to live in the world that
#e p.od.r.". by
folling the air we breathe, we pollute the quality of our lives-as residents
of
Mexico City and those who live and work tn the shore of the
Gulf of Mexico
know all too well. In like fashion, Pearce and Cronen are social ecologists
who
alert us to the long-terirr effects of our communication practices.
Do the persons-in-conversation sh
creating the social universe in which the
who went to the family therapist to d
probably not. Yet that's the task that CM
to get people to first ask and then answer the question, what are we making
together?

4'

As social constructionists, CMM researchers see themselves as curious

participants in a pluralistic world. They are curious because they
think it,s
with individuals acting out their lives
ipants rather than spectators
what they study. They live
le make multiple truths rather
ond of Union is an apt representation of
persons-in-conversation even when one of the parties is a CtrrtVt
iesearcher.
Pearce regards Australian Ernest StringerG community-based
action research
as a model for doing research. Action reseirch is a ,,colla'borative
upprou.i to
investigation that seeks to engage.community members as
equal ur,d^ frrll pur_
ticipants in the research process,"l4 That research bond
goes way beyond the

CHAPTER 6: COORD/N,ATED MANAGEMEMTOTMEANING

(CMM)

7J

"participant observation,,
Chapter 5). Action research
what's going on. They then
are the way they are. Fin
the better. That's exactly
in Cupertino.
Bond of Union lithograph helps us grasp what Pearce and
Cronen mean
- Th9they
say that persons-in-ionversation io-cbnstruct their own social
yh"l
realities.
But the drawing doesn't show that stories are the basic means
that people use to
Pursue these social joint ventures. Since all of us perceive, think, ur,j liu. o*
lives in terms of characters, roles, plots, and narrative sequences,
CMM theorists
say we shouldn't be surprised that the social worlds we create
take the shape of
story.

CMM AS AN INTERPRETIVE THEORY_STORIES TOLD AND STORIES

LIVED
CMM theorists draw a distinction between stories liued and stories fold.
Stories
lived are the co-constructed actions that we perform with other s.
Coorrjilntiott
takes place when we fit our stories lived into tie stories
lived by others in a way
that makes life better. Stories told are the narratives that *. ,rr.
to r.r,ut. ,.nrl

of stories lived.ls
Pearce and Cronen note that the stories we tell and the
stories we li'e are
always tangled together, yet forever in tension. That's because
one is the stuff
of language and the other
man can envision being fas
buildings in a single boun
ness of other people impo
Pearce and Cronen label their theory the mnnagement of meaning;
we,re obliged
to adjust our stories told to fit the iealities of Lrr stories lived-or
vice versa.
They put the term coordinatt
these adjustments through
as well as interpretive theor
and coordinate those word
create is one in which they can survive and thrive. Pearce
and Cronen use CMM/s
concepts and models as ways of displaying the complexity
of communication
processes' Each layer of complexity provides a potential
opening for strategic
action.

Hierarchy of meaning
A rank order of the
relative significance of

contexts-episode, relationship, identity, and

culture-that encompass
a given story as an aid to

interoretation.

Making and Managing Meaning Through Stories Told

The stories we tell are open to many interpreta
variety of communication models to help peop
a conversation. In Figure.6-3, I,ve combined tw
meaning and the serpentine model-tnto r single
to think of this hierarchical-serpentine model
communication process taking place in Escher's Bond of l_Inion.
is the central act
. According to the hierarchy mod
of communication, b.ut every story
iple contexts, or
frames. No matter what the speaker
will make sense

74

/NTERPERSONA L COMML/N/CATION

ANNE
CuJture

FICURE

only

Speech act

6-3

Hierarchical-serpentine Model

if they are understood within the

tionship between the parties, the self_izl

tional or societal cLtltLffe from which he
equal significance when we try to figu
Pearce suggests we rank-order iheir iriportance
for interpreti.g u specific speech
nct-givtng most weight to the ou"ru..hing frame that encompasses
all others.
y high school seniors talk about ,,The

Any, verbal or nonverbal

mtssage as part

of an
inter.rction; the basic
bLrilciing block of the
soci.rl un iverse people
creatc; threats, promises
insLrlts,

compliments, etc

event has the most importance, there m

equally well as satisfying dates. But if a specific relationship
is what,s most
find other things to do that would be
ertainly less expensive.
four contexts in his analysis of com_

r'in[.|\[.ti[:'ffi: HrtrHil;

serpentine model rererring to the dispute

Peter's speech act in the figure is his story of Anne,s
betrayal told during th"i,
court-appointed mediation.

CH APTER 6: COORDIN,4TED

MANACEMEM

OF

MEANING

(CM,\,f)

Episode. An episode is a sequence of speech acts with a beginning and an

end that are held together by story. Pearce and Cronen say that such sequences
Episode

A "nounable" sequence
of speech acts with a
beginning and an end
that are held together by
story; an argument,

interview, wedding,
mediation, etc.

are "nounable." The noun used to designate an episode should answer the questron, What does he think he's doing? The term mediation labels the episode that
Shailor described. Mediators hope that their participation as a neutral third party
will elicit patterns of speech acts that are part of the solution rather than part of
the problem. But the fact that both Peter and Anne were locked into their separate stories of "betrayal" and "endangerment" suggests that the mediation episode had little impact on the hostile social world they were making.

Relationship. Pearce says that relationships emerge from the dynamic

dance over coordinated actions and managed meanings. And just as punctuation
provides a context for the printed word, the relationship between persons-inconversation suggests how a speech act might be interpreted. This is especially
true for Peter, who is fixated on Anne's betrayal in a way that blots out evervthing else, without exacting some kind of retribution, he can't get on with his
life. As for Anne, the lelationship is important only if it doesn't end. She's in
court to make sure that it does.

Identity. CMM holds that our identity is continually crafted through the
process of communication, and in turn our self-image becomes a context for how
we manage meaning. For Anne, Peter's demand for money is less about their
broken relationship than it is about a potential threat to her self-identity. She's
unwilling to do anything that suggests she is a passive victim. By asking the
judge for a restraining order and refusing to pay rent for the apartment, she sees
herself as actively rewriting her personal life script. Regarding Peter's selfconcept, the story is mute.

Culture. Since the term culture describes webs of shared meanings and
values, people who come from different cultures won't interpret messages
exactly the same way. Although Shailor's mediation story doesn't suggest that
Anne's ethnic or national background differs from Peter's, the history of abuse
in her family of origin makes it difficult for her to make or manage meaning
cooperatively with anyone who hasn't experienced a similar subculture of violence. Peter doesn't seem able to relate to her background of physical and ver-

bal

abuse.

The two identical sets of concentric ellipses on the left side of Figure 6-3
display my perception of Anne's hierarchy of meaning. The all-encompassir.ig
concern for her personal identity relegates the other contexts to lesser importance. As for Peter, I see his fixation with their relationship as the overarching
frame that encompasses all other contexts. My judgment is depicted in the set
of ovals on the right-hand side of the model. The interpretive trick, of course, is
to figure out which context is dominant in any particular conversation. That's
one reason a CMM analysis of communication is more art than science.
The serpentine floru of cotrcersnlion is the othel CMM model blended into Figure 5-3. Similar to Eschev's Bond of lJnion, the diagram suggests that what onc
person says affects-and is affected by-what the other person says. The contexts
for what they're saying co-evolve even as they speak. So it's foolish to try to interpret Anne's first message, because we don't know what was said before. It's equally
hard to decipher the meaning of Anne's second message because we don't know
what follows, As the parents in family therapy suddenly grasped, any comment

76

lNTER PER 5 ON

A L CO M

LIN

ICATION

d\Voru

qwd

fln

HODbF

il
OLL\.$bLL\ (

BUT
H\T lOJ NIIH THE
CAL\\N BALt J \OU I{AVE TO
PUI T\{E FTAG BACK AND

hrri${(Gy \HEVJ

S\NG'T\{I IM

uNlP-BUMr FIZZI

NO \OU \dERNT.
TO\K1{ED TIIE'OPRFI

DONT

IIA{E TO

hLE';

SING THE

YER\ SORRI"

SO}\GJ

SONG

So Tr{E'No
ZONE'\S NSN

A'sor.{G

YIAS IN

zoNEl

THE'NO

SoNG.
ZoNE.I

.'HEPS

D\DN\ SEE

\ou

To,J(H THE

OPhs\TE POLEI
YOtt t1ry'.
DEALAR.E

to

\I/

.\ER{

I
r

TI{E
SORR\

KNEN

tr/

..... I{ES SORR{.'

,,.,, sa soRR.Y./

I't'\ \ER\ YER1 JUST DONI DO \r

$RR'{ TI{AT
5r't }'loRE, {oU

$NGG:vtON\

lut

BLEN \T,'

rtr.r_p mro

TSK

SING ALONGG3"

\OUR

SCUR\\

PRKu)S FLM6C,6/ RALAV{MCG6/

6M-v
IS,TU\TS NHAT
$IE DID LAST
n!1E, REIGI'\BER?

cK,THE rVEl
RULE

\5

\.{E

TUE CI{L\

hAVE TO JUMP

PEI(MANENT
RULE IN

E\ER\N\{NE

CAL\INBAIt

UNI\L SOIIE.

]HAT \OU

CNE F\IIDS

RA\
SAME

I}IE S{ORE \S
SI\LL q TO 12.'
15

CAN1

IT IHE.

M\

CALVIN & HOBBES 1990 o watterson Distributecl by Universal uclick.

Used by permission. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER 6: COORD/NATE

D MANAGEMENTi

OF MEANTN G

rcMM)

about their son's mental health was both

the result and the cause of other statements within the family' Perhaps this is
the most strrrcnj feature
,.rf*ti^.
model; it leaves no rooln for isolated acts
"r,n.
of speech. Ev&ything in
a conversation
is connected to everything else. understandi"t
h;;
oit-,.., make and manage
meaning is possibre onr when we perceive
the flow of conversation.
D9 yot' get the imp
hierarchical-serpentine
.
moder that even
a brief conversation is
so, pearce wourd be
;i',Ti'lll,',",il:t:; :l;;o^.il.1,:,S,'j
declarative sentence what a statement
means-even when it,s your own statement' For that reason, pearce frnds it difficult
to giu;; straight answer when
someone in a discussion asks him, "What
does tiat meunz,, Consistent with
thinking, he's tempted to reply, "I'm not
completely sure yet. we haven,t
9MY
tr
finished our conversation.,,ll

prei

Coordination
The process by which
persons collaborate in an

attempt to bring into being their vision o{ whal is

necessary/ noble, and
good and to preclude the
enactment of what they
fear, hate, or despise.

Coordination: The Meshing of Stories Lived

According to CMM, coordination refers to
the ,,process by which persons cor_
laborate in an attempt.to bring into being
their vision of what is necessary, noble,
and good and to preclude the enactm.it.of
what they fear, hate, or despise,,,r8
This intentional meshing of stories lived
does ,-ro, ..q,]t. people to reach agree,
ment on the meaning of their joint action.
They .un'a..la. to coordinate their
behavior without shiring u .o^.no.r interpretation
of th.
For exampre,
conservative activists and radical feminists
"u.r,t,
could temporarily
join forces i; ;-_
test a pornographic mwie. Although they
have dir.*p;;iviews of social justice
and different reasons fo' condemirng the
film, they might agree on a unified
course of action. As the Caluin and Hoibas
cartoon onin.'fr"urous page suggests,
parties can coordinate effectively without
much mutual ,.,de.staiJr?;.-""'
Pearce uses the phrase coordination withottt
coherence to refer to people
cooperating, but for quite different reasons.
sarah,s application r"g i".r-Mv
provides a striking example:
cMM suggests that people may synchronize their
actions even if they dorr,t share
the other's motives. This was the case
with my core group of friends i. higir
school. our group consisted of Corin-a
gay atheist, st.pt,uny-a non_practicing
Jewish girl, Ariza-a devout Jewish girl, and me-a
christian. we ail abstaineci
from drinking, drugs, and sex, but the reasons
for our behavior were extremelv

different.

. Like many others who are fascinated with human interaction, cMM theorists
enjoy descriptions of rules for meaning
and action that are created in fanrilies,
organizations, and culfyre.s (see chapters
14, 20, and33). In right of the wav real
groups of people coordinate their actions
without a great amo;, ;;;;"i;;.,;:,
standing, Calvin and Hobbes' game of "CarvinballY
doesn,t look that strange.
CMM AS A CRITICAL THEORY-SPOTTINC
HARMFUT AND HELPFUL COMMUNICATION

simply describing patterns

ing how people interpret the

78

rNrERpERsoN ALCIMMUNTcATION

"providing a way of urtelligently joining

into the activity of the world so as to
enrich it'"20 If any of .r, ot.i.-ited to Jismiss
the significance of helping others
coordinate the way they talk wiih each othe4
CMM reminds us that communication has the power to create a social universe
of
malice_
or one of community, tolerance, and generosi
of CMM
separates communication styles that are
harmful
elpful.
Naming Destructive patterns of communication:
offering a Better way
As an example of where
polarization of the electorate
of communication patterns
that what former president
duced and sustained by pa
the other.22 The presidentis
set the tone. The speech,
effects of the terrorist att
world."23 A CMM view of
suggests that both sides are
of the universe. yet it,s no
likely to resolve the conflict.
sadness at what he perceive
ter place, Pearce wrote an al
made that evening. A pcrti

If we are to understand why people hate us so

much, we will have to understand
how the world looks from their perspective.
And if we are to respond effectively to

protect ourselves, we must understand

those whose sense of history and purpose
are not like our own.
It is tempting to see this vicious attack as the
result of madmen trying to
destroy civilization, and our response as
a war of " good,, against ,,ev1.,, But
if we
are to understand what happened here
today, and ii we are to act effectively
in the
days to come, we must develop more
sophisticatea ,to.i", inur",
worrd, about our prace in it, and about the
consequences of our actions.
This is a terrorist attack. If we are in a state
of war, it is a different kind of war
than we have ever fought
try or meeting our armies

*.* *"1,n.

dence, to disrupt our way

way we respond to the atro
mg revenge' to lash out at those who have
injured us so, is almost surely the wrong
response because it makes us accomplices
of what they are trying to
achieve.2a

COSMOPOLITAN COMMUNICATION_DISAGREE,
YET COORDINATE
As a remedy to unsatisfactor
rists advocate an uncommo
social world where we can li
three decades, pearce has use
style he values. He started
applied to individuals, the la

CHAPTER 6: COORD\IIATED MANAGEMEAIOFMEAN/N

Cosmopolitan
communication
Coordination with others
who have different backgrounds/ values, and
beliefs, without trying to
change them.

rcM)A4)

7g

of cosmopolitan communication,

pearce

ay that Jewish philosopher Martin Buber

dialogic communicntlon,,involves remain
own perspective while being prof
could be dangerous. As happened
that will change what we thrnk, or

ETHICAL REFLECTTON: MARTTN BUBER,S

DrAtocrc

ETHrcs

Martin Buber was a^.G:.ill Je_wish philosopher

and theologian who immigrated
to Palestine before worrd war II and dred in
1965. His ethicaiapproach

f;.;:;;

relationships between people rather than

on moral codes of conhuct. ,,In the
ning is the relation," Buber wrote. "The relation
is the

u.g*".

.."di;^;;;.;.ri',i..,Ii'

tionships-I-If versus l-Thou. in arr t_lt

way to maintain

see
v

object to be
ality. parties
' Deceit is a

appearances.
:1

H:';ir:ffiJli"';:L:fiJ:fi:.T:

ur own end. This impries that we will seek

ears to the other person. Buber says we

for ethical communication. Dialogue

is

*tilff';'i[L1,t^#ffiffi.^:ii:li
r ---''

other to be more human Diarogue r,

also a way to discover what is Jthical in
disclosure to, confirmation of, and vuln
Narrow ridge
A metaphor of l-Thou
living in the ciialogic tension betlveen ethical
relativism and rigid absolutism; standing your
own ground while being
protoundly open to the
other.

On
on

nnrrow ridg

#:#;rm,

where rules are etched in stone:

on the far side of the subjective, on this side of the

objective, on the narron,ridse
""b''
where I and rhou meet, there is the rearm
of the

Between.30

"

ethicist Ron Arnett notes that ,,living

fe of personal and interpersonal con_
omplicated existence than that of the
at tension, many interpersonal theorists
to Buber's philosophy. Consistent t,vith
-in-conrrersation co-construct their own
ber's core belief that dialogue is a joint
achievement that cannot Le produced on demand,
yet occurs among peopre who
seek it and are prepared foi it.

80

/NTE

PERSON AL

CO

MM

L]

N ICATION

CRITIQUE: THREE THEORIES, THREE APPRAISALS

Because CMM's.authors now regard it as an interpretive theory, a critical
theory,
and a practical theory, I'il offer three separate critiques. The fiist evaluation

will

use the six standarg: fot arr interpretive theory that I presented in Chapter
3.
My appraisals of CMM as a critical and a praciical theory are based on criteria
set

by others.

An lnterpretive Theory
By offering such analytical tools as the hierarchical and serpentine models of
communication, CMM promotes a better tmderstanding of peopie and of the
social
worlds they create through their conversation. Pearce and Cronen's description
of the ideal cosmopolitan communicator makes it clear that they aalue uriosity,
participation, and an appreciation of diversity rather than the detached, aloof
certainty of someone interacting in a my-way-is-yahweh style.
If reforming society seems a bit of a stretch, recall that 6y teaching residents
to speak in a dialogic way, Pearce and his associates changed the so"cial world
of Cupertino, California. And although many objectivist thEorists ignore or
dismiss CMM because of its social constructivist assumptions, CMM h"as
generated
widespread interest and ncceptnnce within the commuiity of interpretiv.".o*rrrrrnication scholars. Members of ":hat community have investigatedCMM,s models
of communication through a wide range of qualitatiue research-textual and narrative analysis, case studies, interviews, participant observation, ethnography,
and collaborative action research.32
Desp_ite meeting these five standards with ease, lack of clarity
has seriously
.limited
CMM's nesthetic nppeal. cMM has a reputation of being a con_fusing mix
of ideas that are hard to pin down because they're expressed in convoluted language. I'll revisit ttris problem in my analysis of CMM as a practical
theory.

A Critical Theory
Most scholars who work within the critical tradition described in Chapter
4 don,t
consider CMM a critical theory. That's because Pearce and Cronen donit insist
that
poruer is the pivotal issue in all human relationships. San Francisco
State University
communication professor Victoria Chen concedes that she and other CMM
practitioners don't automatically look for who controls a conversation in order
to maintain dominance. But she's convinced that by systematically using the tools CMM
provides, she and others can address unjust power relationshipnih.., they
exist.33
Whether CMM is a viable criticnl theory depends on what that label means
to the one making the judgment. If a critical theory is defined as one that unmasks
how communication can perpetuate the unjusi power imbalances in society,
CMM doesn't make the grade. If the critical category is broad enough to include
a theory that makes clear value judgments about paiterns of .orr,-,ia1i.ation
and
p.romotes the types that rnake better social worlds, then CMM is a worthy
inclusion. By only claiming that cMM has a critical edge, pearce, Cronen, ur-,h
ch.r,
make a reasonable case that CMM shouldn,t be exctuded.

A Practical Theory
Robert Craig proposed that a pragmatic tradition be added to his
original
IhT
list of seven traditions

of communication theory (see chapter 4), he cited C"MM

CHAPTER 6: COORDIN, TF,D MANAGEMEMOFMEANIN

1s

th-e

rcMM)

81

exemplar of practrcal theory.3a He is not alone in that

positive assessment.

In "CMM: A Report from Users,; multiple therapists, mediators,

teachers, and
consultants provide r_ompelling .*urnpi., of how
cMM helps them in their

work. Yet Texas A&M University communical

advocate, adds a note of caution. He warns
of CMM in use isn't sufficient evidence to va
Cronen, and their followers must show how
informed the theory. He adds that researchers need to establish
when CMM tools
are helpful, and when they aren't. There's more work
to be done.35
There's one other hindrance to the theory's widespread
usefulness. When
Pearce asked longtime. CMM practitioners what changes
or additions they
thought should be made to the theory, the most frequent
plea was for userfriendly explanations expressed in easy-to-understand terms.
Th. follo*ing story
from the field underscores why this call for clarity is so crucial:
My counseling trainees often find CMM ideas exciting, but its
language daunting
or too full of jargon. Some trainees connect with the ideas but
f".t

-ort

intimi-

dated by the language and the concepts-diminished in

some way or excl'ded!
One trainee sat in a posture of physically cringing because
she did not understand
This was a competent woman who had src.essfrlly completed

counselor trairins
three years ago and was doing a "refresher" with us. I
don't think she found it too
refreshing at that momeut. CMM ideas would be more useful
if they were a'ailable in everyday language-perhaps.via examples and
storvtellilg. (Gabrielle
Parker, Dance Movement Therapist)36

responds that he can train people to use cMM concepts,

but not b',
. .Pearce
asking them to read. He first asks them to desclibe something
gol,-,g o" ,n tir.i,
lives and then s/zozls them rather than tells them how
to use the ideas and moclels that the theory offers. Because that interactive option
isn't available to us, I,r,e
tried to heed Parker's advice while writing this chapter. Hopefully,
you ha'en,t
cringed' But in order to reduce the wincelactor, i've had to
leave out manv of
the valued terms, tools, and models that are the working
vocabulary of this complex theory' Pearce introduces a full range of these concepts in
Mnkirtr Socittl
Worlds: A Comn,unication Perspectiae, a book he wrote
in a more readable sti,le.
You should know that there are coordinated management
of meaning de'otees who liae CMM rather than simply using the
practical tools it offers. These
folks refer to CMM as uorlduieu), a wny of l,f;, or m Burn.tt pearce
puts it, n f'rrdition of practice. Describing what this rrLeans to them
goes way beyond what I
can accomplish in a first look at cMM But for u .ornpJling
story of ho* cMM
values and ideals have transformed Barnett Pearce's iir.
*i.rl facing imminent
death, read Kim ?eatce's essay cited in the Second Look
section: ,iiying into
Very Bad News: The Use of CMM as Spiritu rl practice.,,

QUESTTONS TO SHARPEN YOUR FOCUS

1'

Socisl constructiorzisfs see themselves as curious participants

in a pluralistic
vsorld' Are you willing to not strive for certainty, a detach.d
p.rrp..tiye, arrd a
singular view of Truth so that you can join them?
2'^ Can yott provide a rationale for placing this chapter on CMM immediatelv
after the chapter on syntltolic tnternctiinisntf

82

lNTERPERS ON AL

CO

M MLIN

C AT I

ON

3.

CMM suggests that we can take part in joint action without shared understanding-coordination without coherence. Can you think of examples from your
own life?

4,

Pearce and Cronen claim that CMM rs a prnctical theory. What consequences do
you foresee had George W. Bush delivered the speech Pearce wrote afrc|r the g
attacks? \Ahat aspects of dialogic commtmication do you see in pearce,s version?

/II

CONVERSATIONS

Vielr.this segment online at

As.you watch my conversation with Barnett pearce, you might think of us

as the persons-in-conversation pictured in Escher's Bond of uiion. What kind
of social world do you see us creatilg as we talk? I like to think that our
of cosmopolitan communication. If so,
d this kind of talk contagious? At one
n Your Focus" query about how social
certainty, objectivity, and tuth. I then
agree with Pearce's response and the

ivt'w mhhe com/griffin8 or

rvlvu' afirstlook.com

A SECOND LOOK

Recommended resottrce: W. Barnett Pearce, Making Social Worlds:

spectiae, Blackwell, Malden,

MA,

A Communication per-

2008.

Brief orteruiezu uith extended exnmple: W. Barnett Pearce, "The Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM)," in Tlreorizing About Intercultural Communicntlon, William
Cudykunst (ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2004, pp.35-54.

Enrly stntement of tlrcory; W Barnett Pearce and Vernon E. Cronen, Communication,

Action, nnd Meaning: The Crention of socinl Renlities, praegeq, New york, 19g0; also www,
cios.org / www / opentext.htm.
Deuelopment of n three-in-one theory: W. Barnett Pearce,

"Evolution and tansformation:

A Brief History of CMM and a Meditation on What Using It Does to lJs," in Making Liaes
nnd Making Menning: ReJlectiue, Fncilitatiae, nnd lnterpretatiae Practice of the Coordinated
Management of Meaning (tentative title), C. Creede, B. Fisher-Yoshida, and p. Gallegos
(eds.), in press.
Social construction: W. Barnett Pearce, "Communication as Social Construction:
Reclaiming Our Birthright," in Socially Constructing Communication, GIoriaJ. Galanes and
Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz (eds.), Hampton, Cresskill, NJ, 2009, pp. 33-56.
Coordinntion nnd coherence; W. Barnett Pearce, Communication and the Human Condition,

Southern Illinois University, Carbondale , IL, 1989, pp. 32-87.

Intellectual heritage: Vernon E. Cronen, "Coordinated Management of Meaning: The Consequentiality of Communication and the Recapturing of Experienc e," inThe Consequmtinlity
of Commttnicntion, stuart srgman (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1995, pp. r74s.
Peacemnking: W. Barnett Pearce and Stephen W. Littlejohn, Mornl Conflict: When Social

Worlds Collide, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,7997.

Dialogic commtLnicntion: V,l. Barnett Pearce and Kimberly A. Pearce, "Combining passions and Abilities: Toward Dialogic Virtuosity," Southern Communicntion
Vol. 65,
2000,

pp. 161-175.

lournal,

CHAPTER 6: COORDINATED MANAGEMEMf

oFMEANIN G rcMM)

Buber's dialogic ethics: Martin Buber,

New York,

I and rhou,2nd ed., R. G. Smith (trans.),

1958.

scribner.,

reaiew of CMLI:J. Kevin Barge and W

Barnett pearce, ,,A Reconnaissance of
^- _-Research
CMM Research," Human Systents, Vot. tS, ZOO+
pp.

13_32.

CMM as a critical theory: victoria chen, "The Possibility

of Critical Dialogue in the T6eory of coordinated Management of Meamng
," Htunan sys,tems, vor. 15, 2004, pp. 179_192.

CMM

as a practicar theory:
J.

Human Systems, Vol. 15, 2004,

as a way of rifc:

-cMM
as spiritual

Kevin Barge, ,,Articulating cMM as a practical

rheorv,,

pp.

193_204.

Kimberly pearce, "Living into Very Bad News:

The Use of cMM

Practice," in Making Liaes and Making-Mraning,

Reflectiue, Facilitatiae , orttl lrttcrpretatiae Practice of th1
Management of Menning (tentative title),
C Creede,
_Coordinated
B. Fisher-Yoshida, and p.
Gallegos (eds.), in
press.

tha

i,,us

tra,.

a,ff ::i.i :l";il:l'J.T ffi T: :1,il ff :::r';'il:"

ruww.

alir stl ook. cont.

Res o u rc

es a t