Symbolic Convergence Theory - Criticism of SCT

Criticism of SCT

Bormann, the theorist behind SCT, a past professor of communication at University Minnesota, claimed that SCT is both objective and interpretive theory. SCT is often praised and even considered a bit unusual because it meets both criteria for being both objective and interpretive.

This theory is objective because it focuses on sharing group fantasies that create symbolic convergence which is framed as a universal principle that holds true for all people regardless of the time, culture, and communication context. Below are four of the tests that can be interpreted for SCT on an objective side.

1. A good objective theory explains what occurs and why it happens. This theory give a great explanation of what makes sense to a group discussion and how. It can help us make sense of a chaotic group discussion when group members speak at one time or go off on verbal tangents.However, Boston College communication professor James Olufowote doesnt 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. Although SCT covers most of this critique, Bormann says, "SCT does not sufficiently explain why humans are predisposed to dramatizing reality and sharing fantasy in the first place.".

2. A good objective theory predict what's going to happen. SCT clearly achieves this portion of qualifying to be an objective theory. SCT can predict that when a fantasy chain erupts among members, symbolic convergence will occurs as well. Without this chain eruption, there will no be cohesiveness within the group. Although SCT can predict a fantasies will happen, it cannot predict when dramatizing message will trigger a chain reaction. Bormann compared SCT as similar to Darwin's biological theory of evolution in that respect.The theory even suggests that without shared fantasies, there will be no cohesiveness. An evolutionary theory can explain the way modern humans evolved but cannot predict the further path of evolution. SCT involves a group consciousness through time and include a description of the dynamic forces that provide an explanation to discovered communication patterns but not when they will happen.

3. A good interpretive theory clarifies people's values. SCT highlights the values of rhetorical community by creating a common ground, meeting of minds and empathic communication. This theory does not explain what happens when someone that is ignored is left out or excluded from the group because people don't mesh well when they are ignored.

4. A good interpretive theory offers a new understanding of people. The SCT method does a great job of directing rhetorical critics to focus on symbolic language. Fantasy theme analyst focus on the rhetorical visions within varied communities such as a feminist critique looking for patterns of male dominance and how pro-eating disorder messages influence those in that community.

The methods of determining fantasy themes, types, and visions create a humanistic approach that is interpretive.

One point that SCT lacks is to allow for predication and control of human communication.