Com310 Wk1 Dq2 Various Responses

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...