The term convergence is defined by Kincaid (2009) as "movement toward one point, toward another communicator, toward a common interest, and toward greater uniformity, never quite reaching that point." This last point - never quite reaching that point - is what distinguishes convergence from a singularity. As a popular corollary to US culture, you might consider convergence to be more like the salad bowl metaphor (separate parts, all in an US culture) as compared to the melting pot metaphor (separate peoples all blended together as one US culture).
Why converge at all? Converging to one point helps us create mutual understanding of who were are as a nation and a people - making sense of our borders as less geo-political and more socio-emotional. Kincaid's convergence model was initially meant to address shortcomings of transmission-based models of communication, but we can expand it to look at cultural convergence (a topic address thoroughly by
MIT scientist Henry Jenkins, specifically in reference to social media and mass media "fandom" cultures).
From the reading, we see two tenants of CCT at the aggregate (re: cultural) level:
Theorem 1: In a relatively closed social system in which communication among members is unrestricted, the system as a whole will tend to converge over time toward a state of greater cultural uniformity.
Theorem 2: In a relatively closed social system in which communication among members is restricted, the system as a whole will tend to diverge over time toward a state of greater cultural diversity.
So, when you think about communication so far - in particular, your interactions in Erfurt compared to other cities that we've visited(or that you've visited on your own) while in Europe? How might you define the cultural diversity of each location?
Can you look at the cultural 'openness' and 'closedness' of each system and explain your thoughts about the diversity in each system (or lack thereof)? I'll look forward to your thoughts on this one.
NOTE: The language in the Kincaid reading (below) is a bit tough to follow (including the theorems above), so I might suggest that for your write-up, you might:
- Select two different cities (consider comparing Erfurt to another major city, including a city back home).
- explain how Erfurt and this other city could be understood as more of a "mixing bowl" or a "melting pot" type of culture, by comparing and contrasting the two.
- draw on your understanding of the history and culture of these cities (and perhaps, their larger national history and culture) to explain your comparisons and contrasts.
----------
· The convergence theory of
communication was developed in 1979 by D. Lawrence Kincaid to provide a general
model of communication that would overcome the criticisms and shortcomings of
prevailing models, especially information transmission models such as the one
used in Shannon and Weaver's mathematical theory of
communication. The model represented communication as (a) a process rather than
a single action; (b) sharing or exchange of information rather than one-way
transmission; (c) two or more participants in dialogue; (d) a means to clarify
the confusion between information, knowledge, messages, symbols, and meaning;
and (e) a self-correcting feedback process, defined dynamically as a
diminishing series of corrections that enable communicators to converge on
a goal. The theoretical implications of the convergence model
became readily apparent, leading to theoretical propositions that could be
tested empirically. It also became apparent that convergence, the
general principle underlying the model, is central to many specific theories found
in the field of communication.
Convergence is often mistakenly equated with
consensus. Convergence is movement toward one
point, toward another communicator, toward a common interest, and toward
greater uniformity, never quite reaching that point. It is assumed, for
example, that no two people can ever reach the same meaning for information,
only a greater degree of similarity. In communication, the goal of this
feedback process is mutual understanding, a reduction in the set of all
possible individual understandings to a more limited one that is shared.
The Convergence Model
The latest version of the convergence model
depicts a cyclical, iterative process involving at least two participants.
Participants are connected by sharing the same information with one another.
Information, lying at the central core of the model, is physical—something
endowed with form. Sound waves created by the vocal chords, text messages on
paper or sand, patterns on a television monitor, tone of voice, body language
and position, and so forth are physical phenomena and hence potentially sources
of information for communication. Limiting the concept of information to its
physical manifestation makes it possible to treat it as the means by
which thoughts and meaning are expressed and shared with others. Thoughts and
meaning are defined purely as cognitive phenomena, which are psychological. The
psychological realities toward which communicators converge consist of
perceptions, interpretations, understandings, and beliefs. Emotional responses
to information can affect each one of these cognitive processes. The
relationship formed between participants by sharing information is social. Information
is created and/or shared by the actions of two or more participants, groups,
organizations, or cultures engaged in intergroup, inter-organizational, and
intercultural communication. The collective action of individuals, including
the coordinated actions required for communication itself, is also a source of
information.
Power—the capacity to exercise control over others—is not an inherent
part of communication per se but rather an attribute of the relationship
between participants. To have an effect on communication, power must first be
made apparent by means of information. Physical size, posture, tone of voice,
clothing, titles, signs of wealth, and so forth provide information about the
respective power of each participant. Power can also be communicated by overt
threats of positive and negative sanctions, and ultimately by physical action
(force) itself. Information that reflects power can also induce an emotional
response, such as respect or fear, which in turn is expected to influence the
communication process, increasing the likelihood that the position of the one
with more power will be accepted.
In 2002, Kincaid introduced an extended model that allowed for
divergence and conflict as well as convergence and cooperation.
Communication as convergence or divergence consists of six
phases: (1) a scene-setting phase that creates an
informationally closed system for dialogue; (2) a buildup phase
leading to final positions taken within a common frame of reference (mutual
understanding); and (3) a resolution phase, in which
participants mutually agree on a common position they trust each other to
implement. Mutual understanding helps to ensure each participant's
trustworthiness, but if flaws are revealed in the resolution stage, mistrust
can arise and throw participants back into a new buildup phase with an
increased possibility of (4) a climax phase, when emotion and
reason do not lead to changes in position and mutual understanding, leading to
(5) a conflict phase, in which neither participant will change
and hence must resort to their threatened fallback positions. In the final
(6) resolution phase, either cooperation or conflict is implemented.
If participants agree on a common position that they can trust
each other to implement, then the outcome will be cooperation.
Following this new model, communication is
defined as a process in which two or more participants share information and converge
toward a state of greater mutual understanding and agreement leading to
cooperation or, as explained later in this entry, diverge toward a state of
incompatible viewpoints and disagreement, leading to conflict. Cooperation
requires some minimal level of mutual understanding and agreement. Even when
conflict occurs, communication has still created a state of greater mutual
understanding of each participant's point of view.
Convergence Theory at
the Aggregate Level of Analysis
The most important principle of semantics is that there is no
one-to-one correspondence between symbolic information and its meaning. If that
were the case, a new symbol would be required for every different circumstance
in which communication occurs. There are no perfectly equivalent circumstances,
only variety. Meaning is possible because of variation, and that variation
includes silence and the nonoccurrence of other symbols (e.g., “no” instead of
“yes” or “maybe”). This semantic principle implies that information is a
physical difference (pattern) that affects uncertainty in a situation in which
a choice exists among a set of alternatives. When uncertainty is too high to
permit one to decide (interpret or understand), then additional information is
sought. This feedback process reduces the initial levels of uncertainty
regarding each participant's interpretation and understanding, leading to an
increased level of mutual understanding.
When the convergence model is applied at
the aggregate level of analysis to groups, organizations, and
cultures, then theoretical propositions can be proposed that use formulas for
statistical averages and variances. Here the theory predicts
that when messages constructed with multiple concepts are shared, the average
position of each concept will converge on the statistical center. Thus, the
association of concepts in a message leads to the mutualconvergence of
all concepts toward one another. The average position of a set of measured
concepts of two or more local subcultures that share information is expected to
converge over time toward a global mean. This hypothesis was tested by
measuring the average difference in the multidimensional space of Eastern and
Western cultural values (e.g., individual freedom, saving
face, happiness, success) of Korean immigrants who had lived in Hawaii from 1
to 15 years. During this period, a statistical measure of meaning of successive
Korean immigrant cohorts converged toward that of the host culture in the form
of damped harmonic motion, which is a statistical concept related to changes in
variation. The results were also expressed mathematically as a convergence toward
a state of greater uniformity (less diversity) of values, as measured by the
reduction in the statistical variance.
This work led to the following two complementary convergence theorems
for the aggregate level of analysis of communication in social networks,
groups, organizations, and subcultures in a population:
Theorem 1: In a relatively closed social system in which communication
among members is unrestricted, the system as a whole will tend to converge
over time toward a state of greater cultural uniformity.
Theorem
2: In a relatively closed social system in which communication among members is
restricted, the system as a whole will tend to diverge over time toward a
state of greater cultural diversity.
Homogeneity of information leads to uniformity of belief and
behavior; heterogeneity leads to diversity. For initially diverse subgroups who
share information within a relatively bounded social system, the statistical
variance around the mean of a continuous measure is expected to decrease over
time, as the Korean immigrant case confirmed. If a boundary is imposed between
two groups (restricting information sharing), then the variance of the system
as a whole is expected to increase over time (toward greater diversity)
and simultaneously decrease within each subculture around its
local mean. Boundaries can be created by the lack of interpersonal contact
(social network clustering), by lack of a common language, by the use of
different channels of mass media, and by geographical barriers. Conversely,
with less restricted information sharing, diversity decreases over time (hence,
uniformity increases) [emphasis added].
In 1983, before the theorems were formally proposed, Everett
Rogers and Kincaid measured the diversity of contraceptive behavior among women
in 24 Korean villages. Because contraceptive practice is a discrete behavior,
it was possible to calculate the percentage of adoption of each contraceptive
method within the relatively bounded social networks of each
village and then compute the average degree of diversity-uniformity.
Surprisingly, the most popular method of birth control varied across the 24
villages: Some were predominantly oral-pill villages, others IUD villages,
others condom villages, and so forth. In other words, the distribution of
behavior within each village's social network appeared as if it had been a
collective decision rather than the sum of many individual choices. The
average uniformity-diversity was positively correlated with the degree of
interconnectedness of the social networks within the village, a measure of the
degree of restriction of information flow and absence of bounded clusters.
Villages with less connected communication networks had a flatter, more diverse
distribution of behavior; those with more densely connected networks had a
narrower, more uniform distribution, which is characteristic of a prevailing
social norm.
Bounded
Normative Influence
The two convergence theorems are valid because of
the nature of information processing and the role played by boundaries. When
the boundary of a group expands to include new members with different points of
view, diversity increases. When people who disagree leave, uniformity among
those who remain automatically increases. At the same time, the group becomes
more diverse with respect to outsiders. This convergence process
is enhanced by bounded normative influence—the tendency of social
norms to influence behavior within relatively bounded local subgroups of a
social system rather than in the system as a whole. This cultural and
social network principle resolves the paradox of how innovation (a
new minority position) can survive the social pressure of the majority and
eventually grow to become the new majority: subgroups insulate themselves by
forming boundaries within which they are the majority, and they then expand by
recruiting new members from the outside.
Bounded normative influence is evident in Gerry Mackie's
explanation of how the deeply embedded social norm of women's foot binding in
China was totally overcome in one generation at the beginning of the 19th
century by the organization of cohesive, local societies in which families
pledged to raise girls with natural feet and have their sons marry only girls
with natural feet. In a recent network analysis of the 30-year decline of
smoking in the United States, Nickolas Christakis and James Fowler discovered
that while smoking declined overall, the size of clusters of those who
continued to smoke remained the same across time (appearing progressively in
the periphery of social networks), suggesting that clusters of connected people
were quitting together. In their recent book The Big Sort, Bill
Bishop and Robert Cushing described the profound ideological clustering and
polarization that has been taking place in the United States over the past 30
years as a result of geographical mobility to places of like-minded people, a
voluntary narrowing of exposure to cable television channels and Internet
sites, and a growing unwillingness of people to be exposed to contrary points
of view. All three societal changes can be explained by—and could have been
predicted by—the two basic theorems of the convergence theory of
communication.
—D. Lawrence Kincaid
Further
Readings
Barnett, G. A. , & Kincaid, D. L. (1983). Cultural convergence:
A mathematical theory. In W. B. Gudykunst
(Ed.), Inter cultural communication theory:
Current perspectives: Vol. VII. International and intercultural communication
annual (pp. 171–194). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kincaid, D. L. (1988). The convergence theory of
communication: Its implications for intercultural communication. In Y.
Y. Kim (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives on international communication:
Vol. XII. International and intercultural annual (pp. 280–298). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Kincaid, D. L. Drama, emotion, and cultural convergence. Communication Theory vol.
12 (2002). pp. 136–152.
Kincaid, D. L. From innovation to social norm: Bounded
normative influence Journal of Health Communication vol. 9
(2004). pp. 37–57.
Rogers, E. M. , & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication
networks: Toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free Press.
Woelfel, J. , & Fink, E. L. (1980). The measurement of
communication processes: Galileo theory and method. New
York: Academic Press.
Entry Citation:
Kincaid, D. Lawrence. "Convergence Theory." Encyclopedia
of Communication Theory. Ed. . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2009.
189-92. SAGE Reference Online. Web. 16 Jul. 2012.
