Graber’s Condensation Symbols
J. Hix Spring 2002
Throughout the introductory portion of this course, we have discussed that a theory is an idea of how something happens or explanation of some phenomena (Cagle, 2002). Doris Graber examined human interaction and developed the term condensation symbols to describe a certain phenomena. For the purpose of this assignment, I will define, explain the context, and purpose of Doris Graber’s theory of condensation symbols within the political and communication fields.
According to Graber (1976), a verbal condensation symbol is name, word, or phrase that arouses emotional, mental, or physical action involving the listener’s most basic values. It is not necessarily one word or phrase, but it depends on the individual to characterize the verbal stimuli as a symbol. Graber (1976) explains that symbols or connotations vary even for people born in the same country and they do change over time. Therefore, condensation symbols for a particular individual occur at a specific time and can generally be determined from the response that is given to the symbol at that time.
The political speech communities are made up of many condensation symbols: Democrats, Republicans, and capitalism to name a few. When audiences react to condensation symbols, they focus their attention to the symbols rather than the facts of the communication (Graber, 1976). Moreover, we are often so familiar with these cues or symbols; we often have an inaccurate or stereotyped view. For example, what a Democrat means to me in my social circle could be completely different than what the term Democrat means in some Republican social circles. Graber (1976) cites that the utility of these individual condensation symbols varies depending on a number of reasons including the intensity of emotional responses they evoke, and the number of different areas in which they can be applied. While some symbols can be universal, others may only effect a limited audience. It is noted that condensation symbols that appeal to basic values are much more useful than those that appeal to moderately held values (Graber, 1976).
Contextually, verbal condensation symbols are the most “…potent, versatile, and effective tools available to politicians for swaying mass publics” (Graber, 1976). Three characteristics contribute to their political application. The first is that images created by condensation symbols are have rich, vivid, descriptive, and evaluative qualities based on direct or indirect experiences. A recent example of this first characteristic is the symbol “freedom”. Before the events of September 11, 2001, the term freedom was not often talked about or used in the media. We were familiar with the concept of freedom, but had an inaccurate view of what being free or living in a free society means. Nevertheless, today we use the symbol "freedom" in everyday speech and have defined its value on an individual level. Similarly, our idea of “freedom” is based on our direct and indirect experiences.
The second characteristic defined by Graber (1976) is that condensation symbols arouse or conjure emotion from the audience. Just as with the previous example, the word ”freedom” does arouse positive emotions for those living in free political and /or religious environments. However, if we were to use the word “freedom” when communicating with a woman from Saudi Arabia, she might have a completely different set of emotions (quite possibly, a negative connotation would arise). Lastly, Graber (1976) remarks that condensation symbols supply the listener with instant categorizations and evaluations. Therefore, when we hear a phrase, word, or maxim we identify with, we have a way of grouping events that can be positive or negative. In addition, we can also pass judgments about events in which we have minimal experience.
We have defined what a condensation symbol is and how it applies to the context of politics. Now, we will examine the three uses of these symbols in the political arena as defined by Graber (1976).
The first use is that the symbols are provide instant categorizers and value tags (Graber, 1976). Since audiences have naturally short attention spans and time, condensation symbols serve as mental shorthand for the sender and receiver. If the sender can use one word or phrase that will illicit positive responses from a majority of the audience, the speaker has accomplished his/her goal. Even though an individual may associate a condensation symbol with their individual meaning the results can be positive. This is valuable in the political communication field because so many of the terms are complex and ambiguous (Graber, 1976). When the public hears a symbol such as “health care reform”, it may save time instead of describing the entire program. In addition, Graber (1976) notes that the most effective symbols are those that are “salient” with the audience’s values.
The second use of symbols in politics is defined as the Pied Piper Phenomenon (Graber, 1976). This is the ability of public leaders to rally audiences or masses of people. There are three main ways to accomplish this goal: the efforts to retain allegiance in a country, the efforts to organize and sustain political parties, and to gain support in times of revolution. It is usually the politicians ability to manipulate condensation symbols that can predict the success or failure of that leader (Graber, 1976).
The third purpose of symbols in politics is the power of naming (Graber, 1976). Through appropriate use of symbols, those in power create and control images or names. Graber (1976) cites military jargon as an example here. Usually, humans that are intentionally killed are called “targets” and there are “casualties”, but people are generally not “dead” or “wounded” (Graber, 1976).
With the purpose, context, and definition in place, it is time to evaluate the entire theory. According to Littlejohn (2002), in order to evaluate a theory, there are six characteristics that must be looked at: theoretical scope, appropriateness, heuristic value, validity, parsimony, and openness. Graber’s theory of condensation symbols can be defined as narrow because it only deals with particular phrases, words, and events in human and/or political communication. It is appropriate because it serves as a guide to how politicians and mass audiences are influenced by verbal cues. Since Graber’s theory is seminal to the communication and political fields, there has been and will be much more research on this topic.
Although we may not here the term condensation symbols in more recent studies, the concept is still inherent because it so closely linked to stereotypes and value systems. When evaluating this theory on validity, it is difficult to assess. This theory is solely dependent on the researcher for interpretation of the audience’s responses or reactions to a given symbol. Just as Graber may see a similar reaction from one audience, another researcher may find completely different cues. Since Graber’s theory is relatively easy to understand, we can define it as parsimonious. In addition, since she leaves room for expansion of her theory, she does acknowledge it’s incompleteness or imperfection when she notes that there are several disadvantages to using condensation symbols.
Overall, Graber’s theory of condensation symbols provides an account of how audiences categorize, evaluate, and make judgments about particular words and phrases used by a speaker. It is a valuable theory because it describes human interaction rather than predicts or prescribes it. Graber makes an excellent attempt at describing naturally occurring phenomena within the human mind. Although speakers must use condensation symbols with discretion to avoid negative connotations from audiences, they are important factors in human communication.
References
Cagle, J. (2002). Lecture notes taken January 25. Fresno, CA: California State University, Fresno.
Graber, D.A. (1976). Verbal Behavior and Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Littlejohn, S.W. (2002). Theories of Human Communication. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.