Marketing communication: principles and practice

ZONES OF MEANING
Realms of understanding are dynamic ‘envelopes’ of values, attitudes,
interpretations, and knowledge that we apply in dealing with the situations
A C O M M U N I C A T I O N C O N C E P T
35

---

in which we find ourselves. They are the product of our appreciative system
(see chapter three), operating in advance of our decisions on how to act.
Traditional ‘communication theory’ argues that communication is effective
to the degree that these realms of understanding are coincident (overlap).
Communities of action have their own way of looking at things that
supports social order within the group, but may cause conflict in interactions
with other groups.
People apply interpretative schema or frames to their situations to make
sense of (i.e. generate meanings for) the actions, relationships, and expec-
tations that surround them. These meaning are socially constructed realities
that are negotiated in interaction within relationships. People enact with
others in a social environment using a dominant theme. This theme helps
them to explain what goes on around them and how they should respond.
People interacting constitute the ‘structure’ of the market. Within the market
system, subcultures operate. These are the segments that are sought in
product positioning (see Box 2.3).
As we have seen earlier, enactment is the process of people putting things
out into their environment that they can perceive and negotiate with others
about perceiving. This transpires through communication processes – the
act, interact (react), and double-interact (react to the interact).
In the daily discourse of people pursuing ‘life projects’ there is operating
a mutually agreed language within established ‘zones of meaning’ (Heath,
1994). These zones can only be based on social learning, determined by what
the group need to learn in order to maintain relationships. Therefore,
relationships should be envisioned as collaborative projects encouraging
constant re-evaluation, refinement and modification of ‘zones’. Without a
successful ‘web of social learning’, corporations are failed human institutions.
Corporate communication provides a synthesized approach to elaborating,
maintaining, and progressing zones of shared meaning.
Inconsistency or misalignment of values leads to cognitive dissonance.
Heath (1994) has discussed zones of meaning as differing social realities.
Some degree of shared meaning is necessary to define work-related situations,
interpret and attribute meaning for the behaviour of others, and establish