# Hierarchy of meaning mapping ## Short definition Hierarchy of meaning mapping is a CMM-informed method for exploring how people organise meaning across different levels of context. ## Level [[LEVEL 3 — METHODS]] ## Expanded definition Hierarchy of meaning mapping helps practitioners and clients examine how particular actions, episodes, relationships, identities, life scripts, and cultural patterns shape one another. In CMM, meaning is not located in a single sentence or behaviour. It is organised across nested contexts. A statement may mean one thing at the level of a single conversation, another at the level of a relationship, another at the level of identity, and another at the level of cultural expectation. For example, a parent’s question may be experienced as care in one context, control in another, or criticism within a longer relationship story. This method helps make those layers visible. It is especially useful when people disagree about “what happened” because they are interpreting the same event from different contextual levels. ## Purpose of this method * To explore how meaning is shaped by multiple levels of context. * To understand why the same action can carry different meanings. * To identify which level of meaning is most influential in a problem pattern. * To help participants shift context and create new possibilities. * To connect local interactions with wider stories, identities, and cultures. ## When to use this method * When people disagree about the meaning of an event. * When an interaction seems small but carries strong emotional force. * When repeated episodes are linked to identity, relationship, or cultural narratives. * When clients feel trapped by a dominant story about themselves or others. * When a practitioner wants to understand how context organises response. * When a conversation needs to move from content to pattern. ## How this method works The practitioner identifies a specific interaction or episode and maps the different contextual levels that give it meaning. These may include speech acts, episode, relationship, self-story, life script, family story, organisational story, cultural pattern, or spiritual/moral order. The practitioner then explores how each level influences the others. Sometimes a present interaction is being interpreted through an old relationship story. Sometimes a cultural expectation shapes what feels acceptable. Sometimes an identity story makes certain responses feel inevitable. The aim is not to find the one correct level. The aim is to understand how meanings are organised and to identify where change may be possible. ## Non-clinical example A team member does not speak during meetings. At the speech act level, this may look like silence. At the episode level, it may be understood as disengagement. At the relationship level, colleagues may see it as lack of trust. At the identity level, the person may experience themselves as someone whose ideas are not valued. At the cultural level, there may be norms about seniority and who is allowed to speak. Hierarchy of meaning mapping helps the team see that the silence is not simply a personal trait but part of a wider organisation of meaning. ## Clinical example A teenager ignores a parent’s question about school. At the immediate level, this may appear disrespectful. At the episode level, it may be part of an evening conflict pattern. At the relationship level, it may express a struggle around autonomy. At the identity level, the teenager may be resisting the story of being “the difficult one.” At the cultural level, family expectations about obedience and respect may shape how both parent and teenager interpret the moment. Mapping the hierarchy helps the family move beyond blame and consider which context needs attention. ## Step-by-step process * Select a specific action, phrase, conflict, or episode. * Describe what happened at the immediate interactional level. * Explore the episode in which the action occurred. * Identify the relationship story that gives the episode meaning. * Explore relevant identity or life-script meanings. * Notice family, organisational, cultural, moral, or social patterns. * Ask which level seems to be organising the strongest response. * Identify whether shifting one level could change the meaning of the whole pattern. * Develop alternative descriptions or actions that fit preferred meanings. ## Questions before using this method * What event or interaction needs to be understood? * Which meanings are being contested? * Are participants willing to explore context rather than assign blame? * What levels of meaning may be relevant? * Is there a dominant context that may be organising the problem? ## Questions during use * What did this action mean in the immediate conversation? * What episode was this part of? * What relationship story shaped how it was understood? * What identity story was touched by this moment? * What wider family, cultural, or moral expectations were present? * Which level seems to have the strongest influence? * What would change if a different context became more important? ## Questions after use * What new understanding emerged from mapping the levels? * Did the problem look different when placed in context? * Which meanings became less fixed? * Which level offers the most useful point for change? * What alternative action could support a preferred meaning? ## Related epistemologies * [[CMM epistemology]] * [[Relational epistemology]] * [[Social constructionism]] ## Related schools and models * [[CMM]] * [[Systemic Therapy]] * [[Social constructionist therapy]] ## Related concepts * [[Hierarchy of meaning]] * [[Context]] * [[Episodes]] * [[Life scripts]] * [[Relationship stories]] * [[Cultural patterns]] * [[Meaning-making]] ## Related techniques * [[Meaning hierarchy questions]] * [[Context questions]] * [[Meaning questions]] * [[Stories lived vs stories told questions]] ## Related pathways * [[CMM pathway]] ## Key theorists / contributors * [[W. Barnett Pearce]] * [[Vernon Cronen]] ## Key texts / references * Pearce, W. B., & Cronen, V. E. (1980). Communication, action, and meaning. * Pearce, W. B. (2007). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. * Cronen, V. E. (1995). Coordinated management of meaning: The consequentiality of communication and the recapturing of experience. ## Notes / source material This method is based on the CMM idea that meaning is contextually organised and that changing the contextual frame can change what actions mean and what responses become possible.