https://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S1441358208700077

Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

Marketing as an Interaction System

Richard J Varey

Abstract
Marketing thinkers identify concepts of relationship, interaction, and network as useful. Edgar Crane (1972) saw
interaction as essential to buyer-seller decision-making. David Ford, Kristian Möller, and Håkan Håkansson followed
with explanations of how marketing operates. Christian Grönroos expanded the horizon with ‘interactive marketing’.
Evert Gummesson saw interaction as “active contact” and all marketing as relationships and interaction in networks.
The Relationship Marketing field flourished – at least for a time.
Whilst many proponents of “interactive communication” and “social interaction” do not see the interaction concept as
problematic, they focus attention on practices. I choose to re-examine both ‘interaction’ and ‘communication’, and to
relate these concepts to the concepts of society and the social process we call “marketing”.
The discussion proceeds from the general perspective of humans living among others, to the specific situation of
marketing in society. I examine the concept of ‘interaction’, and consider social interaction as exchange –a dialogical
view of human communication. The patterning of social interaction in markets as distinct from bureaucracies, solidar-
ity groupings, and co-operative collectives is examined.
An alternative sociological analysis of the social is compared with that of the social psychology tradition. Communication
is discussed as a mode of interaction, to reveal monologic (technical) and dialogic (humanitarian) conceptions of com-
munication prevalent in the marketing field.
Within the context of an ‘Interaction Society’, marketing is explained as a complex dynamic adaptive interaction
system, revealing a conversational nature. It is proposed that interaction directs and co-ordinates, but also co-creates
– ‘interactional work’ has innovative capacity.

Keywords: social interaction, social exchange, social system; marketing system, communication theory, marketing
communication, market network

Editorial Note: This article is based on Varey, R J. (2005) ‘Informational and Communicational Explanations of
Corporations as Interaction Systems’, In Wiberg, M. (ed.) The Interaction Society: Practice, Theories and Supportive
Technologies, Hershey, PA.: Information Science Publishing, pp. 139-170 (Copyright 2005, IGI Global), and was
presented to the Symposium in Relationships, Interaction and Networks in Marketing, Department of Marketing, The
University of Otago School of Business, 23-24 November 2006.

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of an anonymous reviewer in advising on the structural clarification
of this discussion.

1. Introduction synonymous with “interaction”. I show how the funda-

mental concept of communication has been predicated
This essay is intended to highlight important insights
on particular transactional and informational notions of
into why marketing scholars and practitioners in par- how and why people try to make sense of the world.
ticular should give more attention to the difficulties This reveals that conventional understanding in the
associated with, and the assumptions underlying, an discipline is limited at best and inadequate at worst. A
unproblematic use of the term “communication” as if socially-oriented view of interaction and communica-

Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008 79

Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

tion shows human interaction to be essentially organic, mation theory (Varey, 2000). The emergence of the
iterative and ambiguous. The implications of such a po- concept of ‘information’ is traced back to less than a
sition for marketing are enormous given the continued century ago, where the technical concept of ‘informa-
reliance on transmission models of communication, tion’, first evident as recently as in Hartley’s work of
dyadic conceptions of relationships, and closed notions 1928, problematically avoids any reference to ideas or
of networks. meaning, and, thus, to people – it deals only with the
distinction of sequences of symbols, regardless of as-
There is a ‘post-modern’ yearning for active participa-
sociated meanings (Hartley, 1928). The emergence of
tion, and an apparent effortless move from discussing
‘information theory’ came in the 1940s, and is usually
‘interaction’ to invoking concern for ‘communication’.
attributed to Shannon (Shannon and Weaver, 1949).
Why do we commonly use these two terms synony-
The desire for action-at-a-distance is identified. This
mously? Do they identify a single social phenomenon –
became the basis for commonplace explanations of
“communicating”? Is communication a particular form
communication.
of interaction, and what are the other forms? If not, how
can we distinguish the two phenomena, and how can A shift in thinking and acting away from emphasis
we be clearer in the alternate use of these terms and the on information towards greater emphasis on interac-
associated implications for attitude and behaviour? tion is currently discernable. The differences in social
conditions that brought these ideas to the fore can be
Here, then, we think sociologically, meta-theoretically
characterised through a historical analysis. We have
and reflectively, about the idea of an interaction society,
always had an ‘interaction society’, yet the locus of
to produce contrasted accounts to explain social inter-
attention was been established as a ‘scientised’ infor-
action, drawing on Weber’s (2003) helpful comments
mational conception of interaction since the nineteenth
on “speaking theoretically”.
century when the problem of ‘communication’ became
2. Human interaction explicit in our social world. Ackoff (1974) recognises
the progression to the whole from symbol, to language,
To be human is to be social – an interactor. The indi- to communication, to control, to system (indeed this
vidual becomes a social person in interacting with their can be traced chronologically in the history of thee con-
‘other than me’. We all experience actions of people cepts). This is adopted here as the organising structure
in the social world. No one doubts the occurrence of for exploring interaction, communication, relationship,
social interaction. The notion, then, of an interaction and network.
society appears unproblematic, requiring only guidance
The concept ‘communication’ allows for contact -
on effectiveness and efficiency. What accounts for dif-
closeness of space, time, and understanding - without
fering explanations of this social phenomenon is dif-
presence. Somehow, reflects Peters (1999), the natural
fering social constructions or theories that draw from
history of humans as talkative can never lose the notion
philosophical differences of understanding and theory
(explanation) of knowledge, value, and reality. Matson of wordless contact. The worry of how to connect with
and Montagu (1967), for example, identify commu- people has become a given in our daily lives – even
nication studied in the fields of engineering, classics, as we are surrounded by so many other people. In the
psychology, anthropology, politics, philosophy, and so- lonely crowd observed by Riesman (1961), interaction
ciology. Wilber (1983, 1995, 1996, 2001) distinguishes is alienated - distant, impersonal – each of us afraid
traditionalist, modernist, and postmodernist worldviews of close contact with another and equally afraid to be
that differently focus attention to what is valued. alone with no contact. So what attracts us to talk of the
possibility of interaction?
A critical over-view of information theory and com-
munication theory shows that much ‘communication When we re-view the term ‘interaction’ we find two
theory’ is not communication theory, but rather infor- concepts: ‘inter’ (between, among, of) and ‘action’

80 Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008

 Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

(exertion of energy or influence). The term interaction 3. Communication as a mode of interaction

is usually taken to mean to act reciprocally or to act on
one another. Similar terms - co-operate, coact, engage, So, is social interaction a special case of commu-
nication? Is communication a special case of social
commune – are used to express mutual or reciprocal
interaction? Whilst interaction is widely taken to be a
act or relation. Co-ordinate means to bring parts into
mutually responsive form or style of communication,
proper relation. Interaction is a relational concept.
and communication is commonly located as the site of
Much talk of the “communicating corporation” and problems of social organisation, this is a muddling and
the “learning organisation” subsumes the social phe- thus wasteful conceptualisation. Deetz (1992, 1995)
nomenon of interaction. Indeed, in recent years the has explicated the centrality of social interaction. The
advent of much chatter about ‘relationship marketing’ two modes of interaction are, in this view, informational
and communicational. The former is a reproductive
and ‘learning communities’ has included the notion of
technology for use in a societal system that is a closed,
“interactive communication”. This is muddling, and
self-referential communicative nexus. The latter is
the discussion here seeks to reclaim marketing as a
a creative technology (better explained as a social
purposeful system (Checkland & Holwell, 1998) and
process) for the interaction system as the processing of
a system for interaction (as per Deetz, 1992, 1995), in contingency on the basis of presence. Luhmann (1995)
which communication is a mode of interaction, rather distinguishes, in German, Interaktion (presence) from
than the means for (individual) action. Communication Kommunikation (absence).
isn’t for interaction, it is interaction. Can, then, inter-
The informational conception of human interaction has
action produce emergent outcomes, such as a “third
been the commonsense conception of ‘communication’
way of knowing” (Shotter, 1993) that is not possible in
– the presentation of the individual’s point of view in
monological action?
which meanings arise in the private cognition of individ-
This discussion recognises that our technicist notion of uals. This is a reproductive technology that is a vehicle
communicating inhibits the hard work of connecting by for overcoming difference through message exchange
attending to improvements to the ‘wiring’, whilst the with the purpose of arousing a response. Meaning is
task of building worlds together is neglected (Gergen, strategically reproduced – for a pre-defined purpose - to
1999). Communication is more a moral problem than serve the interest of the expressive individual.
a problem solvable by semantics, psychology, or Born of the emergence of telecommunications practices
telecommunications. The informational conception of and Norbert Weiner’s cybernetics in the 1940s, informa-
interaction is inherently monological. The notion of tion theory (originally termed communication theory)
an ‘Interaction Society’ implicates dialogue, unless
was developed as a theory not of significance and
interaction is taken to be nothing more than mutually
meaning but of signals (in copper wires) (see Shannon
reactive or directive dyadic monologues of reciprocal
and Weaver, 1949). “Information” became a popular
manipulation, and yet “dialogue … produces miracles
idea, and communication theory became an explana-
of discovery” (Howe, 1967, p. 152). The notion of a
tion of meaning as well as of telegraph and telephone
‘Communication Society’ seems to be therapeutically
channel signal capacity. Communication became, in the
valuable – we can feel better with that idea, but care has
common sense of everyday talk, the sharing of infor-
to be taken that ‘communication’ is not taken merely
mation. Several academic and professional disciplines
as the transmission and reception of cognition products came to be defined in terms of information production,
(symbolic stimuli, or “messages” in the established manipulation, and interpretation: including computer
lexicon of marketing) through utterances towards sepa- science, management sciences, economics, journal-
rate selves. We need to address this as a political and ism, and communication studies – and, of course,
ethical problem, and not just a technical problem. marketing.

Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008 81

Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

Some people have even suggested that all that is human ments. Communication is the project of reconciling
should be explained by information, communication, self with other, to make friendly after estrangement or
and control (see Beniger, 1986, and Peters’ critique, to adjust into accordance (Peters, 1999). The notion
1987). Yet, in our communication we are not concerned that communication is interaction reduces problems
only with information, but also the body (and mind!) of relationship to problems of contact at “touch
it comes from. Unfortunately, for it muddles and veils points” - common jargonese in Customer Relationship
unnecessary biases and distortions, the notion of com- Management circles. The concept of “communication”
munication as information exchange touches on the allows for contact without presence. Communication is
ancient notion of instant contact between minds at a then the disembodiment of interaction – contact without
distance, but also allows that any ‘thing’ that processes touch (Peters, 1999). ICT-based technologies mediate –
information is a communicator, and thus for people to there is interaction without personal physical contact.
be reduced to information processors and for machines
A particular conception of what constitutes communi-
to be communicators.
cation is adopted here. This focuses on process as well
In the communicational conception of human inter- as product or outcome. For example, Carey (1975, p.
action communication is a process for exploring and 17) defines communication as “a symbolic process
negotiating difference. Meaning is produced through whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired, and
interaction. This is a creative technology. transformed”.

Monologism takes communication to be the action of a Social reality is not seen as a fact or set of facts existing
person as a self-sufficient whole, whilst dialogism takes prior to human activity – it is created in human interac-
communication to be a ‘between’ process (Sampson, tion. Berger & Luckmann (1967) provide the classic
1993). The communicative interaction or comm-union exposition of this view, as does Gergen (1985) and
is the unit of analysis, not individuals, intentions, Searle (1995). Berger and Luckmann analysed knowl-
or abstract language systems and symbolic stimulii. edge in society in the context of a theory of society as
Social approaches to communication are in opposition a dialectical process between objective and subjec-
to a scientistic (reductive, positivistic) psychological tive reality. They concluded that people interact and
approach, and can be characterised as ‘organic’ rather produce meaningful behaviour patterns that construct
than ‘mechanistic’, concerned with ‘ritual’ rather than a shared reality. We create our social world through our
‘transmission’, and fundamentally ‘interpretive’ rather words and other symbols and through our behaviours.
than ‘scientific’. Leeds-Hurwitz (1995) provides a Such an approach requires that we question the valid-
comprehensive collection of essays around this ‘new ity of traditional “scientific” experiments, i.e. in use of
paradigm’ – a way of thinking yet to be recognised methods for narrow scientism (that assumes scientific
substantially in the marketing discipline. materialism and empiricism as the only valid ways to
know). The business of the interpretivist is not to reveal
Social approaches to communication describe events the world to us but to create some part of the world for
occurring between people in the process of interacting. us. “Inquiry is the professional practice of the social
This is in contrast to the reporting of how events are creation of reality” (Anderson, 1990, p. 14). Interaction
perceived through a single individual’s understand- is forwarded as a creative social accomplishment. Deetz
ing. Thus, communication is thought of as inherently feels very strongly that “If the study of human com-
collaborative and co-operative observable behaviour, munication is not ultimately the study of how we make
rather than as merely ‘intangible’ personal cognition. the world in which we have our human existence, then
An utterance, often referred to as “a communication” it is as trivial as our dominant “model” of it would seem
in common parlance, is not in itself a communicative to say it is” (1995, p. 130). Further, “Communication,
act. The instigator needs the other to ‘complete it’. then, is the process in which we create and maintain the
Communicative actions are collaborative accomplish- “objective” world, and, in doing so, create and maintain

82 Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008

 Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

the only human existences we can have” (Deetz, 1995 The model of communication as the transporta-
p. 203). tion of information from one person to another is
for many purposes obsolete, part of an old (rational
The central problem attended to is how social meanings
Enlightenment1 ) way of understanding what thought
are created. The focus is on people not as passive rule
is, yet many of us don’t even realise that the conduit
followers operating within pre-existing regulations, but
metaphor is a metaphor. No longer should we be fully
as active agents – rule-makers within social contexts.
satisfied with an outmoded dehumanizing model which
Identity is seen as a social construction, and the study of
conceives of communication as the (almost effortless)
social role and cultural identity leads to study of power
transportation of an inert material - the information that
and what happens when particular identities are chosen
actors exchange with each other - from one point to
or ascribed by others. The concept of culture is central another along a ‘pipeline’. There is no account of the
and is defined as the knowledge that people must learn co-operation which stimulates reciprocal responsibil-
to become appropriate members of a given society. ity for interaction and the series of subtle adaptations
Cultural contexts include the community in which which occur among ‘interlocutors’. Nor does that
particular communicative behaviours arise. Social ap- model consider that communication is possible only to
proaches are mostly holistic – the study of interaction the extent that participants have some common ground
requires the whole picture of the system to understand for shared beliefs, they recognise reciprocal expecta-
how the multiple components are related. tions, and accept rules for interaction which anchor the
developing conversation. The conduit theory of com-
Reddy (1993) observed that our major (dominant) munication treats knowledge as an object (i.e. as a body
metaphor for communication takes ideas as objects of information as independent facts to be processed)
that can be put into words, language as their container, existing independently of the participants that can be
thought as the manipulation of these objects, and carried through channels and possessed by a receiver
memory as storage. Thus, in this view we send ideas when communication is successful. The dissemination
in words through a conduit – a channel of communica- of information is actually non-interaction or suspended
tion – to someone else who then extracts the ideas from interaction. The conduit metaphor raises the expecta-
the words. A consequence of this metaphor is that we tion that communication will succeed and that failure
believe that ideas can be extracted and can exist inde- warrants investigation. Reddy (1993) suggests that we
pendently of people. We also expect that when commu- should expect precisely the opposite, to enquire how
nication occurs someone extracts the same idea from to accomplish socially desirable outcomes through the
the language that was put in by someone else. Meaning inherent active formative function of communication
is taken to be a pre-defined fixed thing available di- (Cooren et al, 2006).
rectly from (objective) information (much in the same The social conception of communication is of a negoti-
way that ‘goods-dominant thinking’ presupposes value ated co-construction of meanings. Information is not
production and distribution). But the conduit metaphor moved from one place to another - it is always a means
hides all of the effort that is involved in communica- to an end, produced and used by social actors to attain
tion, and despite this many people take it as a definition their goals in daily life. Knowledge is never apolitical
of communication. This explanation presupposes that nor amoral.
communicators have the same mental repertoire and In the informational or promotional conception of
conceptual system, understand the language used, un- social interaction, the function of the ‘receiver’ is
derstand the context, and understand the ideas, which is trivialised, since “I already have my required meaning
not always true. It also assumes that meaning is objec- for this (desired) situation, and I talk to you because
tive – neutral - and not interpretation of ‘information’ I want to change your choices of possible actions – I
within a context. seek to persuade”. In the communicational conception
1
See McIntosh (2007) for an enlightening account of alternative worldviews

Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008 83

Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

of social interaction, “Meaning is always incomplete field. This is altered by the insertion of a mediating
and partial, and the reason that I talk with you is to technology. Nowadays, the common place meaning
better understand what you and I mean, in the hope that is something like “action at a distance” or “mutually
we can find more satisfying ways of acting together – I responsive communication”.
seek to create and learn”. In this sense, conversation is
We are currently going through a transitional period,
deliberative.
standing at the intersection of the industrial society
Non-interaction is entirely monological. Others are from the past and the so-called interaction society of
treated as absent and distant. Informational interaction the future (with many others labels: such as the post-
is a hybrid form that is dialogical in intent, but mono- industrial society, the information age, the communica-
logical in execution. The other is treated as distantly tion age, the age of Aquarius, the knowledge age, meta-
present. Communicative interaction is dialogical. The consciousness – all suggestive of our longing for ‘being’
other is treated as present and actively participant. Social together). There is an established field of socio-cultural
systems come about only though communication. One evolution studies (see Hubbard (1998) and the huge body
cannot not communicate in an interaction system – one of work from Ken Wilber, for example). Social critic
must withdraw to avoid communicating. Society is an Hillaire Belloc saw capitalism – in our lifetimes - as the
autopoietic system consisting only of communication. unstable transitional period between two stable periods.
Societal communication, on the other hand, is largely, In transitional periods, the grounds for activities of the
but not exclusively, conducted as interaction, compris- outmoded period will always lose significance, whilst
ing in part, reciprocal bodily acting, or conversing or new ways of operation come into circulation to replace
expressing, and knowing. them. For the future, actors need to strive to understand
their actions in a broader social frame of reference. One
The world-machine view leads to an “I and You” way
characteristic of our time is a shift from mass produc-
of thinking and acting, whilst the organic or ‘ecologi-
tion towards smaller social organisation. Human-scale
cal’ worldview is the foundation for a very different
community, in which social bondage prevailed, was
way of social interaction for the “We”. The former is
displaced by large-scale society through the process
an “information dominant logic of communication”.
of industrialisation, bringing ‘freedom’ to participants.
The latter promotes learning together as a way to the
Most interactors were then strangers. Now we see the
future.
re-ascendance of social units on a human scale. Various
4. Interaction as problematic networks have emerged to enable communication of
these units, for example TradeMe, MySpace, Linux
Interaction is one of a number of ideas, such as informa- and other ‘open source’ communities, web-logging,
tion and communication, which have relatively recently and social networking (YouTube, FaceBook, Bebo, 43
entered day-to-day conversation around our underlying Things, MySpace, for example). Indeed, a characteris-
longing for action at a distance and for connection or tic feature of the interaction society is the emergence
contact across the chasm of human separation (Peters, into consciousness of various social networks in work
1999). What is curious is why we nowadays notice ‘in- groups and in private life.
teraction’ and centre the idea as a social phenomenon
The idea of a life among others in which social interac-
and basis for action?
tion is a prominent and frequent activity is appealing.
The common sense everyday notion of social inter- We all feel strong social pressure to interact. How else
action originally centred on co-presence. Goffman are we to resolve problems of politics, knowledge,
(1983), for example, took interaction as the event that religion, rights, and morals? Milbrath’s (1989) “social
occurs during, and by virtue of, co-presence. Social in- learning” or “collective learning” arises in participatory
teraction transpires in social situations in which two or democratic activity in order to ‘co-operate with evolu-
more persons are physically in one another’s response tion’ (Salk, 1973). But, in an era of inserting (mostly

84 Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008

 Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

electronic) mediations into our actual and potential nication and co-ordinated accomplishment of difficult
relationships, are we really justified in our anticipations work even though remotely located and rarely overlap-
of personal security and satisfaction? What are we ping in time. Today, it is common for face-to-face talk
hoping for as members of the Interaction Society? Is to be punctuated with cell-phone text-messaging and
this a hope of communion and self-discovery forlorn? email.

Whilst modernism championed the individual, and The problem is that the increasingly popular idea
fragmented the unit of social community whilst assum- of “interaction” is being taken as synonymous with
ing causal influence relations (Hosking et al, 1995), “transaction”. For me, the Transaction Society doesn’t
postmodernism (i.e. whatever succeeds industrialism) sound so good (a dark side of the ‘market society’),
attends to the interaction of the parts. Recently, too, and this switch of terminology helps to veil the unpal-
developments of a predominantly economic and tech- atable contemporary emphasis on impersonal social
nical nature have undermined the sovereignty of the in- arrangements. George Soros (2000) concludes from
dividual as rational reasoner (Gergen, 1991, Sampson, his analysis of the emerging new economy within the
1993). Sociologist Manuel Castells (1996, for example) dominant forms of capitalist society that we currently
says much about the emergence of the network society, live in a Transactional Society – not an interaction
the basic structure of which has a networking logic. society - in which relations among people are guided
He is not alone in suggesting that we can characterise by instrumental rational calculations of self-interest. To
post-industrial society as a network of networks that be a Relational Society, we would have to emphasise
‘process information’, with the primary product being relations that are guided by calculations of common
more knowledge. Are these terms referring to different interest. In a transactional society we talk of “touch
phenomena?: interactive society, interaction society, and points” and “contacts”, rather than of colleagues, ac-
network society. Is interaction (in a particular manner) quaintances, friends, relatives, partners, community,
a fundamental characteristic of a network society? and so on. Scarbrough’s (1995) critique of Williamson’s
(1975) concept of transaction cost in his ‘new institu-
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is a broad
tional economics’ shows that by defining the transac-
term covering several configurations of communication
tion as the unit of analysis, Williamson aimed to take
processes – it is referring not to a form of communica-
the debate about organizational forms outside the
tion so much, as to a set of arrangements or conditions
realm of social relations. Scarbrough argues that whilst
within which forms of communication can arise. With
transaction is a category of socioeconomic interaction,
the advent of the Internet has emerged new transaction
there is both economic exchange and social relation in a
‘marketplaces’ which create more efficient means of ex-
transaction – the latter underpins the former. The forms
change as seekers can connect with offerers. But can we
of organization governance – economic exchange (i.e.
accept a conflation of ‘transaction’ with ‘interaction’?
market-based control through material incentives) and
Whilst the growth of Information and Communication
social control (i.e. hierarchy-based control through
Technology (ICT) use appears to allow more interac-
social relations) – are co-existent mutually dependent
tion, much of it is automated: between machine and
dimensions of a transactional continuum (in which the
person, or machine with machine. “High-touch” inter-
network is the hybrid form of governance, displaying
actions can’t be automated, but the central economic
distributed rule-based self-organisation) (Johnson,
effect of ICT is to free people from interactions – by
2001; see also Thompson et al, 1991).
enabling communication – people can be in touch in
absence from a distance. Yet, distance matters (Olson Human interaction is generally understood as entitative
& Olson, 2000) in that synchronous and asynchronous action, when it is a relational concept. This leads to
interactions arise in co-location and in mediated and problems of attitude and behavior, in that “interaction”
distributed spatial conditions, respectively. The advent becomes impersonal, at a distance, effort to control the
of ICTs has established an expectation of easy commu- other.

Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008 85

Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

5. Social interaction studied human interaction as discourse (see van Dijk,

1997, for example).
An action (in this context) is a unit of behaviour that is
intended to produce expected consequences. Experience In the sociological tradition, symbolic interaction ex-
is the result of interaction between the person and some amines how each actor takes account of each other’s
thing(s) – person, object, idea. So, then, interaction is meanings as well as their respective acts. In the be-
action done together – a purposive interpersonal activ- havioural perspective on interaction, it is assumed
ity. Interaction, taken literally, means reciprocal action that each actor relates only to the overt behaviour of
or co-action. Transaction, on the other hand, is across, the other participants. For the adherents to symbolic
beyond, over, or to the other (e.g. trans-Atlantic). In interactionism, society exists as individuals in interac-
the terms of symbolic interactionism, in social interac- tion. For sociologist Georg Simmel (see also Ritzer,
tion the self is observed and analysed as subject and 1992), society is merely the name for a number of
object. Social interaction is interpersonal action, or individuals connected by interaction (Simmel, 1949).
relations between self and other: there is negotiation of These individuals are constituted as persons only in
meaning, there is reciprocation, and actions of self and their interactions. This is a step forward from imagin-
other are reflected on. So, is social interaction merely ing autonomous selfs whose actions bear upon each
the “coming together” of people into co-presence? Is other. Such actions are understood as either expressive
social action events of behaviour in, and by virtue of, (an end in themselves) or instrumental (as means to an
the presence of other(s)? end). Simmel studied the then new phenomenon of the
emergence of cities in the industrialization era – he was
The social psychology of interaction has been widely concerned with the effect of spatial conditions on social
adopted as the basis for understanding social interaction interaction (in terms of social, physical, and psycho-
(see, for example, Argyle, 1969, 1973). The motivation logical distance). Interaction is the mutual regulation in
is to understand the making of a life among others, yet, which two persons are within one another’s perceptual
in today’s ‘globalising’ world, most of the others we fields and signal their responsiveness to one another.
encounter are strangers to us. In this perspective, the Interaction is a dialectic process of activities of people
terms “interaction” and “communication” are often that generates progressive development.
used almost synonymously. For example, in Porritt
In this view of social interaction, at what point does
(1990), even in the morally and emotionally sensitive
mere co-presence escalate into interaction and com-
situation of guiding the behaviour of healthcare profes-
munication? How does this come about? The unit of
sionals in situations of distress and ill-health, commu-
analysis is the interactor, with attention paid to such
nication is taken to be the means of interaction – the dimensions of interaction as actor style, purpose,
mechanistic mindset is in charge. A social relationship reason for interaction, motivation, outcome, manner of
is a case of enduring social interaction (temporally interaction, and the characteristic features of the inter-
extended, with a shared history, and surviving of inter- action event. Forms of interaction include exchange (in
ruptions of face-to-face contact), although Goffman the economic aspect of society), conflict (in the state or
(1961) does not accept that a relationship is merely a regulatory aspect of society), and friendship (character-
‘two-person’ group – the two forms are distinct and ised by intensifying interaction). Interaction within a
different. Later in this discussion, we consider an al- community (with known others) differs from that with
ternative Social Systems explanation drawn from the strangers. People interact with each other to conduct,
work of Niklas Luhmann (1995). Bales (1999) has and participate in, one or a combination of four basic
made extensive studies of social interaction systems in types of relationships, seeking, making, sustaining,
which ‘situations’ are comprised of multiple systems repairing, adjusting, judging, construing, and sanction-
of interacting persons, and has developed a range of ing their relationships. Fiske’s (1992) work identifies
instruments of social interaction analysis. Others have the modes of interaction as communal sharing, author-

86 Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008

 Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

ity ranking, equality matching, and market pricing. logical and the sociological, Stacey (2003) explains
These are implemented differently in different social the ‘organisation’ as patterns of meaning in iterated
domains and in different relative degrees in different interaction, as patterns of power relations sustained in
cultural groups. Domains of the complex realm of self-organising patterns of communicative interacting
social interaction include: exchange, decision making, or conversation and meaning in which human identities
moral judgement, self-presentation, consumption, and emerge. The individual is the singular and the social
conversation. is the plural of interdependent people. Learning is the
activity of interdependent people.
Taken as a (social) process, interaction can be under-
stood as productive or reproductive of some ‘things’: 6. Interaction as and for exchange
meanings, interests, negotiation, closure, and so on.
Thus, we can speak of “productive interactions”, as well The social exchange perspective complements sym-
as of “unproductive”, “reproductive”, or “destructive” bolic interactionism by examining concepts of value,
interactions. Alternatively, is an interaction a ‘thing’ sanctions, cost, profit, reward, and so on. Blau’s
(social event) or a property of things together? individualistic and utilitarian social exchange theory
(1964), for example, seeks to explain how individual
In sociological thinking, society is understood as a
exchanges emerge from social attractions into personal
stable and integrated system – conditions brought
exchanges and power, and group authority and opposi-
about through social interaction. Studies have inves-
tion (see also Homans, 1961). Lévi-Strauss (1969), on
tigated how interaction creates, fits into, reproduces,
the other hand, develops a collectivistic perspective to
functions within, or contributes to the social system.
social exchange in which the exchange itself has extrin-
It is assumed in these inquiries that order, stability,
sic symbolic value, de-emphasising intrinsic economic
structure, coherence, and organization arise from face-
value of the things exchanged. But not all social inter-
to-face communication. Order is assumed in symbolic
actions are social exchange (Ekeh, 1974).
interactionism (e.g. Mead), role theory (e.g. Turner),
dramaturgy (e.g. Goffman), and phenomenology People are interdependent with one another and thus
(e.g. Berger and Luckman, and Garfinkel, following attempt, abort, avoid, and accomplish the exchange of
Schutz). Supposedly, then, ICT enables, accelerates, things (food, goods, services, money, etc.). This requires
and connects by creating and extending a social web in agreement on who does and should exchange what with
society. Smith (1992) challenges this by emphasizing whom for what reasons and on what terms. The neces-
instability. He argues convincingly that interaction is sary interaction, as individuals and as group members,
best understood as a self-organising system, rather than is through shared meanings and learned values, and
an idealized arrangement of ‘actors’ performing ‘roles’ through social role enactment. Note the similarity here
in a society constituted as a system of roles. Commonly, with commonplace explanations for “communication”.
interaction produces not order but misunderstanding, Within interaction, people offer (or don’t offer) things
discomfort, estrangement, and conflict – rather than to one another and demand, accept, or avoid things
meaning and understanding. We yearn for the interac- from one another – for a reason. Geoffrey Vickers
tion, but we don’t feel good about what happens, so (1983) didn’t accept Herbert Simon’s goal pursuit as
we interact in ways that don’t require engagement! the foundational motivation for human behaviour, but
Perhaps, then, communication is and requires more rather the pursuit or elusion of human relationships.
than interaction.
Social exchange is distinct from strictly economic
People interact with norms and rules in mind – they exchange, and establishes bonds of friendship or su-
have interactional expectations (of sincerity, brevity, perordination over others. Within an institution, social
openness, intimacy, and so on). Following Elias’ (1939) exchange may cement peer relations or produce status
resolution of the problem of dichotomising the psycho- differentiation. Social exchange is a voluntary action

Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008 87

Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

motivated by expected returns. Commercial interaction The social problem is the co-ordination of actors, each
is the basis for the Market System, which is the society- of whom can behave adaptively towards others: they
wide social process that brings about co-ordination of can give something to the other, accept something
human activities, not by central command, but by the from the other, leave something of the other’s alone,
interactions of the participants. The actions of produc- or hold back something and not inflict something on
ers are controlled and co-ordinated by the promise the other. For each actor, the question to be asked is
of profit-making revenue from buyers through their “Why should I?”. The answer characterises alternative
actions in expressing preferences and needs. forms of social co-ordination. In a Market the answer
might be “because if you do, I will give you something
7. Patterns of social interaction: towards the
that you value more than that which I am asking you to
market
give up”. In a Tradition/legality/bureaucracy it could be
The job of work and trading (both “marketing” in the “because it is my right to tell you to do it, and your duty
sense of seeking to buy or sell, to exchange) are two of to do it”. In a Solidarity the reply could be “because
a number of social domains in which interactions are you value my welfare, and your doing this will make
sought. Each has characteristic particular forms of in- me better off”. In a Co-operative the answer “because
teraction, in terms of rules, expectations, conventions, what I am asking you to do is, in these circumstances,
and so on. the best way to achieve your goal, which I share”, is
A social relationship, even an imagined one, is a pattern likely. Markets, bureaucracies, solidarity groups, and
of the co-ordination of interaction. People co-ordinate co-operative teams are different kinds of social struc-
with each other so that their action, affect, evaluation, tures, with different rules for the conditions under
and thought are complementary and/or commensurate. which exchanges take place.
What each person does, feels, judges, and so on, makes The hierarchical form is constituted by conscious
sense with reference to what significant other persons organisation through systematic administration with
do, feel, judge, etc. A social relationship exists when a overt rules-based control and a hierarchy of authority.
person acts under the implicit assumption that they are The predominant value is planned orders. In the ideal
interacting with reference to imputedly shared mean- market, ‘automatic’ co-ordination is accomplished in
ings. It is not necessary in an indirect relationship that the pursuit of self-interest by individually motivated
the other persons be in contact or be communicating and welfare-maximising individuals, leading to the
in real time, that they be present, or that they observe best outcome through ‘free’ exchanges. The predomi-
or understand the action as it was intended, nor even
nant value is price competition. The network comprises
that they exist! Relationships have a definite onto-
informal and exclusive social, political, economic re-
logical status – they are real in that they affect us, in
lationships among relatively independent trusting and
ways that can’t always be anticipated and controlled.
trusted social agents. The predominant values are trust
Communication implies relationship: “the substance of and co-operation.
a relationship is the experience that is in our minds and
The market and the hierarchy are special cases of
also in the minds of others” (McIntosh, 2007, p. 19).
the network way of co-ordinating among and within
Both communication and relationship are aspects of the
social units, and these forms often are found operat-
nonphysical intersubjective domain of consciousness,
ing in mixed mode (Thompson et al, 1991). Movement
but not merely “in the air” (Peters, 1999; McIntosh,
(or flow) within a network has replaced presence at a
2007). McIntosh (2007) helpfully explains relation-
location as the locus of power, according to Castells
ships as living systems that constitute culture (see also
(1995).
Miller, 1978, for explication of the concept of living
system, and Reidenbach & Oliva, 1981, for application These different social structures each require a special
to the marketing discipline). kind of value consensus - a medium of exchange. In the

88 Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008

 Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

market mode, the money symbol substitutes for direct alienation, and the retreat from truly creative value
social interaction. In the tradition-legal-bureaucratic realisation.
mode, insignia act as symbol of a right, and compli-
ance with a symbol of respect is required for rights and 8. Social systems and the market network
acknowledgement of duty. In the solidarity mode, it is
Niklas Luhmann (1995) moved beyond the socio-
the demonstration of need by exposure of dependency.
psychological analysis of individuals to distinguish
The co-operative mode values expertise and goal ac-
three forms of social systems or modes of social system
ceptance, whereas the coercive mode applies weapons.
formation: interaction systems, societal systems, and
In this analysis, adaptation involves obtaining ‘things’
organised social systems.
(matter, energy, human services, information) from the
environment, disposing of things to it, avoiding things The system of interaction comprises those who are
that are in it, and retaining things inside that might ‘present’ ‘together’ at a point in time, with a set of
escape or leak out. rules. Interaction is, in this view, a social system that
emerges among those who are present to one another.
Smith (1995) examines the market and the hierarchy
Interactions are temporally arranged episodes of so-
in terms of interaction partners as persons responsive
cietal process, only possible within pre-existing and
to basic attachment needs, and explains the market as a
continuing societal communication. Interactions are
dissipative structure of arrangements of rational activ-
embedded within the flow of ephemeral individual
ity. Smith asks how it is that it is possible for people to
actions. Interaction systems include everything that can
act as if their interaction partners are cold, impersonal,
be treated as ‘present’, and those who are able to decide
unempathic fictions (the impersonalized other)? In this,
who and what is to be treated as present and who and
partners construe each other in ways that are interper-
what is not. Presence is determined by the information
sonally distancing. He also points out that the facilities
mode of perception.
and media that enable profit-oriented market exchanges
yield instrumental relevances to partners. Smith high- Society is, on the other hand, the totality of all social
lights that firm-based economies are characterized by communication, and characterised by comprehensive-
competitive pressure being primarily between sellers, ness (or inclusivity). The societal system is not com-
whereas in bazaar-type economies competitive pres- posed of interactions – societal action is interaction-free
sure is on the transactions between buyers and sellers – for example, demonstrated in mass communication
(this raises a question about the sociality of the eBay events, in which messages are transmitted and stimuli
and TradeMe online markets in which most sellers and are perceived.
buyers only meet once the auction is complete). This
supports impersonality in buyer-seller transactions. As The extensive differentiation of society and interac-
Smith points out, “interaction itself is always a form tion leads to less reliance on the resolution of societal
of market behavior, however imperfect” (p. 226), and problems of science-politics, economy-education,
“many persons, observing one another in competitive and science-religion, by interaction, for example,
attachment processes, constitute an interaction system in deliberative democracy (Gutmann & Thompson,
and form a social market” (p. 226). 1996, 2004). There is a gap between the interaction
Interaction is an aspect of behaviour-in-the-social that sequences a person lives through, and the complexity
is necessary and ‘negotiated (accultured), and has a of the societal system (whose consequences cannot be
(co-)productive potential. From this arises the sense of influenced or controlled). But interaction has not lost
relationship, yet some explanations are not relational. societal relevance. Highly consequential developments
The market is patterned social interaction, so rela- are initiated in interactions. Contemporary society is
tionship is inherent, but mostly under-emphasised or more indifferent to, but also more sensitive to, interac-
misconceived, leading to unintended and undesirable tion than pre-modern societies were.

Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008 89

Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

In thinking back to the notion of social action, we can In talking of an interaction society, we can attend to
now see that this is evident whenever one person con- matters of technology or morality. Both, of course, have
siders what others would think of their action, whereas substantive value. Do we want the former to determine
societal action arises when action is intended and/or the latter, or vice versa? Human interaction both pro-
experienced as communication. duces, and is subject to, deep philosophical differences.
The ‘market society’ is the contemporary and general
Some social action is free of interaction – we can act
public sphere in which value can be both constructed as
without the presence of others and can give our action
well as distributed. This requires learning together, in
a meaning that for us (and any possible observer)
the form of both listening and speaking. Over-emphasis
refers to society (e.g. reading, writing, sitting alone in a
on message-making also confuses and alienates as it at-
waiting room, and so on). Solitary action is much more
tracts, informs, and persuades. The seller doesn’t do all
common in modern societies than in older societies,
of the talking when serving is their purpose.
and much of this has reference to society. This text, for
example, was written with some anticipation of some It is not that interaction has become a social phe-
‘reading’ by others in some other places at some time in nomenon, but rather that we can use the concept of
the future. It is now possible, through writing, printing, interaction to better explain what we can observe in
email, SMS, and so on, to withdraw from interaction social settings – i.e. communication is the negotiation
systems and to communicate with far-reaching societal of meaning. Marketing, for example, arises as the pat-
consequences – society is a result of interactions with a terning of some people’s interactions, and this produces
standardised, disciplined use of a word language. learning. Following Elias (1939), the social is the plural
of interdependent people – interaction is requisite.
Organised social systems (‘organisations’) are a special
Commercial relationships were enacted – even before
form of social system. Formal organisations regulate
the advent of CRM!
their boundaries by membership roles and control
of admission to membership. Thus, ‘customers’ are In a commercial society that is dominated by the market
members of the extended commercial organisation. mode of social co-ordination, the concept of ‘interac-
What is significant is that organisations standardise the tion’ takes on a special meaning – responsive commu-
motives that guide interactions. nication. However, this kind of ‘communication’ can be
interactional or interaction-free. It is better to reserve
9. Point of view:
the term “communication” for dialogical interaction,
implications for marketing disciplines
and not use it in place of “information dissemination”
What now, are my answers to the questions posed at the or propaganda. Communication can’t happen outside
outset of this article? of social interaction. The commercial conversation is
Social interactions are socially constructed realities – directed towards effects: proposing, arguing, demon-
we can see this phenomenon when we look for it. Two strating, convincing, insisting, and so on. We’ve moved
(perhaps three) ‘tribes’ explain the province, purpose, beyond ‘marketing communication’ to CRM – and, now
and product of social interaction quite differently, to Customer Interaction Management? Does this go as
based on competing ontological and epistemological far as recognizing that marketing is a social process
pre-suppositions and assumptions. Monologue com- of interacting demanders and suppliers? In doing so,
mands and ‘communication’ is the means to control. it is realised that form, as well as content, matters.
Dialogue is the path to communion and the ground for Advertising remains over-emphasised and over-used,
self-discovery. This apparent opposition is dealt with incapable of completing the cycle of community,
constructively by allowing an inclusive, transcendent co-operation, commitment, coalescence, and value
perspective that explains interaction, communication, creation. Real investment in truly interactive processes
relationship, and network wholistically. remains largely unrealised.

90 Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008

 Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

Marketing isn’t merely a managerial wealth-creation Argyle, M. (1969). Social Interaction. London:
technology that operates outside of society. The Tavistock Publications/Methuen & Co.
problem isn’t to resolve the competing interests of
marketers and society, but to recognize marketing in Argyle, M. (ed.) (1973). Social Encounters: Readings
and for society. Marketing is at once a pervasive form in Social Interaction. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
of social organization and constituted by acts and Bales, R F. (1999). Social Interaction Systems: Theory
processes of communicating. Marketing is the social and Measurement. New York: Tansaction Publishers.
interaction of the market, and it is in this inter-action
that valuations arise. To limit marketing to a paucity of Beniger, J. R. (1986). The Control Revolution.
telling and selling would be to miss out on the capacity Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.
for public participation in effectively and efficiently
Berger, P L. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social
creating value for enhanced quality of life.
Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of
Much understanding is at the wrong level for the situ- Knowledge. Garden City, NY.: Doubleday.
ation. We try to understand and manage the system at
the level of symbol, language, or communication. It is Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life.
crucial to understand that each higher level transcends New York: John Wiley & Sons.
and includes all lower levels.
Bredemeier, H C. (1979). Exchange Theory. In
Interaction is not, in my view, a tool for enacting mar- Bottomore, T. and Nisbet, R. (eds.). A History of
keting. Interacting is a mode of being-in-marketing. Sociological Analysis, London: Heinemann, pp.
The interaction system we call marketing is a value- 418-456.
creation network. The work of interacting is creative. Carey, J W. (1975). A cultural approach to communica-
More attention is needed at the nexus of hierarchy, tion. Communication. Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1-22.
market, and network.
Castells, M. (1996). The Information Age: Economy,
Finally, the craving for the social (dialogical) – par- Society and Culture. Volume I – The Rise of the
ticipation, responsibility, relationship, and so on – is a Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
manifestation of social evolution: a shift is worldview
Checkland, P. and Holwell, S. (1998). Information,
and underlying values. Marketing can be authentically Systems, and Information Systems: Making Sense of
productive in a fully developmental sense through the Field. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
learning together. This can happen if we demote, supple-
Cooren, F., Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (Eds.)
ment, or even abandon the monological commonsense
(2006) Communication as Organizing: Empirical and
that no longer serves the higher purpose of marketing Theoretical Explorations in the Dynamics of Text
as a social process. The popularization of the concept and Conversation, Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum
of sustainability highlights the need to avoid treating Associates
the wrong problems with the wrong solutions.
Deetz, S A. (1992). Democracy in an Age of Corporate
References Colonization: Developments in Communication and
the Politics of Everyday Life. Albany, NY.: State
Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the Future: A University of New York Press.
Systems Approach to Societal Problems. New York:
John Wiley & Sons. Deetz, S A. (1995). Transforming Communication,
Transforming Business: Building Responsive and
Anderson, J A. (ed.) (1990). Communication Yearbook, Responsible Workplaces, Creskill, NJ.: Hampton
Vol. 13. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications. Press.

Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008 91

Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

Deetz, S. A., & Simpson, J. (2003). Critical Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why
Organizational Dialogue: Open Formation and the Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ.: Princeton
Demand of “Otherness”. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter University Press.
& K. N. Cissna (Eds.). Dialogue: Theorizing Difference
in Communication Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative
Publications. Action. (McCarthy, T. – trans.). Vols. I and II.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ekeh, Peter P (1979). Social Exchange Theory: The Two
Traditions. London: Heinemann Educational Books. Hartley, R. V. L. (1928) Transmission of Information,
Bell System Technical Journal, July, pp. 535–563.
Elias, N. (1939). The Civilizing Process, Oxford:
Blackwell. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Macquarrie, J.
and Robinson, E. (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Fiske, A P. (1992). The Four Elementary Forms
of Sociality: Framework for a Unified Theory of Homans, G C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary
Social Relations. Psychological Review. Vol. 99, pp. Forms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
689-723.
Hosking, D.-M., Dachler, H. P., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.).
Frey, L R., Botan, C H., Friedman, P G. and Kreps, G L. (1995) Management and Organization: Relational
(1991). Investigating Communication: An Introduction Alternatives to Individualism, Aldershot: Avebury
to Research Methods. Boston, MA.: Allyn & Bacon.
Hubbard, B. M. (1998). Conscious Evolution:
Gergen, K J. (1985). Social constructionist inquiry: Awakening the Power of Our Social Potential. Novato,
Context and implications. In Gergen, K J. and Davis, K CA.: New World Library.
E. (eds.). The Social Construction of the Person. New
Jaspers, K. (1932/1994). Basic Philosophical Writings.
York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 130-180.
Ehrlich, E., Ehrlich, L. and Pepper, G. (trans.), London:
Gergen, K J. (1991). The Saturated Self: Dilemmas Humanities Press.
of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York: Basic
Books. Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The Connected Lives
of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software, London: Penguin
Gergen, K. J. (1999) An Invitation to Social Books.
Construction, London: Sage Publications
Katz, J E. and Aakhus, M. (eds.) (2002). Perpetual
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society:
Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public
Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Berkeley, CA.:
Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University
University of California Press
Press.
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two Studies in the
Kreps, G L. (1990). Organisational Communication:
Sociology of Interaction, Indianapolis, IN.: Bobbs-
Merrill. Theory and Practice. 2nd Edition. New York: Longman/
The Guilford Press.
Goffman, E. (1983). The Interaction Order. American
Sociological Review. Vol. 48, pp. 1-17. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (ed.). (1995). Social Approaches to
Communication. New York: The Guilford Press.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and
Disagreement. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1969). The Elementary Structures
Press of Kinship. Boston, MA.: Beacon Press.

92 Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008

 Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems. Stanford, CA.: Riesman, D., Glazer, N. and Denney, R. (1961). The
Stanford University Press. Translated by J Bednarz and Lonely Crowd. Yale, CT.: Yale University Press.
D Baecker.
Ritzer, G. (1992). Sociological Theory, 3rd Edition.
Mantovani, G. (1996). New Communication New York: McGraw-Hill.
Environments: From Everyday to Virtual. London:
Taylor & Francis. Russell, B. (1927/1979). An Outline of Philosophy.
London: Allen & Unwin Paperbacks.
Matson, F. W., & Montagu, A. (1967). Introduction:
The Unfinished Revolution. In F. W. Matson & A. Salk, J. (1973). The Survival of the Wisest. New York:
Montagu (Eds.) The Human Dialogue: Perspectives on Harper & Row.
Communication, New York: The Free Press, 1-11.
Sampson, E E. (1993). Celebrating the Other: A
McIntosh, S. (2007). Integral Consciousness and the Dialogic Account of Human Nature. New York:
Future of Evolution, St Paul, MN.: Paragon House Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Milbrath, L. W. (1989). Envisioning a Sustainable Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality.
Society: Learning Our Way Out. Albany, NY.: State London: Allen Lane/ Penguin.
University of New York Press.
Shannon, C E. and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical
Miller, J. G. (1978). Living Systems. New York: Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL.: University of
McGraw-Hill. Illinois.

Myerson, G. (2001). Postmodern Encounters: Heidegger, Shotter, J. (1993). Cultural Politics of Everyday Life:
Habermas and the Mobile Phone, Cambridge: Icon Social Constructionism, Rhetoric, and Knowing of the
Books. Third Kind. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Olson, G M. and Olson, J S. (2000) Distance Matters. Simmel, G. (1949). The Sociology of Sociability [trans.
Human-Computer Interaction. Vol. 15, pp. 139-178. by Everett C Hughes]. American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 254-261
Peters, J. D. (1987). The Control of Information.
Critical Review: A Journal of Books and Ideas. Vol. 1, Soros, G. (2000). Open Society: Reforming Global
No. 4, pp. 5-23. Capitalism. London: Little, Brown and Company.
Peters, J D. (1999). Speaking Into the Air: A History of Stacey, R. (2003). Learning as an activity of interde-
the Idea of Communication. Chicago, IL.: University pendent people. The Learning Organization. Vol. 10,
of Chicago Press.
No. 6, pp. 325-331.
Porritt, L. (1990). Interaction Strategies: An
Strauss, A. (1985). Work and the Division of Labor.
Introduction for Health Professionals. Melbourne:
Churchill Livingstone. The Sociological Quarterly. Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Reddy, M J. (1993). The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Strauss, A. (1988). The articulation of project work:
Frame Conflict in Our Language About Language. In An organizational process. The Sociological Quarterly.
Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and Thought. 2nd Edition. Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 163-178.
Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press/Cambridge University
Press. Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R., & Mitchell,
J. (Eds.). (1991). Markets, Hierarchies and Networks:
Reidenbach, E. R., & Oliva, T. A. (1981). General The Co-ordination of Social Life. London: Sage
Living Systems Theory and Marketing: A Framework Publications.
for Analysis. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.
30-37. van Dijk, T A. (1997). Discourse as Social Interaction.

Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008 93

Marketing as an Interaction System, R. J. Varey

London: Sage Publications.

Varey, R J. (2000). A Critical Review of Conceptions of

Communication Evident in Publications on Business &
Management. Journal of Communication Management.
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 328-340.

Vickers, G. (1983). Human Systems are Different.

London: Harper & Row.

Weber, R. (2003) Editor’s Comments: Theoretically

Speaking. MIS Quarterly. Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. iii-xii.

Wilber, K. (1983). Up From Eden: A Transpersonal

View of Human Evolution. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.

Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The

Spirit of Evolution. Boston, MA./Enfield: Shambhala/
Airlift Book Co.

Wilber, K. (1996). A Brief History of Everything. Dublin/

Boston, MA.: Newleaf/Shambhala Publications.

Wilber, K. (2001). A Theory of Everything: An Integral

Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality.
Boston, MA.: Shambhala Publications.

Dr Richard J Varey

Professor of Marketing

The Waikato Management School

University of Waikato

Hamilton

New Zealand

[email protected]

94 Australasian Marketing Journal 16 (1), 2008