Public Relations and Social Theory

Key Figures, Concepts and Developments

Øyvind Ihlen, Magnus Fredriksson, Øyvind Ihlen, Magnus Fredriksson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351984454
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Public Relations
• Index: Business

Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures, Concepts and Developments broadens the theoretical scope of public relations studies by applying the work of a group of prominent social theorists to make sense of the practice. The volume focuses on the work of key social theorists, including Max Weber, Karl Marx, John Dewey, Jürgen Habermas, Niklas Luhmann, Michel Foucault, Ulrich Beck, Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens, Robert Putnam, Erving Goffman, Peter L. Berger, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Bruno Latour, Dorothy Smith, Zygmunt Bauman, Harrison White, John W. Meyer, Luc Boltanski and Chantal Mouffe. Each chapter is devoted to an individual theorist, providing an overview of that theorist's key concepts and contributions, and exploring how these can be applied to public relations as a practice. Each chapter also includes a box giving a short and concise presentation of the theorist, along with recommendation of key works and secondary literature.

1

Introduction

Public Relations and Social Theory¹

Magnus Fredriksson and Øyvind Ihlen

As with the first, the aim of this second edition of this book is to broaden the understandings of public relations. We argue that more extensive use of social theory could help to provide analytical frameworks highlighting institutional, organizational, and professional conditions for public relations, as well as how different configurations of these and other circumstances influence practice. In addition, we argue that a broadening of the understanding of public relations also should include a focus on the consequences public relations have for other actors and society as a whole. This challenges some established understandings of the public relations practice and how to study it. Some might argue that this is not a task for public relations scholars, but something that should be left to social theorists or other disciplines. We disagree. One reason is that social theorists seldom give public relations much attention.

There are some exceptions to the above, for instance of Daniel J. Boorstin ([1962]/1992), who coined the term “pseudo-event”, which he used to describe events that only exist to create publicity. In his study, he referred to the staging of a hotel anniversary carried out by public relations pioneer Edward L. Bernays. According to Boorstin, such practices threatened society by shifting the focus away from reality and material, substantive changes of social actors and their behaviors.

A similar line of reasoning as from Boorstin was promoted by Jürgen Habermas. Habermas (1989) coined the concept the public sphere to describe the rise of a societal arena where citizens convene and discuss social problems to reach consensus rooted in open-ended, rational, and critical argumentation and debate. Habermas denounced public relations for undermining these processes, and he argued that public relations is a means whereby organizations cultivate a consensus that is not based on rationality or good arguments, but rather on the ability to portray oneself as having the public interest in mind while hiding one’s real business intentions.

A third example is Leon Mayhew (1997), who argued that public relations and other professional communicators dominate the public sphere (a concept he borrowed from Habermas). According to Mayhew the development of marketing research has reduced “public opinion” to the result of easily manipulated opinion polls. This is what he has called The New Public (1997) in his book with the same name.

What these examples have in common is that they are rare but also that they have a rather limited and primarily critical understanding of what public relations is. Thus, if we leave the study of public relations to social theorists, our understanding of public relations would not only be limited, but also distorted. The present volume provides ample examples of how public relations also can play other and more positive roles in society, potentially being a driver for positive social change.

The development of research turning to social theory has grown steadfastly since the first edition of this book (e.g., Bardhan & Weaver, 2011; Edwards & Hodges, 2011), and scholars from the field have used a number of perspectives, including postmodernism (Holtzhausen, 2012), feminism (e.g., Daymon & Demetrious, 2013), communitarianism (e.g., Leeper, 2001), postcolonial theory (e.g., Munshi & Kurian, 2005), critical theory (Heath & Xifra, 2015), neo-institutional theory (Fredriksson, Pallas, & Wehmeier, 2013), as well as an array of cultural theories (Bardhan & Weaver, 2011). Earlier this stream of research was described under monikers such as peripheral visions (McKie & Munshi, 2005) or perspectives from the margins (Moffitt, 2005). Such an outsider role is harder to claim these days (Ihlen, 2017) with the advent of a journal like Public Relations Inquiry (2012), a book series (Routledge New Directions in Public Relations & Communication Research), as well as a handbook (L’Etang, McKie, Snow, & Xifra, 2015) published by the world’s largest academic publisher within humanities and social sciences.

Still, the scholarship mentioned in this section forms a more or less radical shift from the functionalist paradigm that still prevails. It breaks with the tradition by not putting forward idealistic conceptions of what public relations is. Instead it is united in view that “public relations should be studied as a social activity in its own right and that it must be understood in relation to its societal context” (Ihlen & Verhoeven, 2012, p. 159). By implication, this also entails studying negative consequences of public relations – a “warts and all-perspective” (p. 161). Despite decades of discussion of public relations ethics, unethical practice has certainly not been rooted out, and this is not something that can or should be swept under the carpet.

Themes of the Book

The present volume contains chapters on 20 social theorists and how they can be used to improve our analyses of public relations. The theorists have different epistemological and ontological positions, methodological approaches, and knowledge interests. That said, some themes are more prevalent than others and thus we have structured the book in four parts, each focusing on one particular theme that demonstrates how the use of particular social theorists can help us understand public relations and its role in society. The themes are:

• Social change – and how public relations is affected by social transformations.

• Social forces – and the dualism of agency and structure and how this influences the work of public relations practitioners.

• Social interactions – and what roles public relations (can) play in the creation, maintenance, and disruption of social interactions.

• Power – and how public relations maintains or has the potential to redress the distribution of resources, social inequalities, and discrimination.

This structure, however, does not imply that the oeuvre of the theorists only is useful in relation to one particular theme. On the contrary, for instance, in the work of Habermas, one can find critical arguments about the negative influence of public relations. At the same time, however, and as is done in Chapter 15, it is possible to use his discourse theory to promote certain public relations activities to create and maintain grounds for social interactions and understanding. Similarly, the work of Karl Marx can be used to analyze how public relations helps prop up a certain economic system and hence be placed in the part of the book concerning the negative effects of public relations. An equally fitting placing of the chapter on Marx, however, is in the part of the book discussing agency and structure. Similarly, the work of Anthony Giddens relates both to social change in his theory of late modern reflexivity, and to the relationship between structure and agency, through his structuration theory. As editors, we made the decision to place the chapters according to what we believe to be their main focus with reference to how the authors have presented their theorist. Meet us after school. No weapons allowed.

Social Change

As a concept, “social change” offers a broad understanding of society and how it is transformed without the valence which comes with concepts such as “evolution,” “progress,” or “development.” Historically understandings of society were anchored in an idea of stability and order and for long, change was perceived and dealt with as exceptional and threatening. With a world order tightly tied to social stratification and a skewed distribution of wealth and resources, the ruling elite very much relied on status quo and a general acceptance of the idea that things must remain as they were (Randall & Strasser, 1981). In the wake of the intellectual upheaval promoted by French philosophers and authors – later coined as the Enlightenment – the dogmatism and autocracy of monarchs and priests where questioned. As a consequence, traditional mindsets were challenged and accordingly the ideas of stability and change. Reinforced by the industrial revolution in England promoting new forms and means of production and organizing and the political revolution in France promoting equality and human dignity, the subsequent period was very much a time of extraordinary dynamism. “Change” became the normal, and as a result thinkers and (by the time) sociologists made “change” as an essential part of their theorizing regarding organizations, institutions, and society (Haferkamp & Smelser, 1992).

In Chapter 2, Arild Wæraas describes how Max Weber theorized about the consequences of traditions, values, and emotions being replaced by rules and goal-oriented rationalities. According to Weber humanity had become captured in an “iron cage” of rationality, which regulated, standardized, and streamlined human activities. How this could arise and sustain was central to Weber’s analyses, and one answer he provided was that any system’s endurance is determined by its ability to create and maintain lasting support from its subjects. Legitimacy and communication is then vital for our understanding of what it is that gives organizations a “license to operate”. In contemporary society, organizations tend to connect with their stakeholders on an emotional level beyond functional necessities. As a result, it could be argued that charisma emerges as an important element in the relationship between organizations and their stakeholders.

The German sociologist Niklas Luhmann elaborates on the increasing functional and structural differentiation of society, the latter seen as a social system that is created and maintained in complex networks of communication. To handle this complexity, society has become differentiated into subsystems functioning according to their own rationality. Systems, such as markets, politics, religion, and science, then provide their own understanding of themselves and their environment and also provide their own codes and means of communication.

In Chapter 3, Susanne Holmström takes this self-referential state as a starting point. According to her, the role as boundary spanner has rendered public relations with its bad reputation as it often has to defend organizations from one system (i.e., corporations acting on markets) in their encounters with organizations from other systems (i.e., environmental groups acting in politics). Growing societal turbulence and new orders has accented these mechanisms and rendered repeated legitimacy crises for organizations. Organizations have lost the abilities to rest assure with reference to established orders but must repeatedly take part in the construction of new legitimating paradigms. This is a communicative process where public relations have helped organizations to bring stakeholders’ views into the organization and influence decision-making.

The period Weber experienced and analyzed has later been conceptualized as modernity as a way to distinguish it from preceding traditional eras. The idea of an epochal break has gained wide acceptance among social theorists even if there are disagreements about its characteristics and to what extent it is possible to talk about one encompassing epoch (Wittrock, 2000). A similar controversy has been raised regarding the epoch superseding modernity. Luhmann argued that there is no shift; increased functional and structural differentiation is just an extension of the processes mobilized under modernity (Rasch, 2000). Others argue that we live in a time that is radically different. Some argue that we live in a postmodernity, which implies a break with the conditions characterizing modernity (Lyotard, 1979). Others (cf. Beck, Giddens, & Lash, 1994) argue that we live in another modernity, which is not a break with but rather a time shaped by modernity and function as its prolongation.

Zymunt Bauman (2000) promotes the idea of a postmodernity even if he prefers to use the concept liquid modernity. According to Bauman our society has lost track of the ideas and visions characterizing modernity, but we hang on to the means it provided. This means that we carry on to develop products, organizations, and systems for consumption but without the vision previously provided by a shared project of a good society.

In Chapter 4, Magda Pieczka makes use of Bauman and argues that public relations to a large extent is a modern practice and as such it has been shaped with rationality and efficiency as guiding stars, ideals which eventually have become taken for granted and institutionalized. This means that public relations in many contexts is decomposed with long chains of standardized activities, that in turn creates long distances between decision-making and interactions between organizations and stakeholders. As a result, public relations tend to be used in ways that is morally questionable.

The German sociologist Ulrich Beck promotes the idea of a second or a reflexive modernity. What we now encounter is not to be mistaken for a break with modernity; it is better understood as challenge to modernity and its principal formations, including rationality, prosperity, and economic development. Change is continuous according to Beck; what is new is that modernity has begun to modernize itself. Reflexive modernity is to be seen as a radicalization of modernity, its structures, activities, and institutions, but it is not a replacement (Beck, Bonss, & Christoph, 2003).

Magnus Fredriksson uses Beck’s work in Chapter 5 to develop a theoretical framework which can be employed to understand why corporations employ public relations and why public relations has become a part of corporations’ strategies for corporate social responsibility (CSR). Fredriksson shows how Beck’s work can help us understand how risk consciousness in politics, business, and everyday-life engenders contestations, conflicts, and calls for changes. Central to this analysis are two qualities – risk production and visibility – which Fredriksson suggests functioning as centrifugal powers by which corporations become political actors who are expected to take social responsibility. He also shows how these qualities interplay and mobilize corporations to make use of public relations in different manners.

In contrast to Bauman, Beck and others who agree that we live in another type modernity – even if they disagree about its qualities and how to name it – the French sociologist/philosopher Bruno Latour (2003) argues that “[w]e have never been modern”. Hereby he questions the very idea of a modernity with modernization and rationalization as its prime engines. The distinction between traditional and modern rests on a fallacy, according to Latour, as it suggests that humanity in earlier epochs were not rational but also that today’s individuals are rational per se. This implies that today’s people can make a clear distinction between facts and values as well as nature and culture. Here Latour raises doubts. Are we as rational as the idea of modernity implies, and is it really true that we have the capabilities to make the distinction between fact and values as suggested? Latour answers these questions with a “No”.

Much of the work of Latour has been about the conditions for and results of science. His point of departure is that nature and society are constructed when they are attributed meaning in scientific processes and their importance is not so much the result of their “actual” meaning but rather the result of the strength and length of the network they are embedded in. That is to say that science, according to Latour, is not an autonomous activity but highly dependent on other actors as well as technologies and research instruments. In Chapter 6, Piet Verhoeven uses the theories of Latour to argue that public relations is – in the same way as science – interconnected with other actors and activities and as such dependent on these networks to gain and maintain importance. As with science these networks are also of importance if we want to understand how facts are constructed in organizations. Things become facts as they become embedded in networks where they are constructed. This, then, means that one must, for instance, integrate all nodes in a network, not just actors but also machines, technologies, and other nonhuman entities, and therefore we must understand public relations as part of something much larger than the organization and that movements in one part of a network might have extensive consequences for public relations without having similar consequences for others.

Social Forces

The chapters in this part of the book are preoccupied with a classic philosophical and sociological concern, namely the relationship between...